Lumpy, so now you tell us that the issue of military service is not a big deal, Kerry’s or Bush’s, with an aside about the “champagne unit” in Texas. Yet no discussion of the letter BostonBarrister posts breaking down what Bush’s service in his unit entailed in Texas, nor the lacuna in Alabama (which is supposedly the “AWOL” issue)… You’re coming off similar to US=GG, in that you both don’t seem to enjoy reading or mentally processing articles that do not agree with your present position.
Lumpy, if you’re really concerned about special interests, I suggest you start campaigning for John Edwards or back Nader if he runs because John Kerry is the biggest taker of special-interest money in Congress. Regardless of the refusal of PAC money for elections that he unfurls every 4 years, Kerry’s record with special interests makes him look like the professional and Bush like a good ol’ boy.
“The Republicans are actually the ones driving the issue, because they took offense at Michael Moore’s comments etc.”
This is a laughable distortion! The issue is being “driven” by the candidacy of John Kerry (though not by Kerry personally), and the charge has been made or floated by tons of people other than Moore. Today, the Democratic Senator of Ohio tried to sneak it into a question to Colin Powel on the quality of our intelligence system! (Powell slammed him for it.) Saying something like this, Lumpy, how do you expect to be believed by anyone that doesn’t already have a hard-on for defeating Bush?
"Did you see the president SMILE when he said “Im a war president” on Meet the Press??? "
Yeah, that was the biggest smile I’ve ever seen. I was worried that our President’s face might be permanently paralyzed in this optimistic frisson over the ravages of war. Thank God, this Devil’s Smile as wide and long as it was out of his cruel, blood-red lips, didn’t last a half a second more, or I would have had nightmares… He was smiling because he got to recite one of the points his advisors gave him to use against John Kerry’s voting record in regard to war. [Obviously, GWB is particularly bad with extemporaneous speech.] It wasn’t gauche simply because he had spoken the word “war.”
Brian Smith
Bush apparently served 9 days during a 2 year period. Frankly this issue is not a big priority with me.
If you want to talk about campaign contributers, then lets talk about who gives George Bush money. The all-time biggest contributer to George Bush’s political campaigns is KEN LAY, the former CEO of ENRON.
Mr. Lay will soon be going to trial (and then to prison for a long time I assume) for corporate looting, in the biggest business scandal of our time. Mr. Bush gets his money from criminals.
Just curious Brian, who would you like to see elected?
People can be so obtuse and politically one-sided, it amazes me.
Lumpy, do you know how much money Enron donated to the Democratic Party during the 1990’s?
$900,000.
Do you know how much money Ken Lay personally donated to Bill Clinton?
$11,000
Do you know how much Ken Lay gave to Al Gore during the 2000 election?
$13,750
Do you know how much Enron gave to the Democratic Party in 1999 and 2000?
$362,000
Now who is the crook?
Oh.
Corporations donate money to both political parties all the time, that way, whoever wins; the corporation will have generated a favorable relationship with them.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled one-sided political propaganda.
Lumpy,
John Edwards. I’m hoping Kerry’s record resurfaces for the nation as a whole to see and they choose Edwards as an alternative. Howard Dean sends reporters an email a day about Kerry; but they’re not listening to him, only when the same info comes through Republicans. Many pundits think that although Kerry seems to have it all sewed up it makes sense to Edwards to stay in the race and see how much scrutiny Kerry gets, and because he has greater appeal with moderates and younger voters according to exit polls.
However, if it’s Kerry vs. Bush, even with Edwards on the ticket, I’m going to have to vote for Bush. It sucks but I’m resigned to it. We need a steady leader who won’t waver when it comes to military conflict. On this point, of all Democratic Senators, Kerry’s record inspires the least confidence. To cover his/our ass, Bush was about to pull out of Iraq too early for legitimate elections, even by the standards of the UN, who wants Iraq to obtain sovereignty ASAP (regardless of the big picture of the region). Comparing Bush’s sense of purpose to Kerry’s flip-flops, I shudder to think what Kerry would have done there. We need to consolidate the Bush administrations gains (although of course there have been mistakes) in the Middle East as this critical juncture in history.
