Saturday, October 22, 2005

Mug Shot

I found your Delay's mug shot on page A19 of yesterday's New York Times, Bush. Not your regular mug shot, I regret to say. Otherwise they'd surely have had it on page 1, above the fold. I suspect he brought along his own cameraman--and his own camera. Mug shot cameras don't do professional portraits like this one. A clean, crisp image. Big smile. Unlike the usual blurred and surly snarl, with guilty eyes caught in either sheer terror or a benumbed and vacant stare. Not so your Delay, all cheery, truculent, and ever so pleased with himself. A PR picture, really. No number. I never did see a mug shot without the number before. Is it legal? But I guess power hath its privileges, eh, Bush? Even when being marched off to jail. (Although I do have this image of Marie Antoinette in her tumbril, on her way to the guillotine. Not much dignity left there!) And I guess your guy must have chuckled a bit, coming up with the ten grand in bail money. Chump change to one who can raise millions at the wave of a hand--or the promise of special access.

Anyway, it was all nicely stage-managed, Bush. You couldn't have done it better yourself. Starting with the canny choice of an out-of-the-way sheriff's station to report to: apparently the media weren't smart enough to figure this one out. Surprise! Not a single reporter or television camera on hand to record the historic occasion of a House Majority leader being booked, for the first time ever, as I understand it. In at 12:15 PM, out at 12:45. Not bad, time-wise. I suspect that other suspects get a longer wait than that. Your Tom's lawyers, so it seems, are already trying to get the judge off the case. A Democrat. Also, to get the venue changed from a heavily Democratic district--one of the few left in Texas, I suppose, after your Delay's good work in redistricting to the benefit of Republicans!--to a more sympathetic jury pool.

Well, I know a man's still supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, despite your Justice Department's recent and continuing efforts to reverse this principle. But I have to admit I hope to see this one get the book thrown at him, Bush. I'd hate to see his self-congratulatory mug shot followed up by an even more triumphal post-trial celebration. Even if he manages to get legally acquitted, I'd love to see him forced into some serious personal and moral reappraisal of his arrogant high-handedness.

Some hope! My guess is, even if found guilty, this man will be unable to rise above the righteousness of his denial. Like your good self, I'm sure he's utterly convinced that he can do no wrong.

1 comment:

PK said...

All of this more or less begs my question. If we are now going by party affiliation, why don't we put signs up? "Republican Court", "Democrat Court". Oh, yes, I almost forgot, "Republican Supreme Court" and "Democrat Supreme Court". It would solve all those pesky arguments we seem to keep having about the LAW.