Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Entering the primary campaign, Bush was looking forward towards what he thought would be a coronation more than a nomination. The Republican nomination, and even the presidency, seemed his for the taking. But Bush was in for a tougher fight than he thought. Despite squandering $70 million in the primaries, Bush was forced to use not only questionable but, as his primary opponent John McCain says, shameful tactics to win the nomination. He is already up to his old tricks in the general election.

Zack Exely is not the kind of guy you would think could raise the ire of a $70 million GOP juggernaut. But Exely, a 29 year-old computer programmer from Boston, did just that with a web site he created to poke fun at some of Bush?s larger hypocrisies. GWBush.com is like a lot of other websites out there poking fun at a variety of candidates (there?s hillaryno.com which needles Hillary Clinton, algore-2000.org which teases Bush?s rival and buchanan2000.com which takes on the Reform party candidate, among others). Exley?s site was aimed principally at exposing the hypocrisy of Bush?s refusal to discuss his own possible drug use while he was young in relation to his fight to impose stricter penalties for drug offenses by juveniles. Exely isn?t a Democrat or some secret Gore operative in disguise. "I'm playing the same role as any other publication," Exely says. "I'm satirizing Bush. I'm providing political commentary."

Bush, however, doesn?t feel that he should have to put up with such political satire, the First Amendment be damned! Asked in May of 1999 about the site, he called Exely a "garbage man" and claimed that "there ought to be limits to freedom." Such an outburst, while certainly off-the-cuff, is more than a little scary. What does it say about the man that he wants to fight to protect the rights of Texans to bring an Uzi to church but when it comes to this country?s most sacred right, free speech, he thinks there should be limits?

Bush would probably not resort to across the board censorship should he be elected, but he did do his damnedest to back up his words on Exely and take his website down. First, the Bush campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming that the site should be regulated like a political action committee because, they said, it advocated the defeat of a specific candidate. When this rather weak line of attack faltered, the Bush camp resorted to smear tactics - it claimed the site had links to pornographic sites and that it improperly associated Bush?s name with pornography. That claim was, however, completely false (there were links to other parody sites that refer to sex but have no graphic images). If Bush?s request had gone through, it would have crushed Exely?s site. Jack Dempsey, a senior staff counsel for the internet civil liberties group Center for Democracy and Technology, notes that such an occurrence would be devastating for any kind of political satire on the Web. "The Bush campaign is not in this for good government reasons," he said. "They're in it because they felt they could burden Exley with all these disclosure requirements."

Bush?s attempt to squash the First Amendment rights of a private citizen like Exely was so repugnant that it created outrage even in some of the most conservative quarters. The Rutherford Institute, a conservative think-tank that helped fund Paula Jones? lawsuit of President Clinton, rallied to Exely?s defense. It pledged to assist Exely if Bush followed through on his threats. Steve Arden, the Institute?s chief litigation counsel, thought Bush?s attempt to tie Exely to pornography was abhorrent. "They knew" the truth, he said. "They either were disregarding the truth or recklessly disregarding the truth." John Whitehead, who heads the institute, thought the whole incident was low, even for Bush. "To me, it?s kind of repugnant, to be honest with you, that Bush would try to step on this guy."

It is most ironic that Bush would have such a strong reaction about such a small matter. In truth, no one would have ever heard of Zack Exely or his website had Bush not given him legitimacy with his outburst. Why Bush was so offended by such a non-entity is a mystery. It?s not as if Exely was distorting Bush?s record. His site was simple satire, certainly not worthy of an all out assault on the first amendment. When it comes to Bush, though, criticism is simply off limits. This is, after all, the same man who begins most of his speeches by asking us to allow him to share what is "in his heart." When questions are raised about many of the same issues he speaks on, however, Bush can only offer indignance. "Don?t question my heart" he tells us. What then, are we allowed to question?

