|
UNIVERSITY OF COMPASSIONATE
CONSERVATISM (what
is this?)
You have selected
COMPASSIONATE
CONSERVATISM
201A*
*President Bush's lies
and deception moral clarity,
honesty and integrity
during
Elections 2000 - Part I
In this course you will learn about the
abundant lies, deception or
intent to deceive moral clarity, honesty and integrity displayed by President George W. Bush
(at that time the compassionate conservative2
Gov. Bush from the state of Texas) - during
Elections 2000 (Part I). This part covers his
statements on his economic policy, health, social security/welfare,
women's rights, civil rights, energy and the environment. Make sure you
drop by again when the Election 04 (2004) campaign starts picking up
steam, so that you can refresh your memory on his compassion. Please
note that the statements made by Bush or his
spokespersons/administration3 - as
cited in column 3 of the tables below - are by default extracted from
one or more of the links shown in column 4. If the source of the
statements is different from the link(s) in column 4, then a URL is
explicitly provided in column 3. For feedback and corrections, please go
here. A detailed
acknowledgement of the sites from which the information below was
obtained is listed at
this location. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the
following sites where I got the vast majority of links from: PK
archive, Atrios/Eschaton,
Politics, Law and
Autism, Calpundit,
Buzzflash, Daily
Howler, Thinking
it Through, Bushwatch,
Spinsanity, Altercation.
Total Compassion Con credits 2
available from this course to date = 74
Last
Update: 10/28/2003
Please select one of these sections
Once you are done with the above
sections, you may choose another course by picking one of the options
below
ECONOMIC
POLICY <go back to the top>
Compassion Con
credits total = 17
| # |
Topic |
Gov.
Bush or his team's
Compassionate statement |
Some
Uncompassionate Facts |
Compassion
Con Credits |
| EC1-01 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
claimed that his (supposed)
$1.3 trillion in tax cuts won't eat away the then-surplus and in
fact leave "$265B" of surplus after 10 years
|
Note:
In all the subsequent citations in this table, the budget
surplus numbers are subject to change because these citations
cover a period of ~2 years or so, when surplus/deficit numbers
were continually being updated.
Paul
Krugman (New York Times) -2/2/00:
"...didn't the Congressional Budget
Office just estimate that thanks to our booming economy the
federal government will run a surplus over the next decade of
$1.9 trillion? And doesn't this mean that the budget can easily
accommodate even the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts being proposed by
George W. Bush? No. To see why, you have
to look at the, um, numbers. The key question is, What would it
mean to keep the size of government about the same as it
currently is? A reasonable man -- and Mr. Bush's economists are,
as I said last week, reasonable men -- might guess that it means
keeping "real discretionary spending per person" more
or less constant. Note the modifiers. "Discretionary,"
meaning that nobody is proposing to scale back the big-ticket
entitlement programs; "real," because if prices rise
it costs more to provide the same services; "per
person," because more people means more need for government
services, which is why a populous state like -- to take a random
example -- Texas has a bigger budget than its less populous
neighbors.
Alas, that $1.9 trillion estimate was not
based on anything like this reasonable notion. It was based on
the assumption that total spending on discretionary programs
will remain constant -- in ordinary, non-inflation-adjusted
dollars -- for the next 10 years. Since the projection also
assumes roughly 2 percent inflation, this means a large
reduction in real spending. And since the population is going to
grow over time, it means an even bigger cut in real spending per
person. In other words, that big surplus number is based on the
assumption of a drastic, even draconian reduction in government
services. As it happens, the C.B.O. also offered a more
realistic projection based on the assumption that discretionary
spending grows with inflation. That simple adjustment lops off
more than a trillion dollars. But because the population is
growing, that still means a substantial decline in per capita
spending -- and since some programs cannot or will not be cut,
it means deep cuts in what remains. How much is really on the
table? I've done my own back-of-the-spreadsheet calculation of
how the C.B.O.'s surplus projection would change if real
spending grew with population; the adjustment brings the total
down to around $400 billion..."
Citizens
for Tax Justice - 8/00:
"...Over the fiscal 2002-11 period,
the Bush tax cuts would cost $1.9 trillion, while the projected
surpluses are only $1.8 trillion.
In fact, the Bush tax cuts effects on the surpluses is even
greater than that. As is well known, the official surplus
projections are substantially overstated, because, among other
things, they assume that federal appropriations keep up with
inflation only, with no adjustment for population growth or real
wage growth. If, for example, one assumes that appropriations
will probably keep up with the economy, then the projected
surpluses over the 2002-11 period (excluding Social Security
& Medicare) fall from $1.8 trillion to only $770 billion.
Thus, in all likelihood, the Bush tax cuts would use up far
more than the likely surpluses over the next decade. That
would require dipping heavily into the Social Security and/or
Medicare trust funds to cover the cost of the tax cuts..."
|
1 |
| EC1-02 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
initially claimed that the cost of his
proposed tax cuts
was $1.3 trillion
|
Paul
Krugman (New York Times):
"...most reporting accepts Mr. Bush's
numbers on his tax cut, which his campaign likes to describe as
costing the Treasury $1.3 trillion over the next decade,
compared with a projected $2.2 trillion surplus. Few reporters
have noticed that that comparison turns out to be full of sly
tricks designed to make the tax cut look less irresponsible than
it is.
The biggest trick involves counting $400 billion of Medicare
funds in the budget surplus number, even though the Republican
Congress insists that these funds are in a "lock-
box." Another big trick involves not mentioning that the
tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid
down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest
payments. Then there is a series of little accounting tricks —
a hundred billion here, another hundred billion there,
eventually adding up to real money.
Oh, and almost nobody has noticed that Mr. Bush's headline
number is also held down by a feature of his plan that will come
as a rude shock if the plan ever becomes law: Millions of
taxpayers won't actually get the tax cuts they think they have
been promised, because they will end up paying the alternative
minimum tax instead..."
|
2 |
| EC1-03 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
sometimes claimed in campaign speeches that his tax cut
cost "$1 trillion"
|
Paul
Krugman (New York Times) - 2000:
"...If a candidate were to declare that gasoline costs $1 a
gallon when everyone knows that it costs at least $1.60, he
would be shouted off the stage. But when Mr. Bush declares (as
he often does on the stump) that his tax cut will cost $1
trillion, when his own budget numbers indicate that the right
number is roughly $1.6 trillion, everyone shrugs..."
Paul
Krugman (New York Times) - 2001:
"...Last May, when George W. Bush was claiming that he
planned only a trillion-dollar tax cut — remember the routine
with the dollar bills? — independent experts estimated the
actual 10-year budget cost of his tax plan at close to $2
trillion. They also warned that under Mr. Bush's plan a hitherto
obscure aspect of the tax code, the alternative minimum tax,
would become a major issue — and resolving that issue would
sharply increase the cost of the plan.
Sure enough, earlier this month the bipartisan
Congressional Joint Tax Committee estimated that Mr. Bush's
proposal would reduce revenues over the next decade by $2.2
trillion. And the J.T.C. also produced some shocking estimates
about the alternative minimum tax. Most people have never heard
of this tax, which was supposed to prevent the wealthy from
avoiding taxes but ends up mainly affecting upper- middle-income
families with lots of deductions. When the tax kicks in, it's
infuriating; you've carefully calculated everything, then you
discover that you have to do another calculation, and you end up
owing a lot more. But right now this happens to only 1.5 percent
of taxpayers. The J.T.C. concluded, however, that under the Bush
plan this number would rise to one-third of taxpayers. Without
question the law will be changed so that this doesn't happen —
but the fix will add at least $300 billion to the cost of the
plan. So the "trillion-dollar tax cut" has become $2.5
trillion and counting — which means that Mr. Bush can pay for
initiatives like missile defense and prescription drug coverage
only by raiding Social Security and Medicare..."
|
1 |
| EC1-04 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
"..."I want some of the money,
nearly a trillion, to go to projects like prescription drugs for
seniors. Money to strengthen the military to keep the peace.
I've got some views about education around the world. I want to
— you know, I've got some money in there for the
environment."...
But there's still a quarter unspent, about
$1.3 trillion [the size of Mr. Bush's tax cut]. I think we ought
to send it back to the people who pay the bills..."
|
Paul
Krugman (New York Times):
"...Nearly a trillion? The budget statement released by the
candidate's campaign three weeks ago shows total spending on new
projects of $474.6 billion — less than half a trillion. Mr.
Bush presumably wants to convey the sense that he's a
compassionate guy who really cares about education, the
environment and all that. But that doesn't excuse claiming to
spend twice as much on these good things as the number given in
his own budget.
He continued: "But there's still a
quarter unspent, about $1.3 trillion [the size of Mr. Bush's tax
cut]. I think we ought to send it back to the people who pay the
bills." Alas, 4 times 1.3 is 5.2, not 4.6 — and anyway,
the full budget cost of that tax cut, including interest, is
$1.6 trillion, more than a third of the projected surplus..."
|
2 |
| EC1-05 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
said "...want to take one-half of the
surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the
surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter
of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills..."
|
Daily
Howler:
"... Why was Bush misrepresenting his proposals? He was
misstating for an obvious reason—to counter Gore’s criticism
of his budget plan. According to Gore, Bush was devoting so much
of the surplus to tax cuts that there wouldn’t be sufficient
funds for new programs. Bush wanted to pretend that this wasn’t
the case—so he lied to Jim Lehrer and to the public. (Lehrer
never seemed to care.) In fact, he misstated his budget again
and again, all through that autumn’s campaigning..."
Daily
Howler:
"...Bush’s budget called for a $1.3 trillion tax cut—and
for $474 billion in new spending (ten years). In fact, his tax
cut was about three times as big as his new spending proposals.
So why was Bush saying that his new spending equaled the size of
his tax cut? According to Gore, Bush’s tax cuts were so large
that they left little money for “important new projects.” So
Bush had crafted a bogus sound-bite which made it seem that this
just wasn’t so..."
Paul
Krugman:
"...George W. Bush has lately
taken to explaining his economic plans by pulling out four
dollar bills to represent the projected budget surplus. Two
dollars, he explains, will be used to support Social Security;
one to pay for new programs like prescription drug insurance;
and one will be used to cut taxes. "I think it's fair, I
think it's right that one quarter of the surplus go back to the
people who pay the bills," he declared last week. Nice
rhetorical device; too bad about the arithmetic. An honest
presentation, using numbers from Mr. Bush's own economists,
would allocate not $1 but $1.40 to tax cuts, only 45 cents to
new programs — and would admit that he got 25 of those 45
cents by violating his own party's promise not to touch either
the Social Security or Medicare surpluses. I am not making this
up. The Congressional Budget Office projects a surplus over the
next decade, including Medicare and Social Security, of $4.6
trillion. As I pointed out last month, this is unrealistically
optimistic, but never mind. One quarter of that surplus is $1.15
trillion. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's economists concede that his tax
plan will reduce the surplus by $1.6 trillion. So representing
the cost of the tax cut by just one of those four dollar bills
is a $450 billion misstatement. And on the other side, Mr.
