Here's an article for ya!
Here is a great article by Molly Ivins.
> -------
>
>
>
> Molly Ivins
> Updated: Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2000 at 20:05 CDT
> Governor, that nose is reeallly growing
>
>
> WASHINGTON -- As they used to say, long ago and far away, there it is.
>
> Tuesday night's debate gave us the real Al Gore and the real George W.
Bush.
> Gore won -- he may even have killed -- but he's still annoying. One can
only
> conclude that that smarmy, pietistic streak of his is absolutely
authentic;
> that's exactly who he really is.
>
> He's sharp as a razor, knows his onions (does anyone else outside of
> Congress know what "Dingell-Norwood" is?) and will probably be a good
> president. Bush not only amply demonstrated his vast ignorance but also
was
> so profoundly
> misleading on his supposed role in the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights that
I
> have to conclude he knowingly lied.
>
> It's possible to not know or be confused about a lot of things, but Bush
> cannot possibly believe what he said: "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." He was there, I was there, and
> that's flat untrue. He reviewed the details of the bill accurately, so it
> was
> clear that he had recently prepped on the subject.
>
> To add insult to injury, Bush went on to claim: "But we did something else
> that was interesting. We're one of the first (actually, the first) states
> that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage."
>
> What is called the Patients' Bill of Rights was actually a package of
bills,
> only one of which was ever controversial. That's the bill Bush hated so
much
> that he refused to sign it. He had to be talked out of vetoing it because
> the veto wouldn't stand.
>
> Texas Rep. Hugo Berlanga, who was chairman of the Public Health Committee
at
> the time, and Kim Ross, lobbyist for the Texas Medical Association, both
> fought him on it.
>
> In 1995, his first year as governor, the Texas Legislature passed a
> Patients' Bill of Rights, and George W. Bush vetoed it. In 1997, the
> Legislature passed very much the same Patients' Bill of Rights, this time
by
> a veto-proof majority, and Bush refused to sign the crucial segment of the
> bill, the very
> one he bragged about -- that in Texas you can sue an HMO for denying you
> coverage.
>
> He refused to sign it because he hates trial lawyers and didn't want them
to
> be able to sue HMOs. That's what that whole fight was about for two
> sessions.
>
> The person who deserves the credit that Bush so egregiously took for
> bringing R's and D's together in support of a strong bill is a Republican
> state senator, David Sibley of Waco. Bush was an impediment throughout the
> entire process.
>
> No one expects Bush to know the difference between Chernomyrdin and
> Berezovsky, but the one subject that he `is' supposed to know about is the
> state of Texas. In the course of these debates, he has claimed that the
> governor of Texas appoints state Supreme Court justices, which is a
hopeless
> howler. He dwelled with great relish on the claim that all three killers
in
> the most notorious murder case of our time got the death penalty. Only two
> of them did. And Bush in fact did nothing to stop a hate crimes bill,
which
> was
> the Legislature's effort to bring something good out of that case, from
> stalling. And now he claims that he passed the Patients' Bill of Rights,
> which in fact was passed in spite of him.
>
> If Al Gore had twisted the truth as grossly as Bush did on the Patients'
> Bill of Rights, every Republican in America would be screaming liar, liar,
> liar.
>
> It is harder to tell if Bush actually believes his repeated claim that he
is
> a leader who brings Republicans and Democrats together. Can he possibly
> think that he, rather than the since-deceased Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, was
> running the state? I'm not sure which would be more troubling -- if he
knows
> it's not
> true or if he actually thinks it is.
>
> I have tried repeatedly to explain to non-Texans just how weak an office
the
> governorship of Texas is, but even if Bush suffers from the illusion that
he
> has a powerful job, he must know he doesn't work at it by anyone's
measure.
> `The New York Times' has just discovered, with an air of great wonder,
that
> Bush doesn't even work 9 to 5 and that he knocks off work every day for a
> couple of hours to jog and play video games.
>
> This does not come as news to Texans. Our governors have varied on how
much
> attention they pay to the job. Some have been compulsive workers -- John
> Connally, Mark White and Ann Richards all come to mind as full-time
> governors, putting in killer hours most of the time. Bill Clements, too,
> worked more than Bush does.
>
> On the other hand, Dolph Briscoe spent most of his governorship on his
> ranch, and they've all knocked off work to go dove hunting.
>
> I have thought since he first ran that George W. Bush was too light to be
> governor of Texas. Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would consider him
> for president. He's not smart, he doesn't know much and he doesn't work
> hard.
>
> The truth is, he is not terribly interested in government or how it works.
> Damned if I know why he's running. He is a nice fellow. I've always liked
> him. I like lots of people who I don't think should be president.
>
>
>
> Molly Ivins is a columnist for the `Star-Telegram.' You can reach her at
> 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701; (512) 476-8908; or send
> comments
> to mollyivins@star-telegram.com |