Bush, as is his custom, seems to want us to do as he says and not as he does. Whereas simple satire of the candidate himself triggers outrage, Bush has been more than willing to order his own surrogates to launch attacks on his opponents with far more venom than anything Zack Exely could muster. Some of these attacks have bordered on tasteless, some have been outright lies. Many have come from secretive groups who have tried to hide their true identity and purpose. All can be tied directly to Bush and all are much more offensive to the American political process than a private citizen who wanted only to have his voice heard.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is the country?s biggest anti-abortion lobby. That it will support Bush against Al Gore in the general election is neither surprising nor questionable in the least. They want to end abortion and they will support the candidate who will push to do just that. What is both surprising and questionable is the position that the organization took during the Republican primaries. All of the major Republican candidates were strongly pro-life, including Bush? chief rival John McCain. Since 1982, McCain has consistently supported or introduced a variety of pro-life legislation. His staunch opposition to abortion can be seen in the opposition he has drawn from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League (the country?s biggest abortion backer). Kate Michelman of the NARL made it clear that the NARL viewed McCain as an enemy, "John McCain is anti-choice. He has a strongly anti-choice voting record. He has made it clear that he would end legal abortion." Despite this, the NRLC worked very hard to defeat McCain and elect Bush and, in doing so, managed to complete distort the record of the Senator for Arizona. The group made $200,000 worth of get-out-the-vote phone calls across the country claiming that McCain had made "conflicting" statements about abortions and would not reverse Roe vs. Wade while maintaining that Bush had compiled a consistent record of opposition to abortion. The calls urged voters to vote for Bush "for the sake of the children." Meanwhile, the NRLC launched campaign ads in New Hampshire that slammed McCain for an off-color joke he told about Alzheimer?s patients but failed to mention abortion at all. In South Carolina, NRLC?s adds bashed McCain for backing fetal stem cell research despite the fact that many other pro-life Republicans (like Bob Dole and Strom Thurmond) agreed with McCain when he said "my abhorrence for the practice of abortion is unquestionable. Yet my abhorrence for these diseases and the suffering they cause is just as strong" (McCain had switched positions on stem cell research after the family of former Arizona Senator Mo Udall, who died of Parkinson?s disease, convinced him that prospects for a cure depended on such research). The ads also condemned McCain for suggesting that he would push for a gradual phase out of abortion instead of outlawing it in one fell swoop. Bush?s stated position is, however, exactly the same.

Why would the NRLC go to such lengths to attack someone who had fought on its side for so many years? One of the reasons was surely McCain?s staunch support for meaningful campaign finance reform. Such reform would greatly inhibit the ability of groups like the NRLC to spend unlimited amount of soft money collected from secret donors on races from the presidential to congressional level. The NRLC knew that Bush would fight to keep such secret big money flowing to them and other similar groups. There was more to it than that though, the NRLC was part of a larger, loose cabal that the Bush team was counting on to go to bat for him throughout the primary campaign.

Another part of the cabal was the previously mentioned religious right leader Pat Robertson. Robertson was a key part of Bush?s big wins in South Carolina and Virginia but his actions on Bush?s behalf were most evident in Michigan, a state Bush still managed to lose in the end. Again, in Michigan, Robertson had his powerful network of evangelical supporters call thousands of Republican primary voters to attack Warren Rudman, a McCain supporter who would have likely been McCain?s appointee as Attorney General. Rudman had had the guts to say what is patently obvious, that some of the most right-wing of the religious right are dangerous extremists. Robertson portrayed Rudman, and by association McCain, as a "vicious bigot" who held deep-seated anti-Christian beliefs. Such an accusation is, of course, patently absurd. That didn?t stop Robertson from using it to help boost Bush.