Bush's proposed spending on new programs is far lower than that
other dollar bill would suggest — about 10 percent of the
surplus, not 25 percent. Indeed, some of Mr. Bush's
penny-pinching comes as a shock. With all his huffing and
puffing about America's military decline, who would have thought
that he proposes to increase defense spending by less than 2
percent?...Now that Mr. Bush has caved on the issue of
prescription drug insurance — though he still claims that he
can get it at bargain prices — the additional spending
proposed in his plan amounts to about 45 cents out of his four
dollars. How does he find the extra 25 cents? Through selective
absent-mindedness. Congressional Republicans have solemnly
pledged to put both Social Security and Medicare in "lock
boxes," that is, not to count their surpluses as available
funds. But while Mr. Bush's number-crunchers ostentatiously put
the Social Security surplus aside, Medicare somehow goes
unmentioned."
|
3 |
| EC1-06 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
"...The top one
percent receive $223 billion of tax cuts. That’s far less than
I’m going to spend. The top one percent pay a third of the
taxes and get 20 percent of the cuts..."
"...“Under my plan, if you make—the
top, the wealthy people pay 62 percent of the taxes today.
Afterwards, they pay 64 percent. This is a fair plan,” he
said..."
|
Daily
Howler:
"...Snore. Bush’s numbers all referred to the cuts
in income tax only, and they referred to the year 2005 (CG
emphasis). But as Bush and crew tossed these numbers around,
this distinction was never offered. They offered the public a
set of fake numbers...
By “afterwards,” Bush meant in 2005, and
the numbers referred to income tax only. In short, all
the numbers Bush employed were deliberately meant to
deceive..." |
2 |
| EC1-07 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
"...His campaign material asserts that
the cuts..."are especially focused on low and moderate
income families." The proof? "Roughly $3 out of every
$6 returned to taxpayers would finance changes that help low
income families."..."
|
Daily
Howler citing David Corn:
"...The Post's Pianin and Neal took
this to mean that "roughly half of the overall relief would
be targeted to middle- and lower-income families, according to
campaign aides" (see THE
DAILY HOWLER, 1/5/00). But that was not what this
slippery claim meant. Corn's explanation continues:
CORN (continuing
directly): "Roughly $3 out of every $6 returned to
taxpayers would finance changes that help low income
families." By that [Bush]
means two provisions: the new 10 percent bracket and the
doubling of the child tax credit. But read him carefully: The
three bucks go to financing "changes" that apply to
all taxpayers, not just low-income families...[M]any of the
gains from these two changes will accrue to the well-off. The
three-out-of-six-dollars figure is a curveball designed to
mislead.
And "mislead" it did. The Post's
Pianin and Neal, among other scribes, swallowed the slippery
mess whole..." |
1 |
| EC1-08 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
"...According to the "Fact
Sheet" accompanying George W. Bush's Dec. 1, 1999
announcement of his tax plan, "The Bush tax cuts benefit
all Americans, but reserve the greatest percentage reduction for
the lowest income families.".."
said "most of tax reductions go to the
people at the bottom end of the economic ladder"
|
Citizens
for Tax Justice:
"...According to the "Fact
Sheet" accompanying George W. Bush's Dec. 1, 1999
announcement of his tax plan, "The Bush tax cuts benefit
all Americans, but reserve the greatest percentage reduction for
the lowest income families."
This statement is false. Bush's proposed tax cuts do not benefit
all Americans, and they do not provide the largest percentage
reduction to lower-income people. In fact, more than a quarter
of taxpayers would get nothing at all from the Bush plan.
Moreover, as a share of current federal taxes, the Bush plan (as
revised in May 2000) amounts to:
- a 5.5% reduction for the bottom 20%,
- an 7.3% reduction for those in the middle
and
- a 13.6% tax cut for the best-off one
percent.
In dollars, the Bush plan would cut total
federal taxes for the lowest fifth from an average of $756 a
year now to $714, a reduction of only $42 a year. Taxpayers in
the middle of the income scale would see their average federal
tax liability cut from $6,195 to $5,742, a reduction of $453.
But those at the top would see their taxes cut by an average of
more than $46,000 a year.
Over-spin: To assert that his tax plan favors
those at lower income levels, Bush chose to misleadingly focus
on only one federal tax, the personal income tax. But because
the income tax is progressive, it imposes little or no burden on
lower income taxpayers now. In fact, most of the federal taxes
that lower- and middle-income people pay reflect Social Security
payroll taxes and excise taxes, neither of which is affected by
Bush's plan.
Measuring the fairness or unfairness of any tax proposal by its
percentage change in taxes for different income groups is almost
always a misleading exercise because the current federal tax
system is modestly progressive. Much more relevant measures are
to look at proposed tax cuts for different income groups: (a) in
average dollar terms, (b) as shares of the total tax cuts, and
(c) as shares of income..."
Issues2000:
"...a bipartisan congressional
panel has found that nearly 27 million Americans might not get
the full benefit because they would have to pay another tax
originally designed to prevent investors and the wealthy from
sheltering too much of their income. The panel said some
taxpayers would get no break at all from Bush’s plan, because
of the so-called alternative minimum tax. Source: Associated
Press analysis of St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000..."
The
New Republic:
"...He has repeated dishonest statistics about his tax cut
so many times that not even his opponent bothers to challenge
him anymore. The third and final presidential debate was a font
of unrebutted tried-and-untruisms. "If you pay taxes,
you're going to get a benefit," Bush said. Actually, most
taxpayers who pay payroll taxes but don't earn enough to pay
income taxes don't get a tax cut from Bush..."
Note: More extensive coverage of deceptive
compassionate claims that Bush made during the campaign and
repeated after he became President is presented in a subsequent
"course"
|
2 |
| EC1-09 |
Tax cut proposal |
Bush
"...trotted out once more his favorite
example of a person who would benefit from his tax cut--a single
mother earning $22,000 per year..."
|
The
New Republic:
"...Trouble is, Bush's single mom would get, at most, $120
in tax cuts under his plan [CG note: this is
also covered further in a subsequent "course" - so the Compassion Con credit
assigned here does not reflect the above fact - it is for what
follows]. Last week, The Washington Post brought this
up with Larry Lindsey, Bush's chief economic adviser. According
to the Post, Lindsey replied that the point of Bush's tax cut is
to assist the single mother if she gets a $5,000 raise. OK, but
then she wouldn't be making $22,000 per year any longer. And,
depending on her financial particulars, her Bush tax cut could
go back down to nothing. Maybe Bush needs to start talking about
the single mom who inherits a multimillion-dollar
estate..."
|
1 |
| EC2-01 |
Texas Economic Policy |
Bush
"...Bush used his 1999 State of the State
address to lay out his budget agenda and declare that he would
"show Washington how to handle a budget surplus."
"You didn't ask for it," Bush told the legislators,
referring to the national spotlight shining on Texas because of
his not-so-secret presidential aspirations, "but it is here
anyway. And we can either view it as a distraction or seize it
as an opportunity to show the world what limited and
constructive government looks like."..."
|
Jason
Zengerle (The New Republic):
"...just like the Bush budget plan
now being debated in Washington, Bush's Texas budget included
gimmicks intended to hide future liabilities. Even with the rosy
projections, for instance, Texas's Medicaid program was still
forecast to cost a pretty penny, and since the Texas
constitution mandates a balanced budget, Bush didn't have enough
money to pay for his tax cut. His solution? Have the 2000-2001
budget provide Medicaid funds to nursing homes for only 23 of 24
months so $110 million would be left over to keep the budget
balanced. While this is a common accounting trick when times are
tight, it's practically unheard of when a state government is
running large surpluses.
Bush didn't mention that little accounting trick two years ago;
it was hidden in the fine print. So when Texas lawmakers
eventually realized that they would have to dip into the
2002-2003 budget to cover that twenty-fourth month of Medicaid
funding, even some Republicans were chagrined. "I might
have voted a little differently on all those tax cuts had I
realized that we were only funding twenty-three months of these
programs," Harris told the Associated Press.
At the time, of course, Bush presented his tax cuts as entirely
responsible..."
|
1 |
| EC2-02 |
Texas Economic Policy |
Bush
"...I led my state, in 1997, to the
largest tax cut in Texas history. I laid out a plan that cut $1
billion of property taxes.. I am a tax-cutting person..."
|
Issues
2000:
"...Q: [to Bush & Forbes]:
Forbes’ TV ad says that in 1994 you signed a pledge to not
support sales tax or business tax increases, and in 1997 you
broke the pledge.
BUSH: I led my state, in 1997, to the largest tax cut in Texas
history. I laid out a plan that cut $1 billion of property
taxes.. I am a tax-cutting person.
FORBES: There was a lot of hedging about this pledge. The pledge
was made in 1994. I have a copy of it here, promising not to
raise the sales tax or to propose any kind of income tax. When
he proposed this bill in 1997 it did have provisions in there
for tax increases including increasing a sales tax [CG
emphasis]. Pledges
should not be lightly made and a pledge is a promise. Bush’s
own staff admits that he broke the pledge. In 1998, I supported
you & I would have voted for you. But you did break that
pledge.
BUSH: [People] need to look at the results. That’s what’s
important. The results are people from all walks of life
received a substantial tax cut
under me as the governor of Texas. Source: (cross-ref to Forbes)
GOP Debate in Michigan Jan 10, 2000..."
|
1 |
CIVIL RIGHTS <go back to the top>
Compassionate conservatism revealed in one of its worst
best forms.
Compassion Con credits total = 27
| # |
Topic |
Gov.
Bush or his team's
Compassionate statement |
Some
Uncompassionate Facts |
Compassion
Con Credits |
| CR1-01 |
Civil Rights/
Affirmative Action |
Bush
"..."In our state of Texas I worked
with the Legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a
law that says if you come in the top 10 percent of your high
school class you're automatically admitted to one of our higher
institutions of learning," Bush said, calling it
"affirmative access."..."
|
Jake
Tapper (Salon):
"...In actuality, Democratic state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos,
the sponsor of that bill -- which Bush did, indeed, sign -- told
Salon in August that he "developed that plan with the
help of some university professors. And I passed it through the
Senate. [Bush] never called me, he never wrote about it, he
never had any press conferences to testify about the bill. So
for him to take credit for it like it was his idea, that's just
not right."..." |
1 |
| CR2-01 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty
(Carla Fay Tucker and Betty Lou Beets)
|
Bush
"..."Despite the call being sounded
around the country and world, I could not convert Karla Faye
Tucker's sentence from death to life in prison." And
shortly before Betty Lou Beets was executed last February,
Bush's office issued a press release with this afterthought:
"Note: Governor Bush does not have the independent
authority to stop the execution of Betty Lou Beets."
