Political Hypocrisy, continued

Our story so far:

I wrote to Larry Craig.
He wrote back.
I wrote him another letter.
He wrote back.

Here's the next installment:

     But you don't have to take my word about the relative importance of these two issues. Have a listen to Juan R Torruella, the Chief Judge of the US First Circuit, Court of Appeals, courtesy of PBS.

November 2, 1998

Larry E. Craig
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510-1203

Dear Larry:

I hate to belabor our correspondence on the issues surrounding the "Drug-Free Neighborhoods" amendment to the tobacco settlement bill (S.1415), but I'm afraid your most recent letter suggests I haven't made myself clear.

Three issues:

  1. The Senate's ability and willingness to pass meaningful legislation;
  2. The need for legislation concerning tobacco;
  3. The need for legislation concerning illegal drugs.

None of my letters have been about legislation concerning illegal drugs. I can see that it's confusing, when your amendment on that topic is in the first paragraph, though. So let me be clear: I'm writing about your abuse of the legislative process, and the need for legislation concerning tobacco.

Here's what I wrote last time:

It's my belief that the Senate's inaction on a tobacco settlement has been arranged by those members who actively oppose any government encroachment against the tobacco industry, and those others, such as yourself, who are willing to go along in order to curry political favors for other legislation.

That sounds like a pretty serious charge to me, but you didn't respond to it. I also wrote:

...I was expressing opposition to your manipulation of the legislative process by combining unrelated issues....

You criticized S.1415 as "comprehensive, burdensome and unconstitutional." No doubt you understand the Senate's Rules better than I do, but if a bill fails, don't amendments to it fail as well? What purpose is there in offering an amendment, no matter how virtuous it may be, to a bill that you are going to vote against?

In the strongest language I can imagine in a civil letter, I wrote:

...I resent your continued attempt to change the subject.

and in your reply, you changed the subject again. Or am I even corresponding with you? Your letter looks like it's composed of 3 boilerplate paragraphs: opening/sorry we disagree, self-promotion on emotional issue involving children, closing/great to hear from you/sorry we disagree. Is it really possible for two literate people to carry on such a bizarre correspondence?

Tom von Alten

Tom von Alten      tva_∂t_fortboise_⋅_org

Thursday, 04-Mar-1999 20:57:00 MST