Bush Dynasty: The Next Generation

With the challenges and obligations created by the Katrina disaster, some political commentators have declared that George W. Bush's presidency is done, suggesting his agenda has been washed aside. That may not be so. He and Karl Rove may yet figure out how to exploit the tragedy in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast to revive their Social Security plan, to sell more tax cuts for the well-to-do, and to justify their previously planned cuts in programs for low-income Americans. But if this is the end for a lame duck president, then perhaps it's time to look at Bush: The Next Generation. After all, we are already into the second generation of Bush presidencies, and bad news does come in threes.

I'm not going to bother with Jenna and Barbara Bush. They've received enough attention. (And who wants to revisit their icky "speech" at the GOP convention last year?) So let's turn the spotlight on the other Bush family in politics: the Jeb Bush clan--which just days ago had yet another brush with the law. Interestingly, every member of this family--with the exception of Jeb--has had legal trouble. In 1999, mother/wife Columba falsely stated on a Customs declaration form that she had bought only $500 in goods during a jaunt to Paris. Yet she had purchased $19,000 worth of merchandise while shopping in the City of Lights. Customs agents nabbed her, and she had to pay a $4100 fine (when the maximum penalty could have been a $19,000 fee). But we're looking at the younger Bushes.

* John Ellis Bush, aka Jebby, age 21. This past weekend, he was arrested by Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agents on Sixth Street in Austin, Texas. He was stopped when the agents suspected he was drunk. He then, it seems, did not cooperate with these public servants, for he was arrested on two charges: public intoxication and resisting arrest. In the scuffle, Jebby received a chin injury and was treated at a hospital. He was released on a $2,500 bond. (Question: given George W. Bush's DWI charge and Barbara's and Jenna's underage imbibing issues, is getting into legal trouble over alcohol considered a family rite of passage?)

This was not Jebby's first encounter with the police. Five years ago--a month before the 2000 election--he was caught by security guards while in the act with a 17-year-old female in a Jeep Cherokee parked in a Tallahassee mall. Both were naked from the waist down, except Jebby was wearing his socks. The security guards called in the cops. A police officer arrived on the scene and investigated a possible crime of "sexual misconduct." In the subsequent police report, the officer wrote, "I became aware of the political ties" of the suspect. He then "contacted the watch commander...to inform him of the incident." After one of the security guards talked to Jebby's father--who happened to be the governor of the state--this guard told the on-the-scene cop that he believed that his own supervisor would "pull" the preliminary report. The cop replied that he would still have to complete an incident report. And a report was written. Nothing happened after that. The incident did not become public until two days before the presidential election, when this police report was leaked to the local media and a London newspaper. (Only the London paper went with the story.) According to Artie Brown, one of the two security guards who nabbed Jebby that night, the young Bush spoke to his father after being caught and then remarked, "My dad will fix it."

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Hurricane Katrina, Marjorie Williams' honesty in death; new ammo for abortion foes, and other in-the-news matters.

*******

* Noelle, age 28. In January 2002, on the day when her uncle was to deliver his first State of the Union address, Noelle was arrested for allegedly trying to use a fraudulent prescription to obtain the anti-anxiety drug Xanax at a drug store. She was sent not to jail but to drug rehab. Did she receive any preferential treatment? Seven years earlier, a woman with the same name was busted for shoplifting at a mall in Arizona. If the governor's daughter did have a prior criminal record, she would have faced a stricter sentence than assignment to a drug rehabilitation facility. Then in September 2002, a fellow resident in Noelle's drug rehab center anonymously called the Orlando police and complained that the "governor's daughter" had been buying crack. Noelle received a ten-day jail sentence for crack possession. The following August, she was released from rehab and placed in the custody of her parents. Drug charges against her were dismissed.