..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Salon) via P.L.A.:
"...Beets was almost certainly guilty
of murdering her fifth husband and burying him under a little
wishing well at the front of her mobile home near Gun Barrel,
Texas. But the evidence that Beets was not guilty of capital
murder -- a murder that qualifies for a death sentence -- was
stunning.
Beets' attorney, E. Ray Andrews (who later served a three-year
federal prison sentence for soliciting a bribe while serving as
district attorney in another murder case), never told the jury
that Beets didn't even know about the insurance policy on her
husband at the time he was murdered. She learned of it more than
a year later thanks to Andrew himself. Why would an attorney
withhold such critical evidence from a jury? Who knows. But
Andrews had obtained the literary and movie rights to Beets'
life story in lieu of payment for defending her. Had he revealed
her ignorance of the insurance policy, he would have had to
withdraw from the case and testify on her behalf. That would
have also meant losing lucrative rights to Beets' story -- and,
perhaps, a better ending for the movie...Beets' attorney failed
to present evidence of a long history of sexual abuse, including
her rape by her father when she was 5 years old, at the
sentencing phase of the trial, which might have convinced a jury
to impose a sentence other than death. Although the jury never
heard this evidence, it was laid out for Bush in Beets' clemency
appeal. Apparently, he was not impressed..."
Alan
Berlow (Salon):
"...In February he signed off on the execution of Betty Lou
Beets, a 62-year-old great-grandmother, despite evidence that
strongly suggests her own attorney -- who secured literary and
movie rights to her story, and later served a three-year federal
prison sentence for extorting a bribe in another murder case --
gave her miserable representation.
.....Under Texas law, Bush can only commute a death sentence if
he receives a recommendation to do so from the state Board of
Pardons and Paroles. Absent such a recommendation, Bush's legal
authority is limited to granting a 30-day reprieve.
..In reality, no one honestly believes that Bush could not have
stopped the execution of Tucker, Beets or any other death-row
inmate had he seen fit to do so. "One of the myths in Texas
is that the governor doesn't have any power," says David
Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston. "All the
governor has to do is communicate his wishes to the members of
the Board of Pardons and Paroles who are, after all, his
political appointees, and they will do exactly what he
wants." Dow notes that in the one case where Bush commuted
a death sentence to life in prison -- serial killer Henry Lee
Lucas -- the governor made it clear what he thought and the
board carried it out.
.."
|
2 |
| CR2-02 |
Civil Rights/
Death Penalty
(Carla Fay Tucker)
|
Bush
[claimed] "...he had a "restless
night" before the execution, "felt like a huge piece
of concrete was crushing me" as he waited for Tucker to
die, read a postmortem statement to the press which was
"one of the hardest things I have ever done," and came
away from the whole experience "heavy of heart."..."
|
Alan
Berlow (The American Prospect):
"...in an interview with Talk magazine...he mimicked
Karla Faye Tucker--the first woman to be executed in Texas in
more than 100 years--as she pleaded with him for her
life..."
Daily
Howler:
"...Of course, what was most interesting about this
particular "revelation" was the way it appeared to
contradict what Bush had told Tucker Carlson in an earlier
interview for Talk. In his piece, Carlson said that Bush
had ridiculed Tucker's request for a stay, even doing mocking
impressions of her appearance on Larry King Live. There
had been no talk of private agony..."
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...Why should Bush have been so tormented by assenting to
Tucker's execution? According to the Bush standard for clemency,
her case wasn't even worthy of consideration. Tucker didn't
claim that she was innocent of murdering Jerry Lynn Dean and
Deborah Thornton with a three-foot-long pickax in 1983. She said
that she had been treated fairly by the courts and deserved her
punishment. What helps to explain Bush's concern, of course, is
that Tucker's case was the most highly publicized of any during
his tenure as governor. In prison Tucker had become a born-again
Christian, like Bush. Her execution was opposed by, among
others, one of Bush's daughters and a slew of otherwise ardent
death-penalty supporters, including Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell, who became convinced that she was remorseful,
repentant, and rehabilitated. Nevertheless, dozens of Texas
death-row inmates could claim similar conversion experiences,
remorse, and repentance; and dozens had compelling claims
regarding innocence or due process..."
|
2 |
| CR2-03 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty
(Gary Graham)
|
Bush
(on the case of Texas inmate Gary Graham)
said, "...“Mr. Graham has had full and fair access to
state and federal courts,” he said in a public statement that
day, hours before the execution. “After considering all the
facts, I’m confident justice is being done.”..."
"...Bush had persistently voiced his
faith in the judgments reached by the Texas system. “I analyze
each case when it comes across my desk,” he said as Graham’s
execution neared. “And as far as I’m concerned, there has
not been one innocent person executed since I’ve been the
governor.”..."
Bush "...Is
the person guilty of the crime? And did the person have full
access to the courts of law? And I can tell you, in all cases
those answers were affirmative... ...On
October 28, 1981, Mr. Gary Graham was found guilty of capital
murder and later sentenced to death by a Harris County jury. The
murder marked the beginning of a week-long crime rampage during
which Mr. Graham committed at least 10 armed robberies. Two of
his victims were shot, one was kidnapped and raped at gunpoint.
Over the last 19 years, Mr. Graham’s case has been reviewed
more than 20 times by state and federal courts. Thirty-three
judges have heard and found his numerous claims to be without
merit. In addition to the extensive due process provided Mr.
Graham through the courts, the Board of Pardons and Paroles has
thoroughly reviewed the record of this case as well as all new
claims raised by Mr. Graham’s lawyers. Today the Board of
Pardons and Paroles voted to allow Mr. Graham’s execution to
go forward. I support the decision..."
|
Daily
Howler:
"...But regarding the murder of Lambert, the evidence
against Graham was remarkably weak. No physical evidence linked
Graham to the crime. There had been three eyewitnesses at the
scene; two of them said that he wasn’t the killer.
Indeed, it was on the testimony of a single eyewitness—who saw
the killer for a fleeting moment across a dimly lit parking lot—that
Graham was sitting on Texas’ death row, insisting that he was
innocent. There was no other evidence...
The evidence was remarkably weak, but something else made the
case a matter of interest—the hapless defense which Graham had
received. Texas had long been famous for the feckless way it
conducted its capital cases, and Graham’s case was one of many
in which an indigent defendant received an inept defense from a
poorly qualified, court-appointed attorney. How had Graham been
defended? At trial, Graham’s lawyer, Ronald Mock, failed to
present the two eyewitnesses who said that he wasn’t
the killer. He failed to present the ballistics evidence, which
showed that Graham’s gun wasn’t the murder weapon.
In an interview with the New York Times in June 2000, Mock, “acknowledged
that he did almost no investigation of the case.” (For
example, he never interviewed the two eyewitnesses, whose names
appeared on the police report.) But this seemed to be the norm
for Mock, who had been reprimanded several times for
professional misconduct in death penalty cases. You couldn’t
dream up a career like Mock’s. At one point, for example, Mock
had been actually jailed during one murder case for misconduct
he had committed in another. He was one of a string of sleeping,
drunk and inept lawyers whom Texas routinely used in such
trials...
For Graham, Mock was only part of the story;
he had also been stymied in his appeals. Graham finally gained
diligent counsel in the early 1990s; his new lawyers attempted
to present the testimony of the two eyewitnesses whom Mock had
sleepily ignored. No dice. By the spring of 2000, several jurors
who convicted Graham said that they would have favored acquittal
if they had heard this evidence at trial. But because of
procedural roadblocks in the Texas system, those witnesses had
never been heard in any court. And that is when the genius
Cornyn blundered out onto the scene.
Two witnesses said Graham wasn’t the
killer; they had never been heard in any court. But as the day
of execution drew near, Cornyn appeared on major TV shows,
stating precisely the opposite. Incredibly, Cornyn asserted on Nightline
that Texas judges had ruled, “in open court,” that the two
eyewitnesses “had no credibility whatsoever.” On Nightline
and again on Hardball, Cornyn
persisted in his bogus statements even after being contradicted
by parties who actually knew the facts. After several days
of howling errors, Cornyn’s office was forced to acknowledge
and withdraw his misstatements, making him the latest
incompetent Texas official to leave his mark on the Graham case.
And, adding to the air of total absurdity, it was Cornyn who, as
attorney general, was advising Bush on the facts of the case!
This Cornyn is the same brilliant fellow whom Texans have now
sent to the Senate..."
|
1 |
| CR2-04 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty
(David Wayne Spence) |
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Salon):
"...Nevertheless, Bush signed off on at least one execution
in which the condemned man had a compelling claim of
innocence...Bush has never commented publicly on the 1997
execution of David Wayne Spence, but the case is worth examining
both because Spence made a compelling claim of innocence, and
because his case goes directly to the governor's role in the
state's execution process...in the years following Spence's
convictions, Spence's lawyers uncovered an astonishing body of
potentially exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from the
defendant's trial lawyers. Police investigative files discovered
by Raoul Schonemann, who represented Spence post-conviction,
from 1991 until his execution, showed that the state falsely
informed the court that no other suspects had been identified by
police.
In fact, police records showed that although not one of the
20-odd Waco citizens who were at the lake on the night of the
murders had mentioned seeing Spence or his co-defendants, they
had identified several other potential suspects, among them one
Terry Lee Harper, who the same police files showed had actually
boasted about having committed the murders.
Seven witnesses reported that Harper had told them of his
involvement in the murders and no less than three said they had
heard Harper make the statement before the murders were publicly
reported on the radio. Harper also had a rap sheet listing 25
assaults, including several against teenagers at Lake
Waco...There are other reasons to doubt Spence's guilt. Given
the grisly nature of the murders, the multiple stab wounds and
extensive loss of blood, one might have expected police to find
some physical evidence from the assailants.
Yet pubic and head hairs found on the victims' bodies matched
neither Spence nor the state's other suspects. And the hairs
were never tested against any of the other suspects identified
in the police investigation. No hair sample was taken, for
example, from Harper....[CG. - it goes on and on - please read
the full article!]"
|
1 |
| CR2-05 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty
(Odell Barnes, Joseph Stanley Faulder, James
Beathard, Andrew Cantu) |
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
"...Bush has consistently maintained that
he applies two standards in considering clemency appeals. One is
evidence of innocence, the other whether a condemned prisoner
had full access to the courts or due process..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Salon) via P.L.A.:
"...But Beets is not the only case that calls those
standards into doubt.