While Robertson?s actions in Michigan were revolting, it was in South Carolina where Bush himself, along with a bevy of surrogates, sunk to their all-time lows. One of the more noxious political inventions of the last decade or so is the practice of push-polling which has been used to great effect by members of both parties. Unlike normal polling, which seeks to simply gauge the reaction of potential voters to a set of questions, push-polling involves a deliberate attempt to sway voters? opinions. For instance, instead of asking a respondent?s opinion of a candidate, a push-pollster might ask "what would your opinion of candidate so-and-so be if you knew that he were an adulterer." By couching these slanders in the hypothetical, the pollsters are never directly stating that candidate so-and-so is actually and adulterer (or whatever unsavory accusation they wish to make) but the effect is the same. This was the practice that one pro-Bush group used in South Carolina. Dana Duren broke down into tears at one town-hall meeting with McCain when she described the tactics a push-pollster had used on the phone with her son Chris. The pollster had called McCain and liar and a hypocrite. This was, no doubt, repeated across the state.

Another group that called itself "South Carolina Families for Bush" was involved in similar push-polling with a different punch line. According to 66 year-old Carolyn Whitney of Summervile, South Carolina, a life-long Republican and a former campaign worker for Bush?s father, this group called voters saying that "John McCain is a killer of babies?. They said he votes for abortion on demand." As I have already noted, McCain?s record is strongly pro-life. In fact, his voting record was never rated below 80% by the same NRLC that attacked him during the primaries.

McCain had to deal with some even more personal attacks at the hands of some of Bush?s closest allies. World Magazine, an evangelical news weekly that likes to consider itself an alternative to magazines like Time and Newsweek ran an article branding McCain a carpetbagger, adulterer and gold-digger. Speaking of McCain?s second marriage, the World article said, "the 43 year-old former POW quickly fell in love with the 25 year-old cheerleader. She was rich, attractive and well connected." On his election to Congress, World said that McCain won election "despite charges of carpetbagging and buying the election." Perhaps most damning were the subtle accusations of infidelity: "yet for all his dependence on his wife?s money, John McCain doesn?t appear to be a particularly attentive husband." These attacks were nothing more than unsupportable slander. The writer of the story in question was Bob Jones IV and the editor of World is Marvin Olasky, Bush?s closest adviser on religious and spiritual matters and the architect of "compassionate conservatism" (which, apparently, includes that compassionate tactic of slandering your opponent).

Bush got more help than this from his Bob Jones University pals. Richard Hand, a professor at BJU sent emails out to GOP voters claiming that McCain "chose to focus his life on partying, playing, drinking and womanizing" and that he "chose to sire children without marriage." Disregarding the fact that Hand?s first claim sounds a lot more like Bush?s formative years than McCain?s, these accusations are nothing but more slander for which Hand had absolutely zero evidence. McCain simply deserved better than this.

Bush also got support from the mysterious political action committee (PAC) "Keep it Flying" which sprung up seemingly out of nowhere to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking McCain as an opponent of the Confederate flag even though he had taken the same reprehensible and wishy-washy non-position that Bush had. Truthfully, McCain would deserve more respect had he taken the position "Keep it Flying" claimed he did, but the fact is he did not. There was no difference between his position and Bush?s, yet this mysterious PAC suddenly came out in support of Bush and against McCain, an action eerily similar to those of the NRLC.

Bush himself joined in on the slanderous assaults on McCain in South Carolina. At a veterans rally in Sumter, South Carolina, Bush had Thomas Burch introduce him to the crowd. Burch is the head of a shady veterans group that has dogged McCain for years and had previously criticized Bush?s father for selecting a running mate who had avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard (why he would then support Bush who did the exact same thing is a good question). While standing on the same dais as Bush, Burch told the gathered veterans that McCain "had the power to help veterans" but that he "came home and forgot about us." Burch was basically calling McCain a traitor to veterans? causes. This is nothing but more slander. McCain, whose spent five and a half years in a Hanoi prison, has been a consistent supporter of veterans and has introduced dozens of efforts while in the Senate on behalf of Vietnam veterans.