How about you research them and you post them. Enron was one of, if not the, largest political contributor during the 1990’s. While you’re at it, how about researching who are the major contributors to both sides. It’s interesting stuff.
My intention is to show how one sided your thinking/political beliefs are.
Read about which company heavily lobbied the Clinton administration and congress to approve the Kyoto treaty and why? (Hint, it starts with an “E”)
There has been plenty of talk about Republican connections to corporations, don’t be so naive to think this is a one sided concern.
Brian Smith, in my opinion, Edwards would be the worse president for the economy, attempting to undo the free trade progress made in the past 15 years.
umm ptr… what the hell did i do this time? i think it’s hilarious how the GOP suddenly forgot about good ol bill and hillary and ted kennedy… and are now trying to dissect kerry’s every word and appearance when he really was a nonfactor before… that’s what i meant with “let the hating begin”… yeah i know it goes both ways… it happens with every candidate… but it’s hilarious nonetheless.
oh btw… just because i despise george w’s administration doesnt make me a sandal-wearing veteran-hating hippie. i think you’ll find many independent voters that are fed up with bush and don’t feel convinced he’s done a good job (AND THEY DON’t WEAR SANDALS!). i think the last time i checked more than 50 percent of the US had an unfavorable opinion of bush, all across the US.
these political/religious threads make me so sick sometimes…
The Democratic Party is in shambles? If that’s the case, then so is the GOP, because polls in recent weeks have John Kerry and Dubbya pretty much even.
There’s nothing wrong or hypocritical about emphasizing one’s service in the Vietnam War, even if he protested it.
I don’t give two shits about that though when I’m voting. What I do care about is what his priorities are.
Anderson–Not that they meant very much, but how can you post the amounts that Dems received and ignore those of the GOP (and then tell someone to look them up themselves - that’s a bitch move)?
There’s a book out now call “The Buying of the Presidency 2004” and it includes Bush and the other Democratic candidates. It lists all of their top ten campaign contributors and the amounts donated. Bush is by far the worst offender. He’s got a slew of interests he must protect. The concentration of power and money that this administration fosters is frightening.
I’m sorry, but I would like to call into question the unstated assumption of the “campaign finance” digression. Just because someone donates to a campaign does not mean that politician is captured by the interests of said donor. In fact, one suspects that ideollogically motivated donors would choose someone who ALREADY supports their position, rather than try to capture someone who really does not believe in their cause. This would be especially true of large, public donations. It would also be especially true of prominent politicians whose views have been well publicized and remained relatively consistent.
This is not to say that one should completely ignore the sources of campaign contributions. However, the mere fact that X Company or Individual donated to Y politician is not a showing that Y politician is beholden to special interests. I would think that shifts in position and votes, combined with new contributions, might begin to show something, but simple support combined with consistent positions is a very likely mere correlation, not a causal relationship.
“Brian Smith, in my opinion, Edwards would be the worse president for the economy, attempting to undo the free trade progress made in the past 15 years.”
Well, if “undo free trade” means trying to submit environmental and labor standards in bilateral relationships, then yes. It hasn’t been tried yet though, and it’s worth trying to see whether we can improve our situation and the global situation at the same time. Though, truthfully, the best protector of the U.S. on this front would have been Lieberman. MOST “sweatshop workers” think we’re a bunch of spoiled idiots, and they have a great job. So my biggest concern is that free trade brings a balance of good jobs into our country, and that also seems to be a big concern of John Edwards.
BostonBarrister, you’re probably right on correlation, and not causation. They have to back both parties to get an ear. This does lay the foundation for corruption, however. And it’s a clear case of corruption when a new vote comes along, and then comes new money; or when somebody meets a new source of money and then switches his position on an issue. An example was ScottL’s link to David Brook’s column. Kerry allowed a Chinese military interest a place on the Stock Exchange. It seems he just didn’t look hard enough when he he did somebody a favor (after which he picked up some money, no big deal).
Maybe it is a bitch move, but my purpose was to show how both parties received donations from Enron. Lumpy pointed out the GOP received money from Enron, I wanted to point out that both parties received contributions from special interest.
I could care less who received more, as mentioned earlier, it’s like we are comparing stats on a baseball card. I just want it to be clear that both parties receive campaign contributions from a variety of corporations, including Enron.