* George P., 29. On December 31, 1994, George P. Bush, the much-hyped hunk of the Bush family and a fellow mentioned as a future prospect for politics, dropped by the Miami home of a former girlfriend. It was four in the morning and apparently he had not been invited. He broke into the house and began arguing with the woman's father. He then departed. But 15 to 20 minutes later, Bush, a Rice University student, was back. This time he drove his Ford Explorer over the front lawn, causing damage. The father contacted the police, and a Miami-Dade police officer called on George P. and his parents that night. But as the subsequent police report noted, George P. "was not arrested on the scene" because the woman's father did not want to press charges. The report also said that George P. and this woman broke up a year and a half earlier and that Bush "has been a problem ever since."

We all know that all families have their share of troubles. And, of course, it is always tough to grow up in a dynasty. (Al Gore's son was busted for speeding.) But what are the odds that in any family of prominence all three siblings will merit police reports? There is, however, good news for the children of Jeb and Columba Bush. Difficulty with the law was no career obstacle for their uncle, and it seems that with Bush family members there really is no such thing as a permanent record.

Research assistance was provided by Clarisse Profilet.

Comments (49)

1. I must say this is partisan hackery at it's best! Mr. Corn should be ashamed. Shall we go back and revue the shananigins of our first royal family - the Kennedy's? No one hates the Bush family more than me but this serves no purpose other than to show that Mr. Corn can stoop pretty low!

   Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/21/2005 @ 10:58am

2. Normally I like Mr. Corn's writings but this isn't all that thought-provoking, just bashing. Yawn. I'm more concerned about Dubya's (and Jeb's) policies and the impact they have than I am about their family members' brushes with the law. I'm also more concerned about the possible 2008 Republican presidential candidates than the next generation of Bushes...do we know if any of the younger Bushes are planning on pursuing a political career? If they're not, we've got bigger fish to fry.

   Posted by RG at 09/21/2005 @ 11:25am

3. David

   What is the purpose of this column? With the amount of news worthy material to cover, especially in this recent time span of the last few weeks, this is what you chose to comment on? Shameful, but I suspect you are immune to that comment.

   Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 11:26am

4. What's the point in this? Discussing whether or not Jeb Bush is going to be a viable candidate for President is something worthwhile. Talking about the problems that the Bush kids have is irrelevant sleaze. Is this The Nation or The National Enquirer? If The Nation wants to be taken seriously, this column should be pulled.

   Posted by lockerc18 at 09/21/2005 @ 11:29am

5. The Nation decides to discuss the misconduct of Jeb Bush's children, while only a little while ago put Ted Kennedy on the cover. This is partisan politics at its worst. The Nation loves to bring up the President's prior DUI offense, but never mentions that Kennedy killed a woman in a drunk-driving crash. Go ahead, keep patting yourself on the back Mr. Corn.

   Posted by Zeddmen at 09/21/2005 @ 11:51am

6. Wow!

   Four posts on this site (as of this moment), and I agree with every one of them.

   I'd better submit now before our favorite multiplepersonalitycapslockfreak posts. (Agreeing with that one might make my head explode.)

   Posted by drhammer at 09/21/2005 @ 11:54am

7. ...about the only thing I get from this is that "Jebby" really knows how to "rock the vote"...

   Posted by nathanhale at 09/21/2005 @ 12:01pm

8. Drhammer:

   Amen , that's why I got in there so quick! Although I will be interested to see how the old NACL responds to the evenhanded critique of liberals!

   Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/21/2005 @ 12:07pm

9. what corn points out, if one is able to read between the lines, is that for all the yammering about morals and acceptable behavior from the right, apparently growing up in a conservative family won't, necessarily turn out the cream of the behaviorally controlled crop.

   but of course, progressives like me have always known that conservative girls are the loosest, freakiest, and most dirty-minded of 'em all. not at all like their uptight leftist counterparts.. so this comes as no suprise...thank allah for the catholic church!!!

   Posted by dabar at 09/21/2005 @ 12:08pm

10. DABAR;

    Thanks for sharing! We're all glad to hear that you have done your part to insert some liberal yearnings at the Catholic base! Thanks for your sevice!.....