Earlier this year, Bush approved the execution
of Odell Barnes, whose court-appointed lawyers failed to
interview witnesses who might have helped their client, and
conducted no scientific investigation of blood and semen
evidence the state said linked Barnes to the crime. (Texas is
notorious for appointing poorly paid and unqualified lawyers in
capital cases.)
Last year the governor signed off on the
execution of Canadian Joseph Stanley Faulder, convicted of
murdering a wealthy oil heiress, despite the fact that the
prosecutor had been hired and paid for by the victim's family,
and that the state had withheld evidence that its principal
witness was paid more than $10,000 to testify against Faulder.
The state's chief psychiatric witness, whose testimony was
essential to securing a death sentence, was later expelled from
the American Psychiatric Association for presenting
unprofessional testimony in Texas death penalty cases.
Bush refused to stop the execution of James
Beathard, whose co-defendant, Gene Hathorn Jr., recanted his
testimony following Beathard's conviction and said he, not
Beathard, had been solely responsible for the murder of three
members of Hathorn's family. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
refused to grant Beathard a new trial because state law requires
that new evidence be presented within 30 days after a judgment
is entered. Hathorn's recantation came 11 months too late. [CG:
This is my emphasis. There are no words to express the horror of
this.]
Bush also failed to intercede last year on
behalf of Andrew Cantu, who ended up representing himself after
two lawyers assigned to his case withdrew and a third never even
interviewed the defendant, claiming he didn't know where to find
him. (He apparently didn't try death row.) Cantu was executed
without either state or federal habeas corpus review of his
claims.
In 1997, Bush approved the
execution of David Spence for the grisly stabbing deaths of
three teenagers, despite evidence that Spence may have been
framed by police and the lack of physical evidence linking him
to the crime..."
|
4 |
| CR2-06 |
Civil Rights / Death
Penalty (David Wayne Stoker)
|
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
"...Bush has consistently maintained that
he applies two standards in considering clemency appeals. One is
evidence of innocence, the other whether a condemned prisoner
had full access to the courts or due process..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...in at least two other capital cases profound doubts
about guilt were raised by the defense but virtually ignored by
Gonzales [Bush's legal counsel at that time]. In the case of
David Wayne Stoker, for example, Gonzales devoted just eighteen
sentences to the extraordinarily complex circumstances of the
crime, leaving out essentially all the mitigating evidence and
failing to address a multitude of questions about both the
evidence against Stoker and his due-process rights. Ronnie
Thompson, a key state witness, initially told the police, and
then the court, that Stoker had confessed to a 1986 murder. But
following Stoker's conviction Thompson recanted, explaining that
he'd lied in court because the prosecutor had threatened to
bring a perjury charge against him if he didn't stick to his
original account. Bush should have been told that. During
Stoker's trial, in 1987, Thompson's wife, Debbie, left him to
move in with Carey Todd, the prosecution's chief witness; she
got a piece of the Crime Stoppers reward that Todd received for
naming Stoker. Gonzales failed to mention that drug and weapons
charges against Todd were dropped the very day he testified
against Stoker; and that Todd thus had an apparent motive for
setting him up. Gonzales also failed to mention that a state
investigator, a police officer, and Todd all lied in court about
what Todd received for his testimony; that the jury wasn't told
about Todd's possible motive for framing Stoker; and that James
Grigson, a psychiatrist who testified that Stoker was a
sociopath who would "absolutely" be violent again
(thereby making him eligible for a death sentence), had never
even examined Stoker. Grigson, whose expert testimony has helped
send dozens of men to death row, earning him the nickname Dr.
Death, had been expelled from the American Psychiatric
Association two years before the Stoker case was reviewed by
Gonzales and Bush, because his testimony had repeatedly been
found to be unethical. Another expert medical witness against
Stoker, Ralph Erdmann, had relinquished his medical license in
1994 after pleading no contest to seven felonies tied to
falsified evidence and botched autopsies. A special prosecutor's
investigation of Erdmann concluded that he falsified evidence in
at least thirty cases, and that if "the prosecution theory
was that death was caused by a Martian death ray then that was
what Dr. Erdmann reported." All this information was in the
public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his
memorandum to Bush.
Stephen Latimer, who represented Stoker in his clemency appeal,
told me recently that he received a call from Gonzales's office
about a week to ten days before the execution, advising him that
there would be no reprieve. The timing is significant, because
Gonzales's execution summary is dated June 16, 1997, the day of
Stoker's execution. If that decision had been made a week or
more before Bush even read the summary, it is fair to ask
whether Bush was actually in the loop or—as many
suspected—had simply made clear to both Gonzales and the BPP
that he wasn't interested in commutations..."
|
1 |
| CR2-07 |
Civil Rights / Death
Penalty (Billy Conn Gardner)
|
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
"...Bush has consistently maintained that
he applies two standards in considering clemency appeals. One is
evidence of innocence, the other whether a condemned prisoner
had full access to the courts or due process..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...Consider the case of Billy Conn Gardner, whose
death-penalty case was plagued by issues of incompetent counsel,
dubious witness testimony, and unheard mitigating evidence.
Gonzales's report to Bush gave no sense of these circumstances.
It matter-of-factly described the robbery of a high school
cafeteria in Dallas, during which Gardner, wearing a stocking to
obscure his face, allegedly shot and fatally wounded Thelma Row,
sixty-four, a cafeteria worker. Also in the cafeteria at the
time was Paula Sanders, a co-worker who had told her husband,
Melvin, that several thousand dollars in daily cafeteria
receipts were processed in a back room at the school. Melvin,
who drove the getaway car, claimed that he had persuaded Gardner
to participate.
Paula, who knew Gardner, said that she could provide no
description of the assailant, because her back was turned.
Before Row died, however, she had been able to describe a man
with a "bony face ... and a two-inch goatee." Gonzales
didn't tell Bush that the state was unable to produce a single
witness who recalled ever seeing Gardner with a goatee, or that
two witnesses to the shooting—Carolyn Sims and the school
custodian, Lester Matthews—described a man with reddish-blond
hair, whereas Gardner's hair was black. Matthews nevertheless
positively identified Gardner as the killer, and Gonzales
accepted this testimony at face value—although Matthews didn't
know Gardner, admitted to having seen the killer for only three
or four seconds, and didn't actually identify him until his
third police interview, three months after the crime. Also
missing from Gonzales's memo were the facts that only after
prosecutors threatened to bring other charges against Melvin
Sanders did he finger Gardner as the murderer, and that in
exchange for this testimony Sanders received complete immunity
from prosecution for the murder and probation for pending
forgery and firearms charges. The state also agreed not to
prosecute Paula Sanders.
Gonzales told Bush in his summary that Paula "testified
that she was unaware of the robbery plans"; but he
neglected to mention that she had received several phone calls
only minutes before the robbery and shooting, and that according
to Carolyn Sims (whose name is absent from Gonzales's report),
she appeared "nervous and upset" after taking these
calls. Sims was not deposed until years after the trial, during
Gardner's habeas corpus appeal. More important, Gardner's lawyer
never interviewed Paula Sanders and met with Gardner only once
before jury selection, for fifteen minutes, raising an obvious
suggestion of ineffective counsel—which Gonzales also
dismissed with no discussion.
The case is a disconcerting tangle of speculation and
uncertainty. What Gonzales should have made clear to Bush during
the clemency review is that the case involved many unanswered
and troubling questions. Gardner was put to death on February
16, 1995..."
|
1 |
| CR2-08 |
Civil Rights / Death
Penalty (Carl Johnson, Irineo Tristan Montoya, Bruce Edwin
Callins)
|
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
"...Bush has consistently maintained that
he applies two standards in considering clemency appeals. One is
evidence of innocence, the other whether a condemned prisoner
had full access to the courts or due process..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...the Gonzales memoranda suggest that Gonzales was rarely,
if ever, prompted to delve deeply into the cases he was
reviewing for Bush. In his summary of the case of Carl Johnson,
for example, dated September 18, 1995, the day before Johnson's
execution, Gonzales failed to mention that Johnson's trial
lawyer had literally slept through major portions of the jury
selection. His memo on Irineo Tristan Montoya, dated June 18,
1997, the day of Montoya's execution, omits the single most
important issue in the case: an alleged violation of
international law, which had been brought to Bush's attention
by, among others, the U.S. Department of State. His memo on
Bruce Edwin Callins, dated May 21, 1997, the day of Callins's
execution, fails to note that Callins's appeal to the Supreme
Court generated the most famous death-penalty dissent in the
past quarter century, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a
longtime death-penalty supporter..."
|
3 |
| CR2-09 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty
|
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Salon):
"...Not surprisingly, reporters immediately began wondering
how many erroneous death sentences Bush would abide. Seven men
have been released from Texas' death row in the past dozen
years, including one under Bush, after courts determined that
they had been wrongly condemned...The claim is questionable for
a number of reasons, particularly since Bush has endorsed
efforts that actually increase the likelihood that an innocent
person will be condemned. Bush campaigned for and, once elected,
signed into law an act designed to limit appeals by death-row
inmates and speed up the time between sentencing and execution
from an average of nine years to seven or less. The law would
probably have resulted in the wrongful execution of the seven
men released from the state's death row, had it been in effect
during the previous 12 years, since all seven served more than
seven years on death row before their release...Bush also vetoed legislation, unanimously approved by the
Texas Legislature, that would have made modest improvements in
the quality of attorneys provided to indigent defendants,
despite the fact that the state has, by any objective measure,
one of the worst systems of indigent criminal defense in the
country (only three of the state's 254 counties have full-time
public defender offices).
..Of the $153 million in federal criminal justice grants the
state has received since Bush took office, not one penny has
gone to indigent defense..."
Compassiongate: Bush's words, "I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime" are by themselves very deceptive
compassionate. Someone who commits a crime is by definition
guilty! The point is whether one is sure he or she committed the
crime in the first place.
|
3 |
| CR2-10 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty |
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Salon) via P.L.A.:
"...A major
statistical study released Monday, which examines every death
sentence handed down in the United States between 1973 and 1995
(5,760 sentences and 4,578 appeals), reveals that state and
federal courts found serious, reversible error -- errors that
undermined the reliability of the sentence -- in nearly seven
out of every 10 capital cases (68 percent). Author James S.
