The Starr Report, Aug. 15, 1999: Bush Family Values

By Linda L. Starr

After the Los Angeles shooting fiasco George Dubya Bush was most curiously silent. Many of us wondered publicly why he would fail to seize the opportunity to comment on a horrendous racial hatred crime.

Then someone pointed out the Salon article titled Guns and Money of August 11, 1999 in which we discover that "The owner of the firm that made the assault rifle used in the LA shooting was, until recently, a key George W. Bush fund-raiser. "

Awww, now we understand, no hypocrisy here. If George Dubya will accept funds from weapons that kill people, (but he shares no responsibility for the deaths of murder victims from guns,) then his newest nickname of Governor Death for turning Texas into the execution capitol of the world aptly applies and for more reasons than never once commuting or staying any death sentence.

And let us not forget about FuneralGate, where there seem to be some curious coincidences in campaign contributions to George Dubya and preferential treatment in investigating Service Corporation International (SCI), one of the largest funeral home businesses, for allegedly employing unlicensed embalmers in its Dallas facilities.

Considering the family background of alleged money laundering schemes for Nazis, it's no small wonder there seem to be continuing ties of Bush family campaign contributors to alleged Nazi groups. It seems as long as the proper Bush results are produced, it matters not how the process evolved. George Dubya told James Barnes of the National Journal, "I'm a decisive person who doesn't read treatises, I'm not interested in process. I want the results. If the process doesn't yield the right results, change the process." All very interesting and heartwarming to holocaust victims I'm sure, not to mention the rest of us.

Then we come to another article by Tucker Carlson, who interviewed George Dubya, in the maiden issue of Talk magazine. And I quote the article "Carlson reports asking Bush whether he met with any persons who came to Texas to protest the execution of the murderer Karla Faye Tucker. Bush said no, adding: 'I watched [Larry King's] interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like '"What would you say to Governor Bush?"'" Carlson asked, "What was her answer?" and writes: "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'" And this is the person the GOP would crown KING if they had their way in this country!!!

I can't decide if I'm more disgusted by the attitude or gladdened by the open way in which George Dubya is revealing his true sentiments. Part of me wants to run to throw up somewhere and the other part of me wants to wave his comments like a screaming fire alarm to the world of what the GOP would heap on this country again by its chosen candidate.

Oh yes, it is so enlightening to read about the Bush family values. Do any of you remember this back during the Silverado Savings and Loan Scandal (Neil Bush) while Bush Daddy was president? "Jeb Bush, now Florida governor: U.S. repaid loan to finance building owned by Jeb Bush," Jeff Gerth wrote back in Oct. 1990 in the New York Times. " Bush and his partner negotiated a settlement with regulators ... the settlement removed from their backs a $4.565 million second mortgage..."

So now I must ask you: Who realy paid for Columba's luxuries on her Paris shopping spree? Jeb seems to think he did and it's not anyone else's business.

"If it had been Hillary instead of Columba Bush... " article In Online Journal June 23, 1999 by Bev Conover... "'She knew what she did was wrong and made a mistake,' Bush told reporters during a bill signing ceremony in Tallahassee. 'It is a lot of money. But look, that's between her and me,' Jeb told reporters."

Considering the ways our privacy rights are being invaded, and our First Amendment rights are being trampled by conservatives who protest that "there's too much freedon on the internet" to quote George Dubya, I might agree these issues should be off limits. My biggest qualms are in the overall attitudes and value system of the Bush family in general in regard to death, campaign contributions, money making schemes, the doubles standards in morality issues (one standard for them, another for the rest of the world), their acceptance of getting rich off taxpayers, the idea that they are too important to be subject to subpeonaes or rules of law that we must all follow, and the overall disrespect for individual human beings as displayed in Dubya's mocking of Karla Faye Tucker during her appearance on Larry King's show.

So now I just feel compelled to ask the promoters of George Dubya, are these your ideas of compassionate conservatism and family values? If they say, "Yes," I say run, do not walk to the nearest exit--do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not go to jail, do not roll the dice, do not expect things to improve in this country unless you: SAY NO TO GEORGE DUBYA FOR PRESIDENT!"

