A Non-TANG, Non-Forgery Post

From Holden:

There’s plenty of political news out there that has nothing to do with what kind of typewriter Bush’s superiors used thirty-odd years ago.

For instance, Limp Dick Cheney flip-flopped on whether or not a vote for Kerry was a vote for another terrorist attack. Now he says he meant that a vote for either candidate could trigger an attack. He’s so misunderstood.

The House rejected Bush’s overtime overhaul:

The House voted 223 to 193 yesterday to block the Bush administration’s sweeping new eligibility rules for overtime pay, giving Democrats a significant victory that they hope will boost the party’s standing among middle-class voters in key battleground states in the fall election.

Twenty-two pro-labor Republicans [WTF is a “pro-labor Republican?], most of them from the North and the Midwest, joined a solid bloc of Democrats to prevent the Labor Department from enforcing the regulations, which took effect Aug. 23. But it is unclear whether yesterday’s action will stand.


The White House warned this week that President Bush might veto the underlying bill — a $142.5 billion measure funding education, worker training and health programs in 2005 — if it contains the overtime amendment.

Yeah, that’s smart. Go ahead, Chimpy, use your first veto on a bill that would fund education, worker training and health programs in order to cut the take-home pay of middle class Americans. Please do.

And finally, the Federal Election Commission asked a judge to throw out Bush’s crybaby lawsuit:

The Federal Election Commission has asked a court to throw out a lawsuit by President Bush’s campaign that seeks to force quick action on complaints against anti-Bush groups spending big donations in the presidential race.


The campaign finance laws aren’t meant to help candidates avoid “competitive harm,” FEC lawyers wrote.

“The Act was designed to protect the public interest – both by maintaining the integrity of the electoral process, and by avoiding the corruption and the appearance of corruption of the government,” they wrote. “It was not the purpose of the Act to protect a candidate from public criticism, or from the registration of voters who might support his or her opponent.”