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/21/2005 @ 12:16pm

11. Well, aren't folks crabby today. Corn's a specialist on the Bush personal file, it's not so evil that he talks about his area of expertise. God knows there's plenty of material. The Bush family is supposed to represent the family-first, set-an-example crowd. If the proof is not in the pudding, somebody needs to say so. At any rate it keeps us in shape for the next round of Hillary-bashing.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 12:20pm

12. So let's see if I get this....if a President get a out-of-wedlock blowjob its considered an impeachable offense. However, it's okay to be a ex- drunkard and coke-tooter and be President? (Or to be Governor and get on camera flipping the 1-finger salute, or pissing off the mansion balcony, etc.) Or to have a family of alcohol troubled children, cousins and what-not and use your political clout to receive favorable treatment not available to the general public. All of that is acceptable...puh-lease. While not perhaps newsworthy, there is a point here. I'm just trying to decide whose head its on top of!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 12:22pm

13. Morals, morals, and morals.

    Morals for the Bush Administration and their ilk is a code word for greed and illiberalism.

    Just ask David A.Safavian, of the Bush Administration, who was recently arrested for lying and obstructing a criminal investigation. Standby for more to come.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 09/21/2005 @ 12:24pm

14. Agree with most here, this is trash. The thing that gets me about Corn is not so much what he writes about. There's no doubt where he stands politically. But, the seething with contempt, and snide way he puts things. He's clearly bothered. It's also amateurish the way he over uses parenthesis. Just say what you gotta say man. We get the emphasis.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 12:58pm

15. My, my, my. What comments. Did anyone notice that in some of these instances cited above there was an indication that the Bush in question received preferential treatment due to the position of his or her father? Anyone care to defend that? Or is using such a connection not a matter of public concern?

    Posted by David Corn at 09/21/2005 @ 1:02pm

16. Mr. Corn:

    That's the way the world works. Those with wealth and high positions get a pass. It will always be this way. It happens on all sides of the spectrum. We already know this, don't we?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 1:11pm

17. My, my, my. What comments. Did anyone notice that in some of these instances cited above there was an indication that the Bush in question received preferential treatment due to the position of his or her father? Anyone care to defend that? Or is using such a connection not a matter of public concern?

    Posted by DAVID CORN 09/21/2005 @ 1:02pm

    I know I am a conservative poster and some would say this is just kool-ade, but we are not talking about actual office holders or current candidates (apart from the accusations of preferential treatment, which is independent of party lines). Should we devote our time to constant examination of the imperfect lives of most political candidates and their families. We could devote a lifetime to the Kennedy's as some have done.

    What will this accomplish? Will it reduce the deficit? Bring the troops home from Iraq? Rebuild New Orleans?

    I think Mr. Corn, your loyal and opposition posters are simply asking for relevant topics to debate that deal with today's and future challenges.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:27pm

18. That would be fine, except there was a certain political persuasion that claimed "you can't be one kind of man and another kind of President." In this case, another kind of Governor. If you're presenting yourself as a principled Christian, and your children are getting arrested, it IS a problem in most people's minds. People need to know who they can trust, and how much. And the people's trust has everything to do with things like bringing troops from a war.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 1:43pm

19. "DABAR; Thanks for sharing! We're all glad to hear that you have done your part to insert some liberal yearnings at the Catholic base! Thanks for your sevice!..... "

    nn, it has been my distinct pleasure, believe me.

    but in addition to the lesser bushes' drunken, unprescribed benzodiazapine chompin' behavior, consider the likes of william bennet, rush limbaugh, etalia... just shows to go ya that the loudest gripers about other's amoral traits are usually the ones engaged in the most funnin'. this also applies to the likes of the rather gay senator from pennsyltucky...rick (lover-boy) santorum. what a cute-y!!

    Posted by dabar at 09/21/2005 @ 1:46pm

20. Love Liberty, O! thou self-proclaimed prophet, thou dost bullshit so!

    "...we are not talking about actual office holders or current candidates (apart from the accusations of preferential treatment, which is independent of party lines)."