Liebman, a Columbia University law professor, concluded that
such rampant error rates, which were found in nearly every state
that handed down a death sentence, put large numbers of people
at risk of wrongful execution. Fully 7 percent of those
individuals whose cases were overturned were found to be not
guilty of the capital crime. In Texas, reversible error was
found in 52 percent of capital cases..."
|
1 |
| CR2-11 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty |
Bush
"...Shortly after Ryan's announcement,
Bush dismissed any consideration of a moratorium on executions
in Texas, insisting he is "confident that every case that
has come across my desk -- I'm confident of the guilt of the
person who committed the crime."
..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...More than anything else, the Tucker case illustrates
how Bush sought to deny responsibility for executions. "I
could not convert Karla Faye Tucker's sentence from death to
life in prison [without the BPP]," Bush stated, citing
Texas law. Gonzales made the same point in a letter to the papal
nuncio in Washington, who before the BPP made its recommendation
had written Bush on behalf of the Pope to solicit clemency for
Tucker: "Ms. Tucker's sentence can only be commuted by the
Governor if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends a
commutation of sentence." Of course, Bush did intervene in
the subsequent Lucas case before hearing from the BPP.
Gonzales did not tell the papal nuncio that even after the BPP
denied clemency the governor could have invoked a thirty-day
reprieve to postpone this or any other execution. Bush didn't
use this power because he had no interest in impeding the BPP,
which was infamous for rubber-stamping executions. In a December
1998 district court hearing on a lawsuit brought by the
death-row inmate Joseph Stanley Faulder (in whose trial a
principal state witness was promised more than $10,000 by the
prosecutor to testify), Judge Sam Sparks concluded, "It is
abundantly clear the Texas clemency procedure is extremely poor
and certainly minimal." Sparks found that "none of the
members" of the BPP read clemency petitions in their
entirety; that "a flip of the coin would be more merciful
than these votes"; and that the board provided no rationale
whatsoever for its clemency recommendations. "There is
nothing," Sparks said during the hearing, "absolutely
nothing that the Board of Pardons and Paroles does where any
member of the public, including the governor, can find out why
they did this."..."
|
1 |
| CR2-12 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty |
Bush
"..."Each case is major, because
each case is life or death." In his autobiography he wrote,
"I review every death penalty case thoroughly" and
added, referring to his legal staff, "For every death
penalty case, they brief me thoroughly, review the arguments
made by the prosecution and the defense, raise any doubts or
problems or questions." Bush always maintained that this
review provided what he called a "fail-safe" method
for ensuring due process and certainty of guilt..."
"..."I don't believe my role is to
replace the verdict of a jury with my own," he wrote in his
autobiography, A Charge to Keep (1999), "unless
there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or
evidence that the trial was somehow unfair."..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two
women were executed in Texas—a record unmatched by any other
governor in modern American history. Each time a person was
sentenced to death, Bush received from his legal counsel a
document summarizing the facts of the case, usually on the
morning of the day scheduled for the execution, and was then
briefed on those facts by his counsel; based on this information
Bush allowed the execution to proceed in all cases but one. The
first fifty-seven of these summaries were prepared by [Alberto]
Gonzales, a Harvard-educated lawyer who went on to become the
Texas secretary of state and a justice on the Texas supreme
court. He is now the White House counsel.
Gonzales never intended his summaries to be made public. Almost
all are marked CONFIDENTIAL...Although the summaries rarely make
a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear
prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals
court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is
no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim.
This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for
clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.
A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that
Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the
most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in
these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the
governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective
counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual
evidence of innocence...
Gonzales's execution summaries belie [Bush's] assurances of
thorough and judicious review. The memoranda seem attuned to a
radically different posture, assumed by Bush from the earliest
days of his administration—one in which he sought to minimize
his sense of legal and moral responsibility for
executions..."
|
1 |
| CR2-13 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty |
Bush
"..."In every case," he wrote
in A Charge to Keep, "I would ask: Is there any
doubt about this individual's guilt or innocence? And, have the
courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in
this case?"..."
Bush
"...Is the person guilty of the crime?
And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I
can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative..."
|
Alan
Berlow (Atlantic Monthly):
"...This is an extraordinarily narrow notion of clemency
review: it seems to leave little, if any, room to consider
mental illness or incompetence, childhood physical or sexual
abuse, remorse, rehabilitation, racial discrimination in jury
selection, the competence of the legal defense, or disparities
in sentences between co-defendants or among defendants convicted
of similar crimes. Neither compassion nor "mercy,"
which the Supreme Court as far back as 1855 saw as central to
the very idea of clemency, is acknowledged as being of any
account.
The record suggests that what Bush described in his
autobiography as "a fair hearing and full access to the
courts" meant in reality nothing more than that a case had
received some sort of legal attention at all state and federal
levels. In the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman
executed in Texas in more than a hundred years, Bush wrote to at
least two constituents that he had refused to grant a reprieve
precisely because "the courts, including the United States
Supreme Court," had "reviewed the legal issues in this
case" and denied all appeals. But clemency is a political
act, not a judicial one. By eliminating "legal issues"
from executive consideration, Bush in effect refused to address
what were often the condemned person's strongest claims. Indeed,
the fact that courts have rejected a defendant's legal claims
arguably places an added burden on a governor—as the
conscience of the state and the literal court of last
resort—to conduct a scrupulous review. This is especially true
in Texas, where more than a third of executions in the United
States since 1976 have occurred; where half of all capital cases
are overturned on appeal because of errors during trial; where
seven innocent men have been freed from death row, including one
under Bush; where, according to The Dallas Morning News,
nearly a quarter of the condemned were represented by attorneys
who had been disciplined for professional misconduct; and where
30 percent of those executed under Bush between his inauguration
in 1995 and June 11, 2000, according to the Chicago Tribune,
were represented by attorneys who presented no mitigating
evidence or only one witness during the sentencing phase of the
trial. Given this environment, Gonzales's neglect of mitigating
evidence in the clemency-review process is highly
problematic..."
|
1 |
| CR2-14 |
Civil Rights/ Death
Penalty |
Bush
"...told reporters that Texas does not
execute the mentally retarded..."
|
Amnesty
International (via Carol
Swinney):
"...Amnesty International...released a letter sent to
Governor George W. Bush yesterday...The
letter calls on him to prevent the execution of a severely
mentally disabled man, due to be carried out in Texas tomorrow
evening...John Paul Penry,
who has an IQ of between 50 and 63 and the mind of a
seven-year-old child, is scheduled for lethal injection in
Huntsville at 18:00 hours local time on 16 November. He was
convicted in 1980 of the 1979 murder of Pamela Moseley
Carpenter...Amnesty
International has reminded Governor Bush that during
presidential campaigning he mistakenly told reporters that Texas
does not execute the mentally retarded, and the letter points
out that several such individuals have been put to death in his
state..."
|
1 |
| CR3-01 |
Texas hate crimes
bill |
Bush
"...about his stance on hate crimes
legislation, saying that Texas had an effective hate crimes law...."
(talking about hate crimes in the context of
crimes against gays)
|
Human
Rights Campaign:
"...Although a weak penalty enhancement statute has been in
place in the state since 1993, the measure does not cover sexual
orientation. Bush opposed legislation introduced in 1998 that
would strengthen existing Texas law and would also cover sexual
orientation..."
"..."Governor Bush owes the American public an
explanation of why he opposes the Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
which he referred to as the Kennedy hate crimes bill," said
HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch. "He is being
completely disingenuous when he says he supports hate crimes
laws. When, in fact, even after being implored by the Byrd
family to support a tougher law in the name of their slain
relative in Texas, Governor Bush callously refused. Further, he
said he opposes the Kennedy bill which has bipartisan support
including strong backing by law enforcement, yet he supports a
version by Senator Hatch that is far weaker and excludes
coverage for sexual orientation."..."
Eric Alterman (MSNBC/WLM
page 172):
"...Bush took credit in the same debate for a hate crimes
bill that, as governor, he opposed..."
|
1 |
| CR3-02 |
Hate
crimes law |
Bush
"...argued
that a stronger hate-crimes law was not needed in Texas because
three men were facing the death penalty for the racially
motivated murder of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death
behind a pickup truck.
“It’s
going to be hard to punish them any worse after they’re put to
death,” Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face.
.."
|
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...But Bush wasn’t telling the truth. One of the three
killers actually had received life imprisonment, not the death
penalty. Bush had misstated or exaggerated the facts of a major
criminal case that had occurred during his tenure as Texas
governor.
One could only imagine how the press would have played up a
similar mistake by Gore. It would have been all the voters would
have heard about for a week..."
|
1 |
| CR4-01 |
Gay
rights |
Bush
"...MR.
LEHRER: Do you believe, in general terms, that gays and lesbians
should have the same rights as other Americans?
GOV. BUSH: Yes. I don't think they ought to have special rights,
but I think they ought to have the same rights..."
|
Jerry
Politex (Bushwatch/Tom Paine):
"...Fact: "Bush has supported a Texas law that
allows the state to take adopted children from gay and lesbian
couples to place the kids with straight couples." Salon,
10/12/00. "Bush supports hate crime protections for other
minorities! So Bush doesn't believe that gays should have the
same "special" rights in this regard as blacks, Jews,
Wiccans and others. Employment discrimination? Again, Bush
supports those rights for other Americans, but not gays.
Military service? Bush again supports the right to military
service for all qualified people--as long as they don't tell
anyone they're gay. Marriage? How on earth is that a special
right when every heterosexual in America already has it? But
again, Bush thinks it should be out-of-bounds for gays. What
else is there? The right to privacy? Nuh-huh. Bush supports a
gays-only sodomy law in his own state that criminalizes
consensual sex in private between two homosexuals. New Republic,
10/13/00..."
|
1 |
HEALTH / SOCIAL
SECURITY / MEDICARE / WELFARE<go back to the top>
Compassion Con credits total = 18
| # |
Topic |
Gov.
Bush or his team's
Compassionate statement |
Some
Uncompassionate Facts |
Compassion
Con Credits |
| HS1-01 |
Social Security |
Bush
(a) "...“The reforms I have in mind
will actually increase [younger workers’] retirement income,”
he said. “Right now, the real return people get from what they
put into Social Security is a dismal 2 percent a year. Over the
long term, sound investments yield about a 6 percent return…A
worker who invests even a limited portion of his or her paycheck
could, over a career, end up with hundreds of thousands of
dollars.”..."
(b) "But the safest of all safe — of
about 4 percent [a reference to government bonds] — is twice
what they get in the Social Security trust today."
|
(a)
Daily
Howler:
"...For the record, Bush’s presentation was built on two
claims; each claim was perfectly accurate. It’s true—an
individual worker might well earn a six percent return
on investments. And a second fact was true as well; the average
worker is expected to receive SS benefits which represent
the equivalent of a two percent return on the payroll taxes he
has paid through his lifetime....Bush...implied that free money
was there to be had if you’d just use them personal accounts.