Bush?s use of Burch to defame McCain was met with outrage. Five senators who served in Vietnam, Democrats Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry and Chuck Robb along with Republican Chuck Hagel, sent a letter to Bush calling on him to immediately repudiate Burch?s statement. "We believe it is inappropriate," the letter said, "to associate yourself with those who would impugn John McCain's character and so maliciously distort his record on these critical issues." Texan Michael Thorton, a former Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient flew to South Carolina to confront Bush. When he demanded that Bush apologize, Bush refused. "I said, 'Yessir, but you should be responsible. You should say, "This is not true," or apologize,?" Thorton said. "He said, 'Well, I have no control over what people say.' And I said, 'Sir, your father wouldn't have stood for that and you shouldn't either.' And after that, he just didn't say nothing."

McCain himself was outraged by Bush?s actions, and rightly so. "One of the most disgraceful chapters in this campaign in South Carolina is when Governor Bush had a bogus veterans organization guy stand next to him at a campaign event that he paid for. And this bogus individual said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans, and Governor Bush did not repudiate that. That?s shameful. That?s shameful." Bush has still never apologized for his actions and he never did repudiate Burch.

One of the more mysterious groups to bring Bush?s attack to McCain was "Republicans for Clean Air." This PAC, like "Keep it Flying" came out of thin air to deliver ads attacking McCain?s environmental records. At first, the identity of the group behind the ads was a mystery. This was, however, revealed a few days after the ads first aired.

"Republicans for Clean Air" turned out to be a pair of multi-millionaire brothers from Texas with connections to Bush galore, Charles and Sam Wyly. Charles is a Bush "pioneer" who has raised over $100,000 for Bush?s presidential bid. Together, the two have given more than $200,000 to Bush?s gubernatorial campaigns. The men the Wyly?s brought in to air the ads also had significant ties to Bush. Jeb Hensarling was the Texas GOP consultant who worked on the ads. He was a business colleague of James Francis, one of Bush?s closest friends. The advertising firm that bought the air time was very closely allied to Bush backer, New York Governor George Pataki.

The Wylys spent $2.5 million to bolster Bush. They claimed that their interest was only to increase environmental awareness in their party and to back the candidate they though would do better to achieve cleaner air. This claim is quite a stretch. Bush, as discussed in Chapter 1, has one of the worst environmental records ever. It?s hard to believe that any true environmentalists would push him as a champion of clean air. That?s exactly what the Wylys tried to do however, in addition to attacking McCain. Not surprisingly, they had to resort to distortions to do so. The ad praised Bush for clamping down on coal-burning power plants and claimed that Bush reduced air pollution emissions by ¼ of a ton per year. It also accused McCain of voting against solar and renewable energy. All of these claims were misleading at best, completely false at worst. Bush?s big effort to "clamp down" on coal burning plants was his voluntary plan which exempted the worst polluters in Texas and had an almost zero compliance rate. The reduction in emissions, according to several environmental groups, was clearly overstated. Meanwhile, McCain did vote against solar and renewable energy, but only as part of a larger, pork-laden package. He actually has also voted for solar and renewable energgy when they were not included with other pork projects.

Why would the Wylys chose to spend $2.5 million to distort the record like this? They obviously weren?t doing it for cleaner air. It turns out that the Wylys are two of Bush?s benfeciaries. In 1998, the University of Texas financial managers (who were appointed by Bush) invested $90 million of the school?s endowment with Maverick Capital Fund - a fund that was founded and controlled by the Wylys. The Wylys make out pretty well in the deal; they receive $1 million annually in fees along with a substantial percentage of any profits.

This is a pretty common practice for Bush and the Texas GOP. The UT investment system was privatized by Bush at the behest of Thomas Hicks (who would later buy the Rangers from Bush and, in the process, create almost all of Bush?s personal fortune). Since then, the UT Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) has come under heavy fire for displaying favoritism towards Bush and GOP contributors. The Wylys and other Bush backers control over $12 billion of the Texas university system?s assets. What does Bush get in return? Aside from more big checks, he apparently gets "Republicans for Clean Air" to do his dirty work for him.