    Why are you not talking about the accusations of preferential treatment? Where in your holy tome does it say Aristocrats should give preferential treatment to their children in their scrapes with the law?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/21/2005 @ 1:50pm

21. BTW, David Corn seems to have missed a little info from Al Gore III's rap sheet, like a DUI and a Pot bust. But WTF I dont really expect much from Dave.

    Posted by Mschlenker at 09/21/2005 @ 1:51pm

22. Kleine Kinder-kleine Sorgen, Grosse Kinder-grosse Sorgen.

    maybe Freiheit can translate it for you

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 1:56pm

23. That would be fine, except there was a certain political persuasion that claimed "you can't be one kind of man and another kind of President." In this case, another kind of Governor. If you're presenting yourself as a principled Christian, and your children are getting arrested, it IS a problem in most people's minds. People need to know who they can trust, and how much. And the people's trust has everything to do with things like bringing troops from a war.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 09/21/2005 @ 1:43pm

    Myparadigm,

    That argument really doesn't hold water. No one Christian or non, is responsible for the ultimate behavior of child or parent. Christian children still have free will and no Christian parent is guaranteed that their children will live out their lives from infancy to death as model citizens. Rebelliousness calls out strongly to all, but especially to youth. Some succumb, most do not. It is seldom a reflection on the parents (except I will agree where their lives are lived out hypocritically).

    Most people I know, liberal or conservative, are more mature than the suggestion you make about labeling parents because of childrens behavior (especially adult children). Billy Graham's son Franklin rebelled and ran off to swim in a world of sin, until he felt convicted about his life and returned to God where he has served faithfully now for many years. It did not reflect on Billy Graham for his son's momentary choices.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:56pm

24. It is not bashing. Nice try though.

    It is about hypocrisy and abuse of power.

    Those that cannot see it, will never see it.

    Since when is hypocrisy and abuse of power off the discussion table?

    Maybe a few like to do a bit of Corn bashing?

    "My daddy will fix it?" Just consider the possibilities. 43 being "fixed" by 41 and David speaks of future generations. Add a few facts and the Reich-wingnuts become as petty as they are two faced hypocrites.

    That, of course, assumes the meaning of fixed! HA!

    Posted by capt at 09/21/2005 @ 1:57pm

25. My, my, what dainty sensibilities we have. I don't remember anyone getting their panties in a bunch when people accused Clinton of murder or Hillary of homosexuality. We liberals continue to hold ourselves to higher standards than conservatives -- conservatives will obviously follow any slanderous moron who rushes to type any accusation. At least Corn is talking about facts here. And these facts support the argument that all this family values business republicans spew is just a crock of bull. If you know the Bush family, this isn't surprising, but few people seem to know the Bush family. Whether it's providing banking services for Nazis during WWII, setting up secret meetings with Iranian terrorists, looting taxpayer money in S&L scams, bilking investors with insider trading, engaging in war profiteering on an unprecidented scale or just lying us into a shooting war, they're always up to something. These family members are par for the course.

    Posted by BBatten at 09/21/2005 @ 2:01pm

26. Why are you not talking about the accusations of preferential treatment? Where in your holy tome does it say Aristocrats should give preferential treatment to their children in their scrapes with the law?

    Posted by NATHANHALE 09/21/2005 @ 1:50pm

    Because that issue is not relevant to solving America's challenges as I posited previously. Whether it be Al Gore's son, Bush's daughters, or whoever, that is a family matter. It doesn't involve me unless they came to me for counsel. It is only those who cannot focus on the issues that find these things germane.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 2:02pm

27. Just in fairness, Mr Corn.....

    Can you re-post your article talking about William Kennedy Smith and the rape trial ?

    or WAS there one?