But why is Social Security so stingy? Why will Murdock’s
couple receive the equivalent of a 2.24 percent return from SS?
Presumably, the country’s budget reporters all knew the
answer: In effect, this is all the program can
afford to pay, because the program has past debts and
responsibilities for which it has to account (CG emphasis).
Under Bush’s plan, personal investments might yield nice
returns—but those outstanding debts would still exist, and
they would have to be paid by the very same citizens who were
getting six percent on investments. That six percent would
dwindle back down when they had to make good on the outstanding
debts. Bush’s “six percent versus two percent” was a
comparison of apples to kumquats (CG emphasis).
Campaign reporters were surely aware of the
problem with Bush’s presentation. In May and June, the point
was discussed three separate times by award-winning economist
Paul Krugman; his columns appeared on the New York Times’
op-ed page, American journalism’s highest-profile bit of real
estate. Krugman explained the point on May
28, then again on May
31. (Krugman: “[L]et me assure you that I too
would have no trouble devising a painless plan to save Social
Security, if you let me assume that a large part of the system’s
obligations would magically disappear.”) The third time
allegedly being the charm, he even explained it again on June
21. (Krugman: “[T]he salesmanship surrounding
George W. Bush’s Social Security plan is all about the
meaningless contrast between the returns that an unburdened
individual can get on investments and the implicit return that a
very-much-burdened Social Security system can offer.”)...For
the record, this basic point was also made in a May 29 New York
Times editorial. Bush’s key comparison was “highly
misleading,” the editorial said; “the [six-versus-two]
advantage that proponents cite on behalf of private accounts is
an optical illusion.”..."
(b) Paul
Krugman (New York Times):
"...In a May 15 speech he asked his listeners to
"consider this simple fact: even if a worker chose only the
safest investment in the world, an inflation-adjusted U.S.
government bond, he or she would receive twice the rate of
return of Social Security." That's an amazing fact; it's
even more amazing when you realize that the Social Security
system invests all its money in, you guessed it, U.S. government
bonds. But the explanation -- which Mr. Bush's advisers
understand very well, even if the governor does not -- is that
today's workers are not only paying for their own retirement,
but also supporting today's retirees. And if you think that's a
minor detail -- that the question of how to meet existing
obligations when workers are allowed to invest their
contributions elsewhere is a side issue -- let me assure you
that I too would have no trouble devising a painless plan to
save Social Security, if you let me assume that a large part of
the system's obligations would magically disappear..."
|
2 |
| HS1-02 |
Social security |
Bush
insisted that his proposed privatization plan
for social security will not cut benefits
|
Paul
Krugman (New York Times):
"...Mr. Bush has proposed with great fanfare a partial
privatization of Social Security, an idea that has its virtues
(and its vices, but never mind that right now). But what is his
plan? All we know is that he proposes to allow individuals to
invest part of the money they currently contribute to Social
Security, which will reduce the inflow of money into the Social
Security system by $1.3 trillion over the next decade — and
that he insists he will not cut benefits.
But if contributions are down, and benefits are not, where does
the money come from? Mr. Bush hasn't said — and he insists
that he has nothing more to say. "My position on Social
Security is where it is," he declared a few days
ago..."
Paul
Krugman (New York Times):
"...I turned instead to a working paper released in June by
Martin Feldstein -- the eminent Harvard economist, former
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to
George W. Bush -- and Andrew Samwick. The paper is a detailed
discussion of how Mr. Bush's proposal to allow individuals to
divert part of their Social Security contributions into personal
retirement accounts might work. I say
"might," because Mr. Bush has not been forthcoming on
specifics. Indeed, the paper contains a disclaimer:
"although the plan described here resembles the proposal of
Governor Bush . . . our analysis is not of the 'Bush plan' since
Governor Bush did not provide enough information with which to
specify a 'Bush plan.' " Whew! I was wondering why I didn't
understand the Bush plan, so it's a relief to know that it's not
my fault: there isn't any plan..."
ASIDE: For a simple explanation of how
and why the social security system is the way it is today, and
why reform is needed, see Paul
Krugman (New York Times) |
1 |
| HS2-01 |
Patients' Bill of
Rights |
Bush
"...Al Gore stated that he supported the
Dingell-Norwood bill, and Bush did not. Here is how Bush
replied:
Actually, Mr. Vice-President, it's not
true, I--I do support a national Patients' Bill of Rights. As a
matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to
do just that in the state of Texas to get a Patients' Bill of
Rights through...."
Bush
"...takes credit for a major HMO reform
in Texas..."
"We're one of the first states that said
you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage."
|
Jake
Tapper (Salon):
"...Problem is, when people talk about a "patients
bill of rights," they mean - as the questioner directly
asked -- "Why aren't the HMO's and insurance companies held
accountable for their decisions?" Allowing patients to sue
their HMOs or insurance companies is the pivotal difference
between Norwood-Dingell and the watered-down GOP leadership
"patients bill of rights" bills that Bush supports. In
Texas, Bush
fought against the right to sue harder than he fought
against almost anything else. One of his first actions just
after being elected governor, during the 1995 legislative
session, was to veto a patients bill of rights offered by a
conservative Republican. To his credit, he then instructed his
insurance commissioner to enact by law several of the
less-controversial provisions of the bill. But when the right to
sue came up again in 1997, with the threat of a veto-proof
majority, Bush let it pass without his signature. So, of course,
Bush opposes Norwood-Dingell..."I referred to the Dingell-Norwood
bill," Gore said. "It's the bipartisan bill now
pending in the Congress...I want to know whether Gov. Bush will
support the Dingell-Norwood bill...Bush again dodged it.
"The difference is I can get it done," Bush
said...Finally, moderator Jim Lehrer stepped in. "What
about the Dingell-Norwood bill?" he asked the governor.
Bush didn't answer the question. Again. And he misrepresented
his record, saying, "People take their HMO insurance
company to court; that's what I've done in Texas and that's the
kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington" while
somehow failing to mention that he fought that provision tooth
and nail..."
Issues2000:
"...To
the very first debate question, Gore said Bush does not support
a strong patient’s bill of rights. Bush said he pushed through
just such a law in Texas. Bush was wrong. He opposed the
legislation.
In 1995 Bush vetoed a patient’s bill of rights, one that
contained many of the provisions that he praised last night:
report cards on health maintenance organizations, liberal
emergency room access, and the elimination of a gag clause
forbidding doctors from telling patients about more costly
treatment options than HMO coverage.
At the time, Bush said these provisions would be too costly to
business. Bush did sign some of the provisions into law two
years later. But he opposed the right to sue HMOs in court, a
right last night he termed “interesting.” But a bipartisan,
veto-proof majority in the Texas Legislature supported the right
to sue. Bush let the provision go into law without his
signature. Source: Boston Globe analysis of St. Louis debate Oct
18, 2000..."
Daily
Howler:
"...ROBINSON AND CROWLEY: Many
political candidates portray themselves as more effective or
courageous than the facts justify and paint their opponents in
the worst possible light. For example,
Bush has made claims about his gubernatorial record that are
open to challenge. To cite one case, Bush takes credit for a
major HMO reform in Texas. In fact, he opposed the bill and it
became law without his signature. And during the New York
primary, Bush's campaign ran an advertisement that falsely
characterized Senator John McCain's record on breast cancer
research. Bush narrowly won the election..."
Jerry
Politex (Bushwatch):
"...Fact: "He did not say that he strongly
considered vetoing the bill that subjected HMOs to malpractice
suits and eventually, facing the prospect of having his veto
overridden, allowed the measure to become law without his
signature." (Kessler, Wash. Post, 10/18/00. KWP below.)..."
Also see: Jonathan
Chait (TNR) |
3
(1 for making Gore look like a liar, and 2 for lying
compassion about his own positions) |
| HS2-02 |
Patients' Bill of
Rights |
Bush
"...blames the absence of a federal
patients' rights law on "a lot of bickering in Washington,
DC,"..."
|
Michael
Kinsley (Dawn/WP):
"...has he noticed that the bickering consists of his own
party, which controls Congress, blocking the legislation?..."
Sally
Kalson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette):
"...The "partisan bickering" he blames for
blocking a national patient's rights law has been done by
members of his own party, which controls Congress..." |
1 |
| HS3-01 |
Prescription drugs in
Medicare |
Bush
"...promises "to have prescription
drugs as an integral part of Medicare,"..."
|
Sally
Kalson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette):
"...when, in fact, his own plan specifically calls for it
NOT to be..."
Eric Alterman
(MSNBC/WLM
page 172):
"...Bushed promised "to
have prescription drugs as an integral part of Medicare,"
when in fact, this is true of the Gore Medicare plan, but not of
the Bush plan..."
|
1 |
| HS4-01 |
Abortion |
Bush
"...In the first presidential debate,
Bush also claimed that he, as president, would not have the
authority to override the Food and Drug Administration’s
approval of the abortion drug RU-486..."
|
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...But
he did not mention that his campaign supported the initiative in
Congress to ban the drug, nor did he indicate that he supports
sending the issue back to the FDA for more research.
He also ducked the issue of what personnel changes he would make
at the FDA and whether those changes would have an impact on the
approval of RU-486. Bush had previously stated that he would
order his FDA appointees to review the decision..."
|
1 |
| HS4-02 |
Abortion |
Bush
"...McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in
the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and
life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do...."
|
Issues2000:
"...McCain: [But you] support
the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe
there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the
mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be
leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what
specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The
platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t
refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is.
This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform. Source:
GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000..."
|
1 |
| HS5-01 |
Texas Healthcare |
Bush
Claimed spending of $4.7 billion
|
Eric Alterman
(MSNBC/WLM
page 172):
"...Bush
overstated health care spending for the poor in Texas, by
insisting it was $4.7 billion, failing to note that a full $3.5
billion of this amount derived not from his government but from
charity care and local institutions..."
|
1 |
| HS5-02 |
Texas Healthcare |
Bush
"...we've signed up
over 110,000 children to the CHIPS program."
"You can quote all the numbers you want," Bush
continued, "but I'm telling you, we care about our people
in Texas . . . and the percentage of the [uninsured] population
is increasing nationally."..."
Bush
"...Said the number of Texans without
health insurance had declined while the number in the United
States had risen...."
|
Maria
L. LaGanga and T. Christian Miller (LA Times/CNN):
"...There, however, the Kaiser report disagreed: "In
1999, the total number of uninsured Americans decreased for the
first time, after steadily increasing for over a decade."..."