Bush spent almost $70 million of his own funds to help destroy McCain in the primaries. But he was counting on groups like the NRLC and the Wylys all along. Coordination between a campaign and such outside groups is illegal. McCain?s campaign asserted that the Bush camp had crossed that line in South Carolina but could not provide any evidence. Even if they didn?t cross the line of illegality, Bush and his honchos certainly came close. Time reporter Jay Carney explored the issue of Bush?s relationship with these "independent" groups after the New Hamshire primary. "At some point the discussion turned to who could be counted on to fire which volleys," Carney wrote about a post-New Hampshire Bush campaign meeting. "Several outside groups, including the National Right to Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform and the tobacco lobby were mentioned. 'Right to Life will do radio, ATR will do TV ads,' one of Bush's South Carolina advisers said in the meeting. 'ATR will come down with whatever we need.?" The Bush camp may not have explicitly directed NRLC, ATR, the Wylys, Big Tobacco, "Keep it Flying" or Bob Jones and his cronies to take the attack to McCain, but the assumption that these groups would do just that was always an integral part of Bush?s strategy. When it comes to having his cronies distort the record of his opposition, Bush was more than willing to accept their help. But faced with innocuous political satire, Bush wanted to limit freedom. Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal noted this double standard. "When it comes to his rivals or average Americans," Hunt said, "Mr. Bush demands stand-up accountability. When it comes to himself, it?s apparently acceptable to sit down."

Hunt was onto something important. Bush talks a lot about dignity and honor and accountability, but he seems to think these qualities should be demanded of everyone but himself. When he slips from this high mantel he has set for others, as he does quite often, he is the last person to step up and be accountable for his own actions. This was nowhere more in evidence than in New York before its Super Tuesday primary.

The New York system of determining who is listed on the major parties? primary ballots was, during this and pervious election cycles, archaic. The system, which has since been ruled illegal in the courts, required a candidate to get a substantial number of signatures in each district in the state to be listed on the ballot in that district. If a candidate could not garner enough signatures in that district he would not be listed on the ballot there and could not win that district?s delegates. The system was designed with the explicit purpose of aiding the establishment candidates (like Bush) and discouraging challengers (like McCain). Despite the opposition of the New York GOP, McCain was able to collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot in every district. It looked, however, like this wouldn?t happen when the state party threatened to challenge the veracity of many of the signatures on several of McCain?s petitions.

Despite the fact that the state party was closely aligned to him, Bush insisted in a nationally televised interview that he had absolutely no role in determining who would appear on the New York ballot. He told the interviewer that ballot status would be decided entirely by the state GOP chairman William Powers. Bush insisted that he had told Powers "It?s up to you. You enforce the rules."

This account, however, was contradicted by a memo that the interviewer produced. The memo was written by Powers on Bush campaign letterhead and addressed to local part officials. Dating from October of 1999, the memo read, "The Bush campaign will decide whether to challenge an opponent?s petitions. These decisions will be made by the campaign but, as congressional district coordinators, you will play an important role."

The upshot of all this is that Powers himself revealed that the Bush campaign had orchestrated an attempt to improperly keep McCain off the ballot in several New York districts. Here we have the establishment candidate who had a huge $70 million war chest at his disposal, who had received aid from several sketchy "independent" groups and who still sunk to what can only be called Gestapo tactics. What?s more, Bush had the gall to go on national TV and lie about it. Even worse, the New York GOP would later admit in court that several party workers in Brooklyn and the Bronx who were working on behalf of Bush had forged signatures to get Bush?s name on the ballot! That?s the exact same crime that the Bush campaign was trying to pin on McCain. In the end, it was Bush who saw his name left off the ballot in two districts. The more you know about Bush, the more Hunt?s words ring true. Just as with Zack Exely?s website, in the GOP primaries, Bush showed that he believes he is entitled to special treatment and should not be held accountable for his own actions as he demands everyone else be.