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2005 @ 2:04pm

28. Love Liberty, that's a convenient little world view especially designed for parents who don't have a sufficient respect for their responsibility as parents. Your childrens' behavior is absolutely a reflection on your parenting. If you're not willing to accept responsibility for your childrens' actions before they come of age, you shouldn't even get into parenting. Contemporary conservatism seems to be about avioding responsibility and blaming anyone but yourself. Does this come down from the top?

    Posted by BBatten at 09/21/2005 @ 2:07pm

29. LL, your point is well taken. You're probably right about liberals and conservatives, I guess I'm worried about those who haven't thought about it yet. (BTW I've been stuck in the middle of letter to a friend who works for said Franklin, maybe now I'll be inspired to finish it.)

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 2:12pm

30. CAPT./Mr. Corn

    What father would refuse to help his child? Yeah, because they are rich and powerful they should resist this urge? Have they obstructed justice in relation to a FELONY investigation, now that is relavent, alcohol-related incidents that result in no physical injury due to youthful exhuberence is NOT newsworthy.

    Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 2:15pm

31. David Corn points out the obvious message of preferential treatment here. Conservatives answer, "that's the way the world works." No, conservatives. That may be the way you want the world to work, or it may be that you are laying down like dogs unable to change the way the world works, but please remember that we have a government by, for and of the people. That's not the way our system is supposed to work so stop acting like losers and agree that it's not compatible with our republic.

    Posted by BBatten at 09/21/2005 @ 2:16pm

32. BBATTEN

    Careful, thats a slippery slope proposition you propose, in terms of parental responsibilty, most liberals dont like to go down that rode. Not being sarcastic here.

    Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 2:20pm

33. "David Corn points out the obvious message of preferential treatment here. Conservatives answer, "that's the way the world works." No, conservatives. That may be the way you want the world to work, or it may be that you are laying down like dogs unable to change the way the world works, but please remember that we have a government by, for and of the people. That's not the way our system is supposed to work so stop acting like losers and agree that it's not compatible with our republic."

    indeed. and just look what happens when the prez defers to the way *his world works* and appoints utter incompetents to head fema and homeland security....oh right, and don't forget about the chief bonehead @ the defense deptartment: donald rumsfeld.

    that's some record!

    Posted by dabar at 09/21/2005 @ 2:22pm

34. So, according to Love Liberty, fairness and equality under the law are not relevant to solving America's challenges. I'm sure he speaks for many Bush voters.

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/21/2005 @ 2:23pm

35. Mr. Corn----This piece is small minded and beneath you. What little respect I had for you is gone.---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/21/2005 @ 2:25pm

36. Did anyone notice that in some of these instances cited above there was an indication that the Bush in question received preferential treatment due to the position of his or her father?

    But, that wasn't what you wrote, is it? Your whole intent in this article was to jab at the Bush family, not to note the inequity of the ostensible American Aristocracy. Why not point out that Bush got into Yale with substandard academic qualifications, and then as a C student, got into Hardvard B-school? These were both because of family pull. Oh, by the way, how did John Kerry get into Yale? Same kind of "legacy" qualifications? He sure didn't do any better there than Bush did.

    The super wealthy are different than we mere mortals, and they live by different rules. Deal with it.

    Posted by lockerc18 at 09/21/2005 @ 2:28pm

37. CPT, my experience just doesn't lead me where your opinion lies. In my life, I have noticed more parental responsibility among liberals than among people who were either apathetic or conservative. That's painting with a broad brush, but I don't see any of this as a slippery slope. That implies that you don't think parental responsibility is something for which to strive, that it's something you inadvertantly slide into if you're not careful. That's not the way I see it.