Jerry
Politex (Bushwatch/Tom Paine):
"...Fact: " A new Census Bureau report says the
number of uninsured Americans declined last year for the first
time since statistics were kept in 1987. About 42.5 million
people, or 15.5 percent of the population, lacked insurance in
1999, compared with 44.2 million, or 16.3 percent, in 1998, the
agency reported. Texas ranked next-to-last in the nation last
year with 23.3 percent of its residents uninsured. But that was
an improvement from 1998, when it ranked 50th at 24.5
percent." AP, 10/12/00..."
|
1 |
| HS5-03 |
Texas Healthcare |
Bush
"...Our CHIPS (children's health
insurance) program got a late start because our government meets
only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. May
come for a shock for somebody's been in Washington for so long,
but actually limited government can work in the second largest
state in the Union, and therefore Congress passes the bill after
our session in 1970 --'97 ended. We passed the enabling
legislation in '99."..."
|
Jerry
Politex (Bushwatch):
"...Fact: Texas governors can call special sessions
of the legislature to pass specific legislation at any time.
Bush could have done so with CHIPS. "But more important is
that Bush could have gotten CHIP sign-ups under way without the
Legislature. As governor, Bush could have drawn up plans for
enrolling kids, lined up providers and filed an amendment to
Texas' Medicaid Plan with the Health Care Finance
Administration, which handles Medicaid and CHIP nationally. With
HCFA's approval, he could have started enrollment at once.
Instead he waited for the Legislature to convene in January
1999. Then, Bush failed to exercise another gubernatorial option
to speed things up. CHIP would have been among the first things
considered by the Legislature had he declared it "an
emergency," as he did with his tax cut for oil producers.
Instead, Bush sparred with legislators about how much a family
could earn for their kids to qualify for the program. His first
proposal was to make CHIP available to families whose earnings
are between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level.
Those whose earnings are at or below the poverty level
supposedly qualify for Medicaid, but Texas' record in enrolling
those eligible has been so bad federal courts have twice ordered
the state to clean up its act. When even the Republican
legislators balked at Bush's miserly eligibility proposal, he
raised it to 150 percent, which would have made about 280,000
kids CHIP-eligible. It was well into the 1999 Legislature that
the 200 percent of the poverty level eligibility was approved,
which expanded the number of eligible kids to 500,000.Now that
it is a national embarrassment, state officials are rushing to
sign them up, but at last count, only 100,000 kids have
CHIP.Bush could have started signing up poor kids 15 months
earlier." San Antonio Express News, 10/15/00..."
Also see Joshua
Green (The American Prospect)
|
1 |
| HS5-04 |
Texas Healthcare |
Bush (Texas
budget)
"...[his] budget assumed Texas would
receive the same rate of federal matching funds for the entire
two-year period of the budget...budget merely assumed a lower
rate of decline [of welfare caseloads for women and
children]..."
|
Jason
Zengerle (The New Republic):
"...On Medicaid, Bush was more than shortsighted; he was
deceitful. Some of Texas's spiraling Medicaid costs were
entirely foreseeable, but, rather than address them, Bush's
budget concealed them under cost projections that were
optimistic to the point of dishonesty. For starters, the budget
assumed Texas would receive the same rate of federal matching
funds for the entire two-year period of the budget. But match
rates are based on average per capita income relative to the
rest of the country, and Texas was outpacing many other states
in economic performance. As a result, its match rate had been
declining for years and was likely to continue to--which it did.
Then there were Medicaid caseload reductions. After the federal
government's 1996 welfare reform bill, Texas, like many other
states, experienced a steep decline in caseloads for women and
children. But by 1999 that decline had stopped, and caseloads
were actually growing. They were likely to grow even faster over
the next two years since the legislature had enacted several
Medicaid outreach efforts. But, instead of projecting the
increased caseloads that inevitably followed, the state's budget
merely assumed a lower rate of decline..."
|
2 |
| HS6-01 |
Hunger in Texas |
Bush
"...said he didn't know of anyone going
hungry in Texas..."
|
Daily
Howler:
"...had the authors considered
another recent incident involving Bush, for example? We quote Al
Hunt on May 4:
HUNT: An Agriculture Department report
found that Texas, more than most states, is plagued by hunger.
13% of Texans are unable to get basic food needs and 5% suffer
from hunger. Mr. Bush said he didn't know of anyone going hungry
in Texas. "You'd think the governor would have heard if
there were pockets of poverty in Texas." He neglected to
mention that several years earlier he vetoed a bill that would
have collected data on hunger in the state...."
|
2 |
| HS7-01 |
Funds for aiding poor
children in Texas |
Bush
(see comments on the right)
|
Daily
Howler:
"...GORE (video
clip): This week, as Governor Bush was traveling from photo-op
to photo-op, trying to put the compassion into his conservatism,
we learned that he failed to use tens of millions of dollars
budgeted to feed poor and hungry children during the summer
months.
"True?" Donaldson asked.
"You failed to use $33 million in federal aid to feed over
1 million Texas school children?" Sam's
question was about as clear as mud. Here was the governor's
answer:
BUSH: You know, if you look at
the July numbers as opposed to the June numbers, the July
record, you'll find that we're higher than the national average
when it comes to signing up poor children for the summer food
program. Now, the vice president likes to spend a lot of time
attacking me and my record. He talks about me; he talks about
what I want to do. And I'm talking about what I want to do and
my agenda. And that's the way I like it.
DONALDSON: So you're saying it's a one-month disparity in the
numbers, that's the only thing?
BUSH: I'm saying if that's not the issue, he'll try to tear down
my record in Texas. But the amazing thing is, is that if it were
so bad, why have the people of Texas re-elected me to become the
governor? I'm the first governor to ever be elected to
back-to-back four-year terms.
That was the end of the topic. No
one made Sam ask the question. But what was the point of asking
the question if that discussion was going to suffice? No one
watching had the slightest idea what Sam had really been asking
about. No one watching could possibly know whether Bush had
given a good answer..."
|
1 |
ENVIRONMENT /
ENERGY <go back to the top>
Compassion Con credits total = 12
| # |
Topic |
Gov.
Bush or his team's
Compassionate statement |
Some
Uncompassionate Facts |
Compassion
Con Credits |
| EE1-01 |
Global warming |
Bush
"I believe there is global warming"
|
Daily
Howler:
"...PIERCE (5/21): Texas Gov. George
W. Bush has changed his tune on a key environmental issue,
saying he no longer believes there’s any question that the
globe is warming, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.
Apparently,
you now have to read the Fort Worth press to get the
political coverage! Pierce continued:
PIERCE: “I believe there is global warming,” [Bush] said at
a news conference last week. Mr. Bush had said just a few weeks
ago that the “science is still out” on global warming. The
governor, who is leading a crowded field of GOP presidential
candidates, said his team of advisers had changed his
mind.
But by June 14, according to Snow and Liasson, he had changed
his mind again. He had changed his view in the middle of May;
then had switched it again weeks later..."
|
1 |
| EE1-02 |
Kyoto protocol on
global warming |
Bush
"...said,
“I’ll tell you one thing I’m not going to do is I’m not
going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up
the world’s air, like the Kyoto Treaty would have done. China
and India were exempted from that treaty.”
..."
|
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...In fact, China and India were not exempted from the
treaty. They weren’t subjected to the same requirements as the
developed world, but they committed themselves to reducing
emissions and China appears to have stopped its emissions
growth. Per person, China and India already have pollution rates
that are fractions of the pollution caused by the United States.
.."
|
1 |
| EE2-01 |
Texas pollution control |
Bush
"...“We need to
make sure that if we decontrol our plants that there's mandatory
-- that the plants must conform to clean air standards, the
grand-fathered plants. That's what we did in Texas. No excuses.
I mean, you must conform.”
..."
|
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...Just
minutes later, he had shifted toward what sounded like a
voluntary program. “Well, I -- I -- I don't believe in
command-and-control out of Washington, D.C. I believe Washington
ought to set standards, but I don't -- again, I think we ought
to be collaborative at the local levels. And I think we ought to
work with people at the local levels.”
Beyond the question of coherence, Bush’s statements seemed
contradictory. Either the national government sets standards
with compliance required or local governments can be allowed to
set their own environmental rules, possibly in cooperation with
business. Bush seemed to be having it both ways.
In Texas, Bush’s record suggests that he opposes mandatory
standards even at the local and state levels. Bush cites as his
most significant environmental accomplishment the setting of new
rules for grand-fathered industrial plants, previously exempt
from Texas clean air laws – what he apparently was referring
to in his debate remarks.
But those plants were asked only to voluntarily comply with the
clean air rules. The 1997 law carried no penalties for
industries that didn’t seek a permit under the law. It is the
kind of standard that polluting industries would salivate over
at the national level.
As it turned out, Bush’s administration had drafted the new
rules in close collaboration with representatives of the
industries being regulated. The role of industry representatives
was discovered in confidential memos obtained by the Sustainable
Energy and Economic Development Coalition under the state’s
Freedom of Information Act. [Sierra Magazine, Nov.-Dec.
1999]
...Other Bush comments have raised questions about his
commitment to solving pollution problems in Texas and
nationally. “I do not believe you can sue your way or regulate
your way to clean air and clean water,” Bush told the Dallas
Morning News [Dec. 1, 1999]
..."
|
1 |
| EE2-02 |
Texas pollution control |
Bush
"The electric decontrol bill that I
fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission
standards."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...MISLEADING: In fact, Governor Bush initially opposed
any mandatory cleanup of 68 grand fathered power plants in S.B.
7. His position changed after the US EPA Region 6 letter of May
3, 1999 informing Texas that $1.3 billion in federal highway
funds could be withheld as a sanction due to noncompliance with
ozone health standards in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Bush
finally agreed to support these mandatory reductions under
pressure from Dallas-Ft. Worth elected officials such as State
Rep. Steve Wohlens, who chaired the House Committee with
jurisdiction over electric utility deregulation under SB 7..."
|
1 |
| EE2-03 |
Texas pollution control |
Bush
"...“Bush addressed emissions from
grandfathered sources,” said a spokesperson. “At Bush’s
urging, more than 100 plants pledged to reduce emissions..."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...However, "only 33 of the 160
biggest industrial plants have volunteered. Of those 33, only
three have taken steps to cut their emissions. Questioned about
this during his interview with Time, Bush became
irritated." -Time, February 21, 2000
"More than a third of Texas' industrial air pollution comes
from so-called grandfathered power plants and other facilities
exempt from state controls since 1971. Mr. Bush has resisted
efforts to force cutbacks on these facilities. But more than two
years ago, he won commitments from dozens of companies to curb
pollution voluntarily...So far, little of the promised
improvement has materialized. In 28 months, grandfathered
emissions have dropped only about 2.4 percent, state records
show." -Dallas Morning News, May 26, 2000..."
|
1 |
| EE2-04 |
Texas pollution control |
Bush
USA
Today: "...''Our state is a state, like Pennsylvania,
that didn't wait for Al Gore to wave his magic wand to clean up
our environment,'' the Texas governor told reporters after
speaking at the US Gypsum plant in suburban Pittsburgh. ''We
cleaned it up ourself (sic), and our state's the better for it.''..."
|
Compassiongate:
What Gov. Bush said could have been technically true in one
aspect -
USA
Today:
"...Since Bush signed legislation in 1995, some 451
brownfield sites in Texas have been cleaned, adding $200 million
to local property tax rolls..."