Actually, Enron donated more money to the GOP in the 1990’s. I would suspect that this was due to the GOP controlling congress, but that is my personal speculation.
Brian Smith, from what I know of Edwards, he wants to protect American manufacturing jobs from going overseas. The Carolina’s have lost a lot of employment recently due to industries closing factories. Economicly, however, forcing where a company is to manufacture their goods through regulation will only drive up the price of the product, and potentially, run the company out of business, making the job situation even worse.
I believe our current level of GDP growth could not be sustained by placing artificial borders on trade.
“Economicly, however, forcing where a company is to manufacture their goods through regulation will only drive up the price of the product, and potentially, run the company out of business, making the job situation even worse.”
“Potentially run the company out of business”? Isn’t that a bit too much? I think Edwards is talking about tax incentives domestically, to encourage corporations to hire here and not abroad, and keeping the bank accounts out of the Caymans. This is not regulation through-and-through.
No, I don’t think it’s too much. I think every business is different, but regardless, regulations drive up costs. Whether or not those costs drive a firm out of business is specific to the cost structure of a firm.
I am not an expert on Edwards politics, but every time I have heard him speak about jobs, it is about protection, not about incentives.
I am referring to Ken Lay (specifically) being the all-time #1 campaign contributor (Governor’s race, Pres. race) to George Bush (specifically).
Boston Barrister says that candidates are already beholden to special interests, rather than being swayed after receiving money.
That is not a distiction worth bragging about.
It seems like the GOP is “going negative” a little earlier than ususal (look at the title of this thread for example) because lets face it, there isn’t a whole lot of positive things that they can point to. They can’t run on their own record, only on fear and negativity.
Well, I suppose there is a lot of hope in the president’s “mission to mars” iniative LOL
You’re right, Lumpy, the President sure “looks puny” in that picture you posted. I can’t believe anybody would vote for someone who sits so far away from the camera… Lumpy, your judgment is astounding.
The Republicans are going negative this early because the Democratic primaries have been focusing on who can unseat President Bush. Now that Kerry seems like the winner, the Republicans are developing their counteracts to thwart Kerry’s free (and positive) publicity and the Democrat’s current momentum.
Definitely. I wasn’t saying that money couldn’t be an item leading one to look further for signs of corruption. I was just saying that you can’t simply “follow the money” and assume the candidate/politician is bought and paid for.
Lumpy:
That is exactly wrong. I was not saying the politicians were already beholden to the special interests. I was saying that the politicians already had positions on the issues that the special interests cared about. The money was not necessarily the cause of the positions or the thing that kept them to those positions. As funny as it may sound, some people, even politicians – even politicians who are lawyers – actually have things they believe in by themselves. And, amusing as it may seem, other people/parties who believe the same thing have a stake in seeing such politicians/candidates elected or re-elected.
This is hugely not the same thing as saying the candidates are already beholden to special interests.
"Bush’s military records remain sealed. If he wanted to put the questions to rest, all he has to do is open his records. An Honorable Discharge is no proof of his fulfilling his duties, any more than a high school diploma is proof that someone is a good student. All it means is that somebody higher up gave him a FREE PASS out of the Guard, the same way they gave him a pass INTO the Guard. I don’t suppose the fact that his dad was a wealthy Congressman had anything to do with it?
The fact that the GOP needs to go back 30 years to try to dig up some dirt says a lot. They can’t run on their record! They can’t run on what is happening right now."
YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND A FOOL!!! You post a paragraph discussing events 31 years ago. IN YOUR NEXT PARAGRAPH YOU ATTACK THE REPUBLICANS FOR “going back 30 years.”
In addition, runt,
"Guardsman remembers
On Friday, a retired officer with the Alabama Air National Guard told CNN that he witnessed Bush serving his weekend duty in 1972 – an account that could be significant given the persistent Democratic questions.
Speaking on the phone Friday from Daytona Beach, Florida, John B. “Bill” Calhoun said he commanded Bush and that Bush attended four to six weekend drills at Dannelly Field in Montgomery. He said Bush was with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Alabama in 1972. "
Remember all those “righteous posts.” It’s time for a full apology. No, “Oh, the evil Republicans probably paid this guy.” Just be a man, and apologize. If you do not, it will be quite symbolic.