    Posted by BBatten at 09/21/2005 @ 2:33pm

38. BBATTEN, re the Bush family "banking services for Nazis during WWII" ... Kevin Philips covered that in his very anti-Bush (and very good) book, and it's an interesting but bogus accusation. They were in banking, they were in Germany, but they had basically nothing to do with the Nazis. Not that they didn't pick up a few public relations techniques before they got out.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 2:37pm

39. This is just an illustration of how the wealthiest jet set live in our country, and it definately takes place on both sides of the isle. The rich know they can abuse drugs because they can afford the best treatment centers........and maybe even be POTUS someday! However, although I believe that there are far greater issues in our country today, I do believe this deserves attention, and so did the mainstream media for a change.........not just Mr. Corn. Folks, this is the same family that supposedly was all about morality and values.......or do you not remember those bullshit speeches about two and a half years ago. They preach about the lord and living within the ten commandments, but don't even begin to hold themselves to the standards of which they speak. It is somewhat ridiculous that EVERY one of Jeb's children has been arrested....as a father if my three children had all been in jail I would consider myself a failure as a father, and would question whether or not I had done a good job parenting. The Bush's play a lot of lip service when it comes to morals, and Dubya's daughters and Jeb's threesome show that is is all hypocratic hogwash.

    Posted by jpolston at 09/21/2005 @ 2:39pm

40. "NOT newsworthy"

    To you, others have a different opinion.

    Posted by capt at 09/21/2005 @ 2:42pm

41. Myparadigm, why then did the federal government seize the assets of the bank owned by Prescot Bush and why were they indicted under the Trading with the Enemies Act. Was this a mistake by the government. And, if you're providing banking services to Germans during WWII, how are you not trading with the enemy? I agree that Prescott Bush was not a Nazi, but like many other members of the Bush and Walker families, he was an amoral crook.

    Posted by BBatten at 09/21/2005 @ 2:46pm

42. You people are missing the point. The reason the Bush-kids raise hell like this is because they know they can get away with it. And all the Bush-family's jibber-jabber about family values rings pretty hollow in light of these facts. The Kennedy's were around decades go and their indiscretions are hardly news these days. And by the way, Corn has never to my knowledge spared democrats in a smilar situation. Maybe you should look up the word "partisan" in a dictionary.

    Posted by Simon Sez at 09/21/2005 @ 3:47pm

43. Prescott Bush's Nazi ties from Wikipedia, shows its more BS and not much actual proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Nazi_ties

    Posted by Mschlenker at 09/21/2005 @ 3:53pm

44. In general, I appreciate that this is a rather tawdry topic, and maybe we should take the high road. But a lot of the commentary ignores the fact, and I do mean fact, that there is a highly efficient right-wing smear machine at work that floods the media with a constant stream of this kind of dirt, most of it much less well researched than what Corn presents above. That's the elephant in the room. And I say, bring it on Dave, all you got.

    BBATTEN/MSCHLENKER, I'll check that out. Love a good WWII story.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 4:05pm

45. I find it interesting to wander through the posts to this "story" of children and their poor choices. First, the evidence of the sexual misconduct, the report, does not mention the name of Jebby but we somehow know it is him. Also, there is reference to the girls age of 17 but no mention of his age, 16. The Artie Brown comment is a guess of what was said. Assuming all else reported is accurate it seems several of the Bush clan is capable of misconduct.

    No matter, these kids are not perfect and their parents are not perfect either. Seems the Dems and Republicans have both fostered leaders who are less than perfect. What would the founders of this nation think, what would some of the "great" leaders of the past think if they knew that today we had leaders and their children who have clashed over alcohol, drugs and sex.

    While we focus on these transgressions we can forget about the taxing situation we deal with each day or the manner in which our current government throws away the dollars they take. Thanks for the entertaining distraction...

    Posted by FreeWill at 09/21/2005 @ 4:28pm

46. I think it's a good piece on pointing out the shamble of a family the Bushes are. Just read Kitty Kelly's book The Family.

    Jason Gooljar The Working Families Party Man [workingfamiliespartyman.blogspot.com]

    Posted by jasongooljar at 09/21/2005 @ 7:27pm

47. Conservatives like to say; if "immoral" Clinton would use his position to get some tail in the oval office, how can we trust him with our country? (I've personaly heard this many times.) What about these examples of abuse of office? Sure the Bush kids get it trouble, it happens. But what is the lesson they get from their parents? "Don't worry I'll fix it" What happened to the proverbial higher standard. And what kind of parenting is that.