Another area in which Bush likes to play ?do as I say not as I do? is the arena of honesty. Bush likes to tell us that his opponent will "say and do anything to get elected." That is, quite obviously, nothing but a veiled attempt to suggest that Al Gore is something less than honest and sincere. Considering Bush?s repeated pledges to avoid personal attacks, such insinuations are already verging on hypocritical. Bush?s own penchant for stretching (or entirely ignoring) the truth push Bush far over the verge. Bush had managed to play loose with the truth several times in distorting the records of his two main opponents and trying to exaggerate his own record.

In the primaries Bush didn?t leave the distortions of McCain?s record entirely up to the National Right to Life Committee and the Wylys. The Bush campaign ran an ad in South Carolina that claimed "McCain?s own economic adviser says he supports Bush?s plan that earmarks $2 trillion to protect Social Security, pay down the debt and gives a real tax cut for every family." This ad was either misleading or blatantly untrue on almost every count. First, the "economic adviser" in question was Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber who, while he was a McCain supporter, has never advised McCain on economics or otherwise. Moreover, Weber does not support Bush?s plan; according to the Congressman, he was merely trying to be gracious when asked about the plan by reporters. Bush knowingly blew his comments out of proportion. Meanwhile, the assertions that Bush made about his own plan in this commercial are just as misleading. The $2 trillion he refers to is the Social Security surplus which everyone (Bush, Gore, Bill Clinton, the GOP Congress - everyone!) has already agreed will be reserved for Social Security. Meanwhile, Bush?s own plan offers not a single cent of general revenues to shore up Social Security or pay down the debt.

Bush went far lower with a radio ad he aired in New York prior to its Super Tuesday primary. Unable to force McCain off the ballot, Bush turned to a false and personal attack on McCain that helped secure his close victory in New York. The ad featured a breast cancer survivor condemning McCain for his votes against extra funding for breast cancer programs at two New York hospitals. The ad concluded by claiming that "America deserves better" and that "We deserve a candidate with a record on women's issues we can trust." Much like the ads run by "Republicans for Clean Air," Bush was totally distorting the context of these votes. McCain has staked his whole reputation and career on fighting against special interests and pork-barrel spending in Congress. The two votes cited were against bills that diverted funds that were specifically earmarked for improving the conditions of America?s military personnel. Asked about the ad, McCain explained the votes, "Everybody knows that I'm not against breast cancer research. But I'm adamantly opposed to the use of funds that are supposed to go to the military -- to the men and women on food stamps -- and use it for breast cancer research, when that should come out of Health and Human Services." McCain has backed this statement up in Congress; he voted to double funding for the National Institute for Health which funds and oversees breast cancer research nationwide.

What makes this whole incident all the more crass is that McCain?s own sister is a breast cancer survivor. I guess it?s not surprising that Bush would stoop to such tactics after he had tried to strong-arm McCain off the New York ballot. Still, even conservative commentator and Bush backer Robert Novak thought that "this really is going too far."

Bush has continued to disregard the truth when it has been convenient to him during the general campaign against Democrat Al Gore. While trying to build support for his own proposal to divert 1/6 of all Social Security funds into private investment accounts that individuals would invest in the stock market, Bush claimed that Gore was being two-faced in his opposition to such a plan. "[Gore] is building his own retirement security on the market, why does he object to young Americans doing the same?" Bush asked. Actually, Gore does not hold any stocks or mutual fund of any sort. When he entered Congress in 1976, Gore divested all of his stocks to make sure that they would not create any conflicts of interest. Bush also tried to claim that Gore had "changed his tune" on the issue and that he had previously supported such a privatization plan. This was also a deliberate misrepresentation. Gore had previously supported having the government invest part of the Social Security Trust Fund in the market (as opposed to more modestly performing Treasury Bonds) as a way to increase the return on such funds (after studying the plan, Gore later concluded that the drawbacks of such a plan outweighed the benefits). Such a plan is completely different from the one Bush proposes and Bush knows it.

