 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Sep 5, 2000 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
Labor Day Acceptance of Larry King and Tim Russert Proposals Fails to Mention Judicial Watch Debate on: “How to Restore Ethics to Government?” Gore, Buchanan, Phillips, and Browne Have Already Pledged to Debate Topic (Nader Likely to Follow) (Washington, D.C., September 5, 2000) Both during and following the Republican National Convention, Presidential candidate George W. Bush has repeatedly dismissed the importance of bringing about justice for the illegalities committed by the current Administration during the last 7 ½ years. As described by William Safire in his column, “Exegesis of Acceptance,” of August 7, 2000, Mr. Bush stated: Running against Washington. The Yale graduate and child of privilege assumed, Jimmy Carter style, a hardscrabble pose to assert that his “background may lack the polish of Washington.” And then, following a focus-group distaste for controversy, he dissociated himself from all investigations into Clinton-Gore scandals, including illegal fund-raising: “I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years.” Republicans on the unpopular ramparts of the rule of law were coolly informed he preferred ‘civility and respect.’ Then, following Attorney General Janet Reno’s most recent denial of a special counsel to investigate Al Gore’s allegedly illegal fundraising, Bush strangely added: “While it’s clear that Al Gore engaged in a number of questionable fundraising activities and gave the FBI statements that continue to raise the issue of credibility, the American people are sick and tired of all these scandals and investigations. The best way to put all these scandals and investigations behind us is to elect someone new. I’m running to uphold the honor and dignity of the White House.” Given that Mr. Bush would seemingly appear to have much to gain in making government ethics an issue in this 2000 Presidential campaign, his bizarre defense of his adversary -- who has ironically agreed to debate the topic before Judicial Watch on October 20, 2000 at 8:00 pm in the Ronald Reagan Center Amphitheater -- can only be seen as defensiveness on the Republican’s part. Does Mr. Bush have something in his past that debating the issue of government ethics he thinks would cause the Democrat, Al Gore, to unleash, in rebuttal? Is Mr. Bush unwilling to take this risk, much less any risk? “This certainly is the appearance which Mr. Bush is creating by thus far refusing to discuss the Administration’s scandals and accepting the debate proposals of liberals like King and Russert, but not yet confirming conservative Judicial Watch’s invitation to debate how to restore ethics to government? While Al Gore is a defendant or involved as an interested party in several of Judicial Watch’s lawsuits, he deserves credit for coming forward to answer questions about his own ethics,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Indeed, the format of the Judicial Watch debate will be structured to be evenhanded, and the hosts will be newspersons of impeccable stature, reputation for honesty, integrity, and non-partisanship. Judicial Watch will work with the Presidential candidates to come up with a format that ensures fairness,” he added. “While some partisan observers will say Mr. Bush’s reticence to debate government ethics is ‘smart politics,’ what does this say about educating our children about ‘right and wrong?’ Education is more than school vouchers,” added Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman. “And, it is not good for the country when politicians ‘cleverly’ refuse to debate core issues of morality and respect for the law. This is what contributes and leads to the breakdown of societal values,” he added. See www.judicialwatch.org for information on the Judicial Watch Presidential Debate. Judicial Watch is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any political candidate or party. |
|