    Posted by zhong at 09/22/2005 @ 01:35am

48. Mr. Corn's piece points out, in stark relief, the endemic nature of Republican hypocrisy, while the comments in response highlight the reasons why the Democrats have lost control of all three branches of the government.

    Hypocrisy examples that flow from the Corn article:

    (1) Criminals are evil (unless they are Republican criminals) - Recall that Jebb Bush presided as governor over the creation of a "felon's list" that purged voters (over 50% who were black and over 80% who weren't felons), allegedly because he believes that criminals are bad and should not vote. His use of power to exempt his own children from the same criminal statutes that he imposes on poor black Democrats to make sure they can't vote makes this issue not only relevant, but also fair political game. Why is it important that some folks have committed criminal acts, but not others? Why isn't his hypocrisy in this issue fair game? (2) Criminals don't deserve government assistance and are second-class citizens (unless they are Republican) - I heard on Fox News that over 50% of the folks stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina "had a criminal record." The implication here, of course, is that their criminal records made those stranded not only less worthy of assistance, but also minimizes the tragedy of their deaths. Any way you look at it, however, one must recognize that the percentage of stranded citizens of New Orleans with criminal records is smaller than the percentage of criminals present at gatherings of Jeb Bush's immediate family. Why isn't Fox pointing this out? (3) Criminals deserve to have the book thrown at them and have the worst punishment meted out to them (unless they are Republican criminals) - How many examples do I need here? The GOP advocates much stiffer sentences for those who buy crack than those who buy cocaine; they advocate (secretly) letting off the rich for the same crimes that the poor would serve time for; they are comfortable with poor mothers serving 50 years for first time possession of drugs, while leaving Nicole Bush and Rush Limbaugh untouched; George W. Bush had no problem signing drug laws while Texas governor that if in place at the time he was younger would have likely imprisoned him for life (that is why his drug use in the past was relevant in the political discussions, and not a private matter). And so on, ad nauseum. (4) Criminal records, drinking, drug use, abortion, gambling, promiscuous sex all result from failure to follow the values of Christianity, and are the result of the secular humanistic (i.e., liberal) destruction of the values that make this country great (unless Republicans do it) - In fact, Republicans contend that 911 and the hurricanes are proof that God is angry with the United States due to its lack of values. How many times have we heard that "Hollywood elite liberals and their immoral values are destroying the moral fabric of this country?" Yet when Republicans commit crimes, it suddenly becomes a family matter, or the "politics of personal destruction," or politics as usual, or a private matter.

    Why we are losing the public debates on values:

    While the GOP is forever blaming "liberals" for the decadent morals that are allegedly destroying the very foundation of our society, if and when those same standards are applied to them and theirs, it somehow becomes wrong. In a world where Republicans can hold forth sanctimoniously about the sins of others while keeping their own conduct (and the conduct of their families) off limits, it's no surprise they control all three branches of government. And if you don't see the genius in a strategy that shuts down any discussion of what values really are, and who really practices the values that they preach, Mr. Corn's work is clearly not for you.

    Please, let's stop falling for this stuff. Mr. Corn merely used Republican-defined standards in a fair fight only after Republicans decided what were the rules, what were "family values," and what crimes to punish others for. If liberals are ever to dispel the notion that we are "immoral and Godless," as well as gutless, then we must point out the immorality of our opponents in the very terms in which they have defined them. Allowing Republicans to shut down the debate on moral issues only when the guns are turned in their direction leaves them in the driver's seat every time and proves we are gutless, perhaps too to protect this country from terrorists.

    Posted by lucyhensleigh at 09/23/2005 @ 7:41pm

49. And, P.S., what the heck ever happened to that much touted "Rule of Law"?

    Posted by lucyhensleigh at 09/23/2005 @ 7:50pm