Bush also tried to deflect criticism of his close ties to the NRA by suggesting that Gore was an NRA member. This also proved to be untrue. When asked what made him think that Gore was a member of the NRA, Bush could only respond that "a little birdie told me." Perhaps he should wait for a more concrete source before making such accusations.

Bush?s biggest whopper might have been during his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in Philadelphia. Despite his oft-repeated pledge to raise the tone of the campaign, throughout the convention, Bush, his running mate Dick Cheney and others repeatedly took pot shots and Clinton and Gore that tip-toed around the truth. Cheney claimed Clinton and Gore "did nothing to help children" even though Gore and Clinton had been strong supporters of the Head Start program (which Cheney voted against when he was in Congress) and the Children?s Health Insurance Program (which Bush fought against in Texas). General Norman Schwarzkopf rattled off a number of misleading statistics. He cited the fact that "6,300 military families are now eligible for food stamps" as a sign of Clinton and Gore?s neglect for the military. What he failed to say is that this number is down significantly from its level during the Bush administration. He continued to belittle the administration for reductions in forces, "as of 1999," he said, "the number of fighting Army divisions ready for war had shrunk to less than half of what they were before Desert Storm." What he didn?t say is that this was not the result of any administration neglect but of a planned post-Cold War reduction whose architects were none other than Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. While his surrogates certainly were trying to distort the truth, Bush left it up to himself to blatantly shred it.

In his own speech, Bush continued Schwarzkoph?s theme of hammering Clinton and Gore for their neglect of the military. He told us that "if called on by the Commander-in-Chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ?not ready for duty, sir.?" That?s flat-out wrong. In fact, in October of last year the 1^st Infantry Division and 10^th Mountain Division temporarily had their readiness downgraded. The military definition of such a downgrade is that these divisions would not be available for immediate use should two major regional wars break out at the same time (so, in October, if a new Korean War and a new Gulf War broke out, these two divisions would not have been available for immediate deployment). There?s a good reason for this: the two divisions were already deployed in Kosovo and Bosnia and their commanders did not think they could extract their forces from the region fast enough to immediately deploy elsewhere. It?s not as if two whole divisions were simply having their tanks rust away while sitting on their base because of neglect as Bush was clearly trying to imply. Keep in mind also, this was all back in October. The two divisions were returned to full readiness soon after (and months before Bush made his claim). Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refuted Bush?s claims the day after he made them, assuring the nation that all ten Army Divisions were at full readiness. So, what we have is Bush not only attempting to distort the Army?s definition of "readiness," we also have him making patently false accusations. Moreover, Bush refused to take responsibility for his error/lie after Shelton corrected him. In an interview with CNN he said, "Last November, there was a report that said two divisions were not ready for combat. If the Army, in fact, changes its tune from that report ... then they need to let the country know. I am amazed that they would put out a statement right after our convention. I'm curious why it took them this long to say they were combat-ready after a report last November said they weren't." Someone needs to tell Bush that the Army did not "take this long." They announced that all divisions were back to full readiness months ago. They made this "statement right after our convention" because of the false accusations Bush himself made during the convention. Bush?s reaction to this flap is frighteningly similar to his reaction to the US Department of Agriculture report which detailed hunger in Texas (see Chapter 1). Just as in that case, Bush refused to take any personal responsibility and, instead, tried to blame his political opponents for deliberately timing such news.

Finally, Bush also has a long history of liberally exaggerating his own record. On one hand, it?s tempting to be sympathetic to Bush on this count; after all, his barren record practically begs for exaggeration. On the other hand, this history of exaggeration does not lend any credence to his claims that he will restore honor or dignity to the White House or to his attacks on his opponent?s truthfulness.

During the primary season, Bush?s own website trumpeted the candidate?s support in Texas for a Patients? Bill of Rights. The site claimed that "under Governor Bush, Texas enacted some of the most comprehensive patient protection laws in the nation." Bush tried to buttress these claims with an ad that ran in several key primary states. The ad claimed that "while Washington was deadlocked, [Bush] passed a Patient?s Bill of Rights."

