Silly Things Said by Republicans

By way of David Corn

Stupid things said by GOP politicians in recent days.

1. Last Thursday, after the latest Osama bin Laden tape surfaced, White House spinner Scott McClellan said:

As I indicated, clearly, the al Qaeda leaders and the terrorists are on the run. They're under a lot of pressure. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business. The terrorists started this war, and the President made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing.

Excuse me, but if Bush could put al Qaeda "out of business" at a "time and place" of his "choosing," then why has he not done so already? It seems El Presidente is not as omnipotent as McClellan suggested. Does McClellan think about the true meaning of the words he utters? That's a rhetorical question.

2. A few days earlier, House GOPers held a press conference to release their so-called lobbying reform proposals. Representative David Dreier, the always-smiling, smooth-as-silk chairman of the House rules committee, stood by House Speaker Denny Hastert for the event. When it was his turn to speak, he said:

The Republican Party has been and continues to be the party of reform. Reform is a continuing process which is going on....We have continued down the road toward major reform for a long period of time. And I see this as a wonderful new opportunity for us....Yesterday we marked the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King. I thought about one of his letters from a Birmingham jail, in which he wrote that, "We should always be careful about the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." And that's why I believe we're in a position today where we have an opportunity to be bold and strong, and that's' why this is a terrific opportunity for us.

Yes, the party of Jack Abramoff has been on the road to reform for a long time. That's why its number-two leader had to resign his leadership position, why one of its committee chairman had to give up his committee chairmanship, why one of its members resigned after pleading guilty to bribery charges, and why federal prosecutors are investigating other lawmakers and staffers in its ranks. And I am sure that if MLK Jr. were alive today, he would say that what Congress needs to do most to become an effective champion of the people's interests is to cut back gifts that lawmakers can take from lobbyists from $50 in value to $20 in value (or whatever the numbers are), ban privately funded travel for House members (but not when they are flying on campaign business), prohibit former House members who become lobbyists from using the House gym (that will teach them!), and make ex-lawmakers wait two years (instead of one) before they can sell out and become lobbyists for special interests. (You think they'll work for low-income legal clinics during that extra year?)

Dreier had chutzpah to compare these piddling reforms he was offering with King's call for systemic change. Too bad dead people can't sue for rhetorical misappropriation. None of the lobbying reforms proposed by the Repubs--or the Dems, who offered a package of measures that went a bit further--address the heart of the matter: campaign money. Big deal if a lobbyist can no longer treat a legislator to lunch; he or she still can raise $100,000 for the campaign of that politician. So lawmakers will still have plenty of reason to be rather responsive to the needs and desires of lobbyists. I've heard more than once--and recently, too--of lobbyists who have met lawmakers to discuss an issue and literally within minutes the legislator has asked how much money the lobbyist can raise for the lawmaker. Banning ex-members-turned-lobbyists from the House gym won't alter that fundamental dynamic. Dreier's comparison of the House reform package to anything related to Martin Luther King Jr. was nutty and--to be self-righteous about it--obscene.
*****
JACKGATE: THE PHOTOS. Time magazine is reporting:

TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s.

Time says the person who showed its reporter(s) the photos would not permit the magazine to publish them. But it sounds as if that source was trying to sell them for a pretty penny. (My advice to the source: just ask how much Abramoff would charge his clients.) How long do you think it will be before the source of the photo finds a buyer?