At any rate, we certainly see now all the ways in which George Dubya touches death, profits from death, and impacts death to earn the nickname Governor Death.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/brambles/499/Bush/FamilyValues/familyvalues.html

-- McCain 2000 (@ .), February 24, 2000

Answers

Oh, horrors! Unlicensed embalmers! How dreadful! Why, some of those corpses could have been seriously hurt by such things.

Seriously, folks, I'm no Bush supporter but there is something really creepy about John McCain. Has anyone else noticed this?

-- e. aaron (theking@graceland.net), February 24, 2000.

..I will say it again; Once it is 'politically correct" to support the honorable Senator John McCain's candidacy...the nomination is his!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 24, 2000.

Next year it is going to be "President Dubya" - bank on it folks.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

Talking about creepy, Governor Bush's latest execution was completed today at 6:18 (666)

I find no peace with any of our presidential candidates. How can it be that in this marvelous nation, neither front-runner has demonstrated goodness of character or true political ability. We need a national leader who is, in the true sense of the word, a "political leader."

I have the sick feeling that we are pulling apart as an American people. There is growing synicism with respect to our government leaders. There are wars and rumors of wars.

I wonder what God's purpose is for America. Oh, how I pray that it is for good. Was tonight's execution symbolic of America's role in the world. Can we be makers of peace, or are we destined to continue to serve as the global chief of police and exectioner?

Of course neither America nor Governor Bush executes the final judgement.

-- I.M. Benedict (prayingdown@theriver.com), February 24, 2000.

Haven't made a voting decision yet. But if McCain is creepy, have you ever noticed that Dubya doesn't blink? Someone on the net made mention of this fact. Guess he can't blink & think at the same time.:)

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 24, 2000.

My dear Mr. McCain,

Old buddy...You make my @$$ crave a dip of snuff! You hyprocritical un-named person! What gives you the self apointe moral right, much less athority. To blame an inert object for distruction. A living, breathing person used a hi tech club! It is not the club's fault. It is the person's fault.

And to defend the "Black Widow"! Man you have to be desperate! But then taking on the handle of McCain, your morality is not to be questioned, for here is no doubt about that one. Hey? How is Keating getting along these days? And how many more people have died on the road from being drunk?

Those consarned cars! There ought to be a law! But then there is..isn't there. And there are also laws governing what the "Black Widow" did also! Only you are not out cursing the cars..When drunk drivers kill more than fire arms do...But it is O.K. to run for public office on "Booze" money right?!!!?!

"As for me..I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 24, 2000.

the court system and a jury decided on the execution some of you are so worked up about, not Gov. Bush. Again, I'm no particular fan of Bush but there is something creepy deep inside John McCain, not to mention his involvement with the Keating Five savings and loan scandal.

-- e. aaron (theking@graceland.net), February 24, 2000.

...creepy? is that comment (repeated twice) somehow supposed to "deter" someone from liking McCain and supporting his candidacy?...seems similar to what Mr. Robertson tried on Tuesday...get a life!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 24, 2000.

One more time, folks....

George Bush has no power to commute a sentence or stop an execution. Under Texas law, the Board of Pardons makes the decision. All George Bush can do is issue a 30 day stay of execution.

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), February 24, 2000.

Your correct, Dubya can't blink becuse it's impossible for reptiles to blink without exposing their nictating membranes

-- political herpitologist (snakes@theRepublicanconvention.com), February 24, 2000.

"One more time, folks....

George Bush has no power to commute a sentence or stop an execution. Under Texas law, the Board of Pardons makes the decision. All George Bush can do is issue a 30 day stay of execution.

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), February 24, 2000."

Texa s executes Betty Lou Beets for husband's murder

"On Tuesday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, dominated by Bush appointees, rejected Beets' pleas for a 180-day reprieve and commutation of her sentence."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 24, 2000.

Hawk:

What PROOF do you have that the appointees are acting on Shrubya's orders? I'm no Shrubya fan but just being appointed by someone doesn't prove that the appointee is controlled by the appointer.

Besides, there's lots of other reasons to dislike Silver Spoon Shrubya.

