Wait a minute!

 Bill Bennett and Rush and the Republicans keep telling us that Smirk's
 drunk-driving is, "no big thing," and would have "no effect" on the campaign.

 But,

 that's not how the Bush campaign saw it.

 They saw it as something to remain hidden.
 They saw it as something to cover up.
 They saw it as something to deny.

 If Smirk's drunk-driving is, "no big thing," and would have "no effect,"
 why was it kept hidden until the Democrats found out about it?

 So, the Bush campaign people think a drunk-driving conviction is something
 that's just too hot to take a chance on coming clean with,

 but

 ...Bennett and Pigboy say it's "no big thing."

 Which of them is lying?

 Outrage of the Campaign

 On Capitol Gang,
 Margaret, Bob, Kato and Al had some outrages of the presidential campaigns:

 Click  Here  to hear Margaret Carlson
  Well put, Margaret. Truer words have never been spoken about Smirk.

 Click  Here  to hear Al Hunt
  Al has a theory why the press is rolling over for Smirk

 Click  Here  to hear Bob Novak being an idiot.
 Bob, I know less about economics than anybody besides Smirk,
 but why do you guys keep harping about JFK being a tax-cutter?
 The top marginal tax rate was cut from a war-time 60-plus percent
 down to a peacetime rate in the 30's.  That's common sense.

 What's not common sense is the wacky Smirk is promising to protect Social Security,
 and Medicare, leave no child behind, inprove education, lower crime, rebuild the military
 and give out the mother of all tax cuts - while balancing the budget.

 Oh, that's right.
 Gore is a big liar - now I remember.
 

 Click  Here  to hear Kato Burn being an idiot.

 By the way, they each made predictions tonight,
 which is an insult to all who watched.

 As I've been whining for years, there's no accountability on these shows.
 The closest we get is Brill's ranking pundits against Chippy the Chimp.

 I'm insulted that Carlson, Hunt and Shields predict a Gore victory
 and Novak and Burn predict a Smirk victory.

 Carlson, Hunt and Shields predicted big gains for Democrats,
 Novak and Burn predicted tiny Democratic gains or even losses.

 If you believe that's what they really think,
 you probably think the House managers had a conscience, too.

 Both sides are spouting off about how each side has "big mo,"
 and was going to "surprise a lot of people" on election day, which is
 horseshit  cheerleading, not credible reporting by professionals.

 The outrage is the credibility deficit.
 They should be made to go on TV the day after the election and sit there
 and squirm in front of the live cameras while their predictions play on tape,
 then have them explain why they were so many miles from the truth.

 "I'm a real moron - I'm too goddamned stupid to be on TV,"
  or
 "I'm a whore. I was paid to lie on Capitol Gang by Mr Scaife."

 Since they NEVER have to be accountable, the libs vote Gore
 and the cons vote Smirk and we haven't learned a damn thing
 because nobody on the panel told the truth.

 If they did it my way, and they had to sit thru the humiliation of their
 outrageously-impossible predictions, maybe there'd be more truth telling.
 

 ...I guess we deserve the yammering whores.

 Question for Smirk

 Smirk, when you were president of the Texas Rangers,
 when you applied for permission to sell beer at the stadium,
 did the state of Texas know you'd been convicted of a crime?

 In Oklahoma, where I've held several beer and liquor licenses,
 you have to disclose any and all drug and alcohol convictions
 to have a chance at being granted a beer or liquor sales permit.

 Either Texas doesn't require a clean criminal record to sell liquor,
 or Smirk lied on the application.

 Which is it?

 The whore press won't ask these questions,
 and  bartcop.com  doesn't have the resources
 so it looks like Smirk will get away with this one, too

 From: jeffbobeck@wizard.com

 Subject: Rush

 You sound pretty darn hateful and intolerant to me.
 Is the first amendment only for people with your viewpoint?
 

 Of course.
 My opinion is the only opinion that's important.
 I am smarter and better than everyone.
 I know everything.

 Today is November 4th

 Does that date mean anything to you?
 That's the day Bush's trading partners Hezzbollah stormed
 our embassy in Iran and took our diplomatic people as hostages.

 Imagine what it must be like to be held handcuffed and blindfolded
 in a wild-ass, religiously-insane country like Iran.

 And then when you finally get free, you come home and find out
 America elected some idiot actor as president, and this son of a bitch made
 a secret deal with your kidnappers to keep you blindfolded and handcuffed
 for an extra hundred days so President Carter would appear weak.

 A couple of years later, you find out the president sent your kidnappers
 two planeloads of deadly Stinger missles and testified that he didn't remember.

 You know what the ultinate irony is?
 I'll bet the majority of those former hostages will vote for Smirk.

Click on my smug ass

 Behind the smear campaign against Gore

 Excerpt:
 The BBC cameras catch him on the phone exulting to a colleague: "You know what
 this would be perfect for is... Get one of these *AP reporters or somebody on it
 for the next few days and then we get a lie out of it... and roll a few days with a new lie!"

 And "LIE" was what they got. The New York Post trumpets "LIAR LIAR"
 on its front page — and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore's
 perceived chronic character flaw. And so it has gone every week since the debates.
 The image is enshrined.

 Did it matter that that Gore has in fact visited Texan fire sites (but with another FEMA executive)?
 Did it matter that he had made other visits to Texas with James Lee Witt? Were Gore's words a
 misstatement or a lie? What would have been the benefit in intentionally lying about such a trivial fact?
 Was it important either way?

 Click  Here to read the online version

 Click  Here  to read the forever version

 *They must mean that whore Russert

 Bird, this is that pardon you weren't sure existed...

 The crooked bastard (Bush Sr.) pardoned these men on Christmas Eve
 hoping everyone would be too distracted by Christmas to notice.

 See how the pardon prevented the trial?
 [This was before the New York Times became a crack whore.]

 Check the column on the right - it was Bush's Diary.
 Bush claimed he couldn't find the diary alllllllllllllll thru the investigation.
 (The diary proved he was in the room when the crimes were committed.
   Bush claimed he was "out of the loop," and the diary couldn't be located.)

 Do you know where it was finally found?
 In his lawyer's safe.

 Right under "Bush's Diary," is the sub headline,
 "Six-year inquiry into deal of arms for hostages all but swept away,"
 showing the damage the pardon did to finding out what crimes were committed.

 And you guys screamed, "The flag is falling," when Clinton got a blowjob?
 That's horseshit!
 You see how phoney and fake all that impeachment crap was?

 Reagan and Bush committed real crimes.

 They sold federal property to Iran and spent the proceeds of the sale.
 They also conspired to lie under oath, which they all did, forcing Bush
 to issue the pardons to prevent Weinburger from telling the truth at his trial.

 ...and you think Clinton has the most unethical administration in history?

 Rush has done well with you.

 This Just In...

 On the O'Reilly Factor tonight, Bill Bennett was seriously injured while bending
 over backwards to explain why drunk-driving isn't all that serious of a thing, and,
 even if it was a serious thing, politicans "deserve a zone of privacy"

 The lying whore-bastard is not expected to recover.

 True Smirk Quotes
  Swear to Koresh

 "The Democrats want the federal government controlling
   the Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
         --Smirk the Nut, St Charles Missouri, Nov 1
 

 I can't believe people might actually vote for this walking SNL parody.

 Read the  Previous Issue
 It was the best issue ever.
 

 Go Home to  bartcop.com