As was discussed in Chapter 1, Bush simply does not have a record of support for such patient protection laws. In fact, he has an extensive record of fighting against just such laws. Patient protection first reached Bush? desk in 1995 after the Texas Legislature passed a Patient?s Bill of Rights that would have imposed several new requirements on Texas HMOs. Bush vetoed the bill. Proponents of patient protection tried again in 1997. This time, a broad and bipartisan coalition led by Republican State Senator David Sibley passed a new patient protection bill through the Legislature. The new bill included manyy pro-HMO compromises including an independent review procedure for all complaints against HMOs. Despite the compromises, Bush fought against this bill too. Sibley was exasperated with Bush?s opposition. "I can?t make them happy no matter what I do," he said, "unless I completely gut the bill." Luckily for the citizens of Texas, Sibley and his allies were able to cobble together enough support in both the Texas House and Senate to override any Bush veto. In the end, Bush chose not to become the first Texas governor in twenty years to have a veto overridden and thus allowed the bill to pass without his signature (this basically meant he allowed it to pass under protest). Thus, Bush?s website is technically true when it says that Texas enacted patient protection while Bush was governor. The implication, however, is a complete lie. Both on his website and in his ad, Bush was trying to take out-and-out credit for patient protection legislation when the laws passed in spite of his actions not as a result of them.

Bush was similarly sneaky about his role in insuring children in Texas. Another campaign ad claimed that Bush helped spread the Children?s Health Insurance Program "across the state of Texas." As I discussed in Chapter 3, Bush has continued to fight to limit the scope of CHIP at every turn. First, he fought to keep 200,000 Texas children off of CHIP and then, when he lost that battle, he fought to make the application procedure as difficult as possible. Just as with patient protection, Bush is trying to take credit for supporting a popular program that he actually opposed with all his strength. The above are obviously more than isolated occurrences, they are part of a repetitive pattern of untruthfulness.

Bush also mischaracterized his own campaign finance reform plan (or lack thereof) in a primary debate with John McCain. When McCain noted that Bush?s plan would place no limit on the huge soft money contributions individuals can give to political parties, Bush insisted, "no, there?s a thousand dollar limit." In fact, Bush?s "reform" plan places a $20,000 annual limit on hard money that can be given to parties (money that can be spent to directly support a candidate) but places absolutely no limit on the amount of soft money (that can be used for generic activities like so-called "issue ads"). The pattern of exaggeration Bush has shown in this election is really no surprise. His record of such haphazardness with the truth dates all the way back to his 1976 Congressional race when he claimed in a newspaper ad that he had served on active duty in the military.

The crux of Bush?s entire campaign is that he is somehow this paragon of honor and virtue who will cleanse the White House of the misdeeds of President Clinton in a way Vice President Gore cannot. We saw in Chapter 2 that his own record in business and politics is anything put virtuous. His actions during this campaign can only be seen as further evidence that Bush?s own moral standing is far below the level he would have us believe. Some of the things Bush and his surrogates have tried to pull during the primary season were terribly callous and disrespectful both to his opponents and to the American people who should expect more from a candidate. He went after a true American hero in John McCain with a serious of untruthful and hurtful low-blows that he has never taken responsibility for. He has watched happily as surrogates like the Wyly brothers, Pat Robertson and Bob Jones have distorted his opponents? records. He tried to manipulate the New York GOP to keep McCain off the ballot in several districts there. He has participated in a pattern of self-aggrandizing exaggerations. Most frightening, he threatened the first amendment rights of a private citizen for having the gall to point out the inherent hypocrisy of Bush?s position on drugs. These are not honorable or dignified actions. These are pure examples of the politics of personal destruction that Bush claims to hate so much. Again, when it comes to Bush, it?s do as I say, not do as I do.