-- no choice (nochoice@thisyear.com), February 24, 2000.

Geez, people.....Dubya is no more responsible for a gun death in California, than stockholders in GM or Ford are responsible for highway carnage!

As for the Black Widow, she was convicted of murdering TWO husbands (whose remains were found buried in her backyard) back when Dubya was losing money in the oil bidness.

As for Silverado, mebbe, mebbe not...would you rather have one of the Dem clowns?

-- John Galt (still@doom.er), February 24, 2000.

They are all a bunch of clowns... IMHO...

Baalzebub in 2000... why settle for the lesser evil...

(snicker)

snoozin' on the floor...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

Hawk (flyin@high.again) wrote:

"On Tuesday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, dominated by Bush appointees, rejected Beets' pleas for a 180-day reprieve and commutation of her sentence."

Look, Hawk, what's George Bush supposed to do? Gee, I'm not going to appoint anybody to the Board of Pardons because then people will think that any decision they make, I'm responsible for?

The people sitting on that Board were perfectly capable of making up their own mind. George Bush did not make that decision. If a Democrat gets in office next, appoints some people to the Board of Pardons and the same thing happens are you going to blame George Bush for that too?

Geez, I'm defending George Bush and I don't even like him. This has got to stop......

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), February 24, 2000.

Yeah, you are defending Shrubya, and I find it hard to believe you don't like him.

Let's just say I think Shrubya has a lot more "power of persuasion" among his buddies that he appointed to office than he would with someone who was not biased in that way. In other words, they probably do a lot of Patting each other's backs, if you know what I mean. Politicians are notorious for this type of behavior, and of course democrats do it as well, but we are talking about what Shrubya did in this case.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 24, 2000.

I didn't know that George W. was such a supporter of the gun industry. Now I'll have to think seriously of supporting him!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), February 24, 2000.

If someone murders someone else (in this case, several victims), I have no problem whatsoever with the murderer being executed. Why should the taxpayers pay to sustain their lives for 40 or 50 years? I think executions should be public and done either by hanging or firing squad. Maybe if we showed people what really happens to murderers, there would be less murderers down the line.

-- e. aaron (theking@graceland.net), February 24, 2000.

Hawk wrote:

Yeah, you are defending Shrubya, and I find it hard to believe you don't like him.

Hawk, I've voted in every election since I became eligible to vote (too many to count). This is the first election in which I am seriously considering not voting. I don't like any of them........ :(

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), February 24, 2000.

"If someone murders someone else (in this case, several victims)"

She has been convicted of ONE murder, which might have been a result of self-defense and psychological problems due to abuse.

"Maybe if we showed people what really happens to murderers, there would be less murderers down the line."

Maybe if we showed people what really happens to wife-beaters, there would be less wife-beaters down the line.

Maybe the guy got what he deserved, but now we will probably never know. Even if someone does prove that she was defending herself from further abuse, it's too late, Shrubya already killed her.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 25, 2000.

In October of 1987, Richard Brimage, Jr., lured Mary Beth Kunkel to the Texas home of his parents with the pretense of returning tools to her boyfriend. Once inside the vacant house, Brimage tried to raped her. When she resisted, he injected Kunkel with cocaine. She later died by suffocation from a sock jammed down her throat.

In April of 1986, John Kennery Barefield and two other men abducted Cindy Rounsaville, age 25, at gunpoint in the parking lot of her Texas apartment complex. After forcing her to withdraw $70 from an AMT, they raped in their car. Rounsaville, weeks away from her second degree from Rice University and recently engaged, was found in a field, shot twice in the head after running from the car. Barefield was later found with the gun used to kill her, along with her Rice school ring.

Billy Joe Woods was 29 when he broke into Mabel Ehatts Houston apartment in 1975. After responding to a call by concerned neighbors, Ehatt, a 62-year-old who suffered from cancer and needed a walker, was found dead. Woods was caught carrying a television from her apartment, along with a bracelet and her pain medication. Evidence showed that Woods sexually assaulted Ehatt and then crushed her head flat with a frying pan.