However, note:
Sam
Parry (Consortium News):
"...During his nearly six years in the governor’s
mansion, George W. has presided over what widely regarded as the
most polluted state in the country. It ranks first in the amount
of cancer-causing chemicals pumped annually into the air and
water, first in the number of hazardous-waste incinerators,
first in the total toxic releases to the environment, and first
in carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from industry. [See
“The Polluters’ President,” by Ken Silverstein, Sierra
Magazine, Nov/Dec 1999.]..."
|
1 |
| EE2-05 |
Texas pollution control |
McClellan
for Bush
"..."Texas
leads the nation in reducing toxics by 44 percent in the last
decade. Governor Bush was the first governor in Texas history to
say to older, grandfathered unpermitted plants: It's time to
clean up." -- Scott McClellan, Bush Campaign Spokesman
Fort-Worth Star-Telegram, October 20, 1999..."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...FACT: Texas has reduced toxic
chemicals emissions at about the same rate as the national
average due to the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990.(18) As the
Dallas Morning News said, "[Bush's] irrefutable claim that
toxic emissions are down owes to measures the federal government
put in place before he became governor."(19) Yet,
despite the benefits the Clean Air Act has had on Texas, Bush's
appointees have attempted to weaken the law. According to the
Boston Globe, "[E]ven as the administration of Governor
George W. Bush talks about tough actions, Texas lobbyists are
trying to seriously weaken one of the US Environmental
Protection Agency's strongest tools to prod states to clear the
air: the power to stop highway construction in polluted
areas."(20)..."
|
1 |
| EE2-06 |
Texas pollution control |
Bush
"...posed for TV
cameras and talked about "balancing the benefits of
wildlife and the environment with a common-sense
realization" that development is going to happen..."All
of our prosperity means nothing if we leave future generations
with land that is contaminated," Bush told the
reporters..."
|
Robert
Bryce (Salon):
"...Houston,
a city that has just earned the notorious distinction of having
the dirtiest air in America...the two photo ops won't
change his legacy. During his tenure, air quality in the state's
metropolitan areas has deteriorated, and during the last
legislative session, Bush invited industry lobbyists to write
environmental cleanup legislation, a move that outraged state
environmentalists who say the legislation is riddled with
loopholes. Bush's environmental record certainly offers a
contrast to the record and rhetoric of his father...During his
time in Austin, Bush backed a law that gives immunity -- and a
pledge of secrecy -- to industrial polluters if they voluntarily
inform state regulators that they have violated Texas' pollution
laws. And finally, while his fellow Republican governors are
backing dramatic increases in spending on parks and recreation
facilities, Bush has opposed new park acquisition at a time when
the state's park system is woefully underfunded and
overcrowded....
|
1 |
| EE2-07 |
Texas
pollution/ air cleanliness |
Bush
"We're [sic]
reduced our industrial waste by 11 percent."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...FALSE: First, Gov. Bush is probably referring to the
oft-stated assertion that air pollution in Texas has declined by
11 percent. This assertion is incorrect. It is based on a Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) calculation
that emissions of six criteria air pollutants from industry fell
by 11% during the last five years. EPA statistics dispute this
number, instead showing a net increase in emissions of these six
criteria pollutants. The TNRCC statistics are misleading because
large amounts of the claimed reductions are simply a change in
reporting methodology for NOx emissions -- giving the appearance
of reductions of almost 100,000 tons, which are reductions on
paper only. In fact, emissions of NOx, the key ozone smog
precursor emitted by industry, has increased during the last
five years..."
|
1 |
| EE2-08 |
Texas
air cleanliness |
Bush
"...when he was
asked recently to name his biggest environmental achievement,
Bush quickly answered, "The air is cleaner." He
continued, "I think you have to ask the question is the air
cleaner since I became the governor. And the answer is
yes."..."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...TEXAS IS AMERICA'S MOST POLLUTED STATE In 1999, Houston
overtook Los Angeles as America's smoggiest city. Texas ranks
first in toxic releases to the environment, first in total toxic
air emissions from industrial facilities, first in toxic
chemical accidents, and first in cancer-causing pollution.(1)...
Under Gov. Bush, Texas's air has gotten dirtier, not cleaner.
For the majority of Texans, air quality has substantially
diminished under the Bush Administration. Two-thirds of Texans--
12 million people-- live in the state's top eight urban areas.
From 1990-94, they suffered 508 eight-hour ozone violations,
from 1995-99 under Bush, this jumped to 679 violations, a 34%
increase.(9)
In 1999 this pollution led to Houston passing Los Angeles to
claim the dubious title as the nation's smoggiest city. And it's
not just the number of days -- it's also the intensity. On
Houston's smoggiest day, the air was nearly 50 percent dirtier
than the air on Los Angeles's smoggiest day.(10) In addition, a
1999 City of Houston study shows that air pollution alone may
have caused at least 435 premature deaths and as many as 1,196
new cases of chronic bronchitis annually.(11)
Bush inherited a solution, yet he exacerbated the problem. The
Houston Chronicle reports that from 1987 through 1994,
"despite continuing population and economic growth,"
the air in Houston became cleaner due to "the introduction
of new pollution controls." However, since 1994, when Bush
was elected governor, the number of smoggy days has increased by
20 percent.(12)
In 1999, Texas suffered seven of the nation's 10 highest
one-hour ozone levels, and 15 of the top 30.(13)..."
|
1 |
| EE3-01 |
Internet
Energy consumption |
Bush
"...on Sept. 29,
the Republican presidential nominee said, “Today, the
equipment needed to power the Internet consumes 8 percent of all
the electricity produced in the United States.” Bush cited
this fast-growing energy demand as a justification for drilling
in new oil fields, including Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve, and for increased burning of coal..."
|
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...What
Bush did not explain – and what the press did not deign to
find out – was that Bush’s claim about the Internet’s
energy use came from a study commissioned by a coal-industry
group that endorses the view that more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is good – not bad – for the earth. Also
not mentioned by Bush was that the coal industry’s Internet
study concluded that the United States must undertake a $1
trillion investment in new power plants to meet energy demands
supposedly created by the Internet and other new technologies.
Though Bush cited the 8
percent figure as fact, the estimate is vigorously challenged by
many energy experts as a wild exaggeration of the Internet’s
energy requirements and as a gross distortion of the underlying
reality that the high-tech New Economy has achieved significant
net savings in energy use...
In terms of science, many energy experts sharply dispute Bush's
claim that the Internet uses 8 percent of the nation’s
electricity and his suggestion that new technology is adding
pressure to the nation’s electrical grid. Analysts for the
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs and the Center for Energy and
Climate Solutions calculate the Internet is drawing about 1
percent of U.S. electricity, while helping to achieve an
historic shift toward energy conservation for the country...For
instance, in the immediate "pre-Internet era" of
1993-1996, the U.S. GDP grew an average of 3.2 percent per year,
while electricity demand grew 2.9 percent per year, a ratio of
1.1 to 1. In contrast, the "Internet era" of 1997-2000
has averaged 4.2 percent economic growth per year while
averaging 2.2 percent annual growth in electricity demand, a
ratio of 1.9 to 1..."
|
1 |
| EE4-01 |
Texas
water cleanliness |
Bush
"...Defending his
own record in Texas, Bush also asserted that “our water is
cleaner now.”..."
|
Sierra
Club:
"...Water Pollution Industrial toxic
pollution discharged into surface waters jumped nearly 20
percent, to approximately 25 million pounds in the most recent
Toxics Release Inventory for 1998. -1998 TRI (most recent),
Environmental Protection Agency, released May 11, 2000
Texas leads the nation in the number of facilities that violate
clean water standards. A February 2000 report by the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group based on EPA data found Texas had the
most major facilities in "significant noncompliance"
with pollution discharge limits in their permits. Between Oct.
1997 and Dec. 1998, 178 facilities were in significant
noncompliance, compared to 141 facilities in 2nd-ranked Florida.
- "Poisoning Our Water: How the Government Permits
Pollution," US PIRG, February 2000..."
Sam
Parry, Consortium News:
"...False again, the Sierra Club said. “The discharge of
industrial toxic pollution into surface waters in Texas
increased from 23.2 million pounds in 1995 to 25.2 million
pounds in 1998, the last year with data available,” a Sierra
Club press release said. The air quality is arguably the
darkest blot on Texas’s environmental record. A majority of
Texans live in areas that either flunk federal ozone standards
or are in danger of flunking, a shocking statistic in a state of
nearly 20 million people. Houston, the nation's oil- and
petrochemical-industry headquarters, has been called an
ecological disaster zone. Chemical spills slick its coastal
waters and its air quality has just earned the dubious honor of
being the most polluted in the country, eclipsing Los Angeles
last year..."
Sam
Parry (Consortium News):
"...Water quality in Texas isn’t
any better. More than 4,400 miles of Texas rivers, roughly
one-third of Texas’s waterways, don’t meet basic federal
standards set for recreational and other uses. They are
unswimmable, unfishable, and, for the most part, undrinkable. Despite
this abysmal record, the state has cut water-testing programs to
the bare bones. Between 1985 and 1997, the number of stations
monitoring for pesticides in Texas waterways fell from 27 to
two. The lack of attention given to these problems is further
evidenced by the fact that the state of Texas ranks 49th
in spending on environmental clean up. [Sierra Magazine,
Nov/Dec 1999]..."
|
1 |
1. Now
some of you might wonder where this University is located - so, it is
appropriate to make it clear right here that this is not a real University - it
is only a hypothetical institute of lower higher learning.
2. I sometimes prefer to truncate the
words Compassionate Conservative to Compassion Con. There is no intent
here to imply anything significant by this (at least anything more than
is commonly understood). I reserve all moral clarity rights to the use
of this term. One Compassion Con credit is assigned to every instance of
compassion (i.e., misleading, deceptive or inaccurate statement or
outright lie/mendacity).
3.
Note that Compassionate statements made by Mr. Bush's spokespersons,
advisers or appointees - speaking clearly on behalf of Mr. Bush - are
considered as being supported by Mr. Bush, absent a public statement to
the contrary.
|