Richard Gerry Drinkhard, of Texas, was convicted in the 1985 slaying of Louann Anthony, her sister Ladeen and boyfriend Jerry Mullins. Drinkhard stabbed the victims and used an ordinary hammer to beat in their heads.

In 1977, Larry Wayne White entered the home of Houston resident Elizabeth St. John. In the process of stealing her jewelry, tools, stereo, clothing and ultimately her car, White strangled St. John, 72. He then took a screwdriver and drove it into her back.

In 1997, the State of Texas executed Earl Behringer for the 1986 slayings of Army Lt. Daniel Mayer, Jr., 22 and his fiancee, Janet Hancock, 21. In his final statement before his death by lethal injection, Behringer simply said he was thankful for the Dallas Cowboys for giving me a lot of enjoyment these past years.

Eddie James Johnson abducted David Magee, Virginia Cadena and her daughter Elizabeth from a home in Aranas Pass after extended arguments while on the job in the oil fields with Magee. They were driven to a remote spot and shot repeatedly. Magees angles and hands were tied with telephone wire. The young girl was run over with a car and dragged while being penned underneath. The same appeared to have happened to the mother.

In 1989 Aaron Lee Fuller entered the Texas home of Loretta Stephens, 68, while she was sleeping, to rob her. In the process, Fuller killed Stephens, tied her up and sexually assaulted her after she was dead. He later dumped her body in an open field.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

Yeah. All murders are because of shrubya. And the Alaska Airlines crash, obviously shrubya's fault. And add all traffic accidents. Don't mistake me for a supporter of shrubya. I like shrubya as much as I like the pow snitch. Paranoia is being redefined in this forum, since all evils of the world are being blamed on shrubya. (Just exercising my rights to exaggerate, as a few others in this forum are as well).

As for the election? Make the most honest PAC money whore win. If we can only choose from among PAC money whores, then at least let's choose the most 'honest' PAC money whore.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 25, 2000.

As a proud conservative/libertarian, I think I can safely say that NOBODY would care about this execution if it were a black or latino man who had buried two wives in his backyard. As for me, I'm an equal opportunity executioner - white, black, male, female - I don't pick sides. I don't want convicted murderers having a single extra moment of happiness, whether a good meal or a good joke. If you murder, you should fry. Very simple, gang.

-- Daisy Jane (deeekstrand@access1.com), February 25, 2000.

I disagree, Daisy. It's the interests and rights of white males that are ignored or violated these days in America. Blacks and Hispanics and to a lesser extent white females get all the media attention. Other than Christians, the only people it's OK to discriminate against are white males.

-- al capp (abner@yokum.com), February 25, 2000.

"NOBODY would care about this execution if it were a black or latino man who had buried two wives in his backyard."

Are you real sure of that?

You've got a pretty big brush and a lot of paint to be saying that NOBODY would care.

Being a FREE WHITE GUY I take exception to that statement, as I am sure most people do.

If there is not equal justice there is no justice.

Reminds me of a story I read the other day.

----------------------------------

Over a century ago, a British judge was late for court so he hailed a cab and told the driver to take him to the Royal Courts of Justice. "Where are they?" asked the driver. "You mean to say that you don't know where the law courts are?" asked the judge incredulously. "Oh! The law courts," replied the driver. "But you said the courts of justice!"

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), February 25, 2000.

I personally do not think that the state should be in the killing business. There's just something about it that makes me totally uneasy. It cheapens the state and brings out all kinds of conflicts. I think that if we must have a state at all, it should be in the life-affirming business rather than the death-affirming business. The state killing its citizens, under any circumstances, should simply be unacceptable.

There have been too many instances where someone put on death row was later showed to be innocent. (about 1% in a recent study.) The state killing an individual who is innocent should be considered as heinous a crime as anything that even our worst criminals have done. How many innocent people were put to death? Maybe none, maybe a few. Even one is too many. I know that there are people who feel that "if you want to make an omelette, you gotta break a few eggs." When it comes to the state killing its citizens, this should never happen.

However, I also feel that the taxpayers paying to support a convicted killer for 20, 30, 40 years, while that person hangs around watching TV, playing poker for cigarettes, eating 3 meals a day while her or his victim is gone is not right either. Victim's families have to deal with their loss every day forever, and the victimizers rarely seem to appear sorry for their actions.

So, how about an alternative to state-sponsored executions? Here's an idea, and I'm just making this up.

When a jury convicts a suspect of certain crimes, alternative sentences are offered. Life in prison or "Victim's Advocate Execution." This means that a member of the victim's family is given the option of carrying out a death sentence. (a certain defined "ring of relationships" should be included, so that someone who was close to the victim, a parent, sibling, spouse or friend, rather than just anyone, does the deed.) After a reasonable time for appeals, the Advocate is given a needle, or whatever, and has the option to execute the convict.

The person who carries out the sentence should then be given some sort of "Advocate Killer" status. The main thing that will go along with this is stigma. True, for many people the stigma will be positive, but the "Advocate Killer" should be accountable, rather than the state.

The downside to being an "Advocate Killer" would come if at some point it is shown that the person who was executed was, in fact, innocent. Then the "Advocate Killer" should be treated as a murderer. This way, a person who carries out an execution is going to want to make damn sure that they are sure about what they are doing.

Carrying out executions in this manner would accomplish several things. It would get the state out of the business of killing its citizens. It would satisfy the bloodlust that is prevalent in our society. It would allow the victim's families to avenge the death of a loved one and get closure. It would satisfy the taxpayer's desire not to support convicted killers. It would make an individual accountable for the execution. And, it would probably make for some good TV.

Please feel free to refine or flame this idea...

-- (no@state.killings), February 25, 2000.

to all those worked up about the execution in texas, I believe the answer would be for W to let death row prisoners out out, provided they had good homes to go to. i suggest yours. Additionaly should your husbands/wives/significant others end your earthly existance and plant you under the flower garden/tool shed composte heap rest assured i would be in favor of insuring they were not punished. indeed they should be rewarded since it was obviously only the stress you caused them that made them go bad.

-- noone (noone@none.com), February 25, 2000.

"I personally do not think that the state should be in the killing business....The state killing an individual who is innocent should be considered as heinous a crime as anything that even our worst criminals have done."

Not flaming, just disagreeing.

What the state should do is protect the lives of its innocent tax-paying citizens, by which I mean myself & my family. If this requires executing some of the ones who commit crimes, then I'm all for it.

Innocent people die every day precisely BECAUSE all of the criminals haven't been locked up and/or executed yet.

If every person who committed a violent crime were locked up or executed, just IMAGINE how safe the streets would be for those of us who do not commit crimes of any sort. All of us innocent people would benefit immensely. We could go back to leaving our door unlocked. We could get rid of all our alarm systems. We could get rid of our guns. Life would be so much better for us law-abiding types.

If innocent lives really matter to you, then you should support the death penalty.

-- different perspective (hey@you're.welcome), February 25, 2000.

"If innocent lives really matter to you, then you should support the death penalty..."

Of course innocent lives matter to me. Including the (reletively few) innocent lives that are taken by state sponsored executions. My question is not so much should there be a "death penalty," as what should the state's role be in it. I do not think the state should kill its citizens, no matter how nasty they are. My point is that maybe the role of killing the guilty should move to the individuals who were affected by the crime. Then they become accountable.

The question has always been "should there or should there not be a death penalty." I think the entire question ought to be reframed and asked from a different angle. "Should the state be responsible for putting criminals to death?" This is the question I'm asking.

-- (no@state.killings), February 25, 2000.

-- (no@state.killings), you asked,

""Should the state be responsible for putting criminals to death?" This is the question I'm asking. "

The state is NOT responsible for putting criminals to death! In America someone is found guilty by *a jury of their peers*, not the state. For death penalty cases, a jury must decide if the death penalty is to be applied.

Therefore, the state isn't responsible for putting people to death, American citizens are. The state only carries out their request.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 25, 2000.

"The state only carries out their request."

Exactly. The state should not be in this position. (IMHO) It becomes a political issue. Some states refuse to do this, others do it enthusiastically. People should do it (if they choose to), not states.

-- (no@state.killings), February 25, 2000.