|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 14, 2004 17:02:00 GMT -5
Yeah. While SDI would be a nice fail-safe against accidental launches or N. Korea, you might as well go ahead and fund that new self-propelled artillery piece that Rummy killed a year ago. Exotic missle defense systems bring too little to the table for the money they'll cost to develop and acquire, and in any event would be mismatched against the current threats that face the nation. Saw Biden on TV last month and came away very favorably impressed. Where's that quality of candidate during Presidential races? Biden considered running during this cycle, but, from what I have heard, Kerry convinced him to stay out, citing arguments that they would split the vote of those who wanted more national security, thereby giving Dean an added advantage. I think Biden has tried to run before, though I am not positive. It seems to me that he has something shady in his past that would put a kink in his plans. Perhaps Bin can pick up here because I don't know any of the details. As for Biden being a VP nominee, I doubt it. Kerry is going to look for someone who can add something to the ticket not only in terms of policy but in terms of geography. Richardson has a lot of experience with foreign policy and has a favorable geographical position and personal background to Biden, so I don't see why Kerry would take Biden. Stranger things have happened, so I won't rule it out, but it does not seem to be advantageous. Nonetheless, I do agree with you that Biden is impressive. Hopefully we'll see more of him in the future in some capacity as a Senator.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 14, 2004 17:20:55 GMT -5
It's not. It just that, to me, this President is long on having the right message and image, and short on substance. Because his ranch plays into his image, it's easy to imagine him discarding it once it becomes unnecessary. As for Bush I, I think he surprised a lot of people after leaving the White House - for example, I don't recall anyone at the RNC predicting his skydiving...
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 15, 2004 11:07:26 GMT -5
Returning this thread to its original premise, I noted the follwing in today's Post: On Thursday, the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign sent an e-mail to 6 million people with an Internet advertisement attacking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) over his special-interest money. The ad, subtly titled "Unprincipled," took on Bush's likely opponent for his claim that he will kick out "the special interests."
The ad accurately points out that Kerry has raised $640,000 from lobbyists, "more special-interest money than any other senator." And it fairly questions whether Kerry is disingenuous to accept money from those he would vanquish.
But the Center for Responsive Politics, which calculated the figure Bush cited about Kerry ($638,358 raised from lobbyists since 1989, to be exact), has some bad news for Bush, too. The president raised $842,262 from lobbyists in the current election cycle -- almost four times the $226,450 Kerry raised. And if you take away the funds Kerry collected for the presidential campaign, he is no longer the Senate's top recipient of special-interest funds. You'd think that the Bush campaign would want to know if they're getting into a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation before they go forward with something like this. I mean, nothing they said was untrue, but Bush llooks as bad or worse when judged by the same standards, and it would be just as easy for Kerry to put that message out there as it was for the Bush campaign. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42569-2004Feb14.html
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 15, 2004 17:33:39 GMT -5
Returning this thread to its original premise, I noted the follwing in today's Post: On Thursday, the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign sent an e-mail to 6 million people with an Internet advertisement attacking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) over his special-interest money. The ad, subtly titled "Unprincipled," took on Bush's likely opponent for his claim that he will kick out "the special interests."
The ad accurately points out that Kerry has raised $640,000 from lobbyists, "more special-interest money than any other senator." And it fairly questions whether Kerry is disingenuous to accept money from those he would vanquish.
But the Center for Responsive Politics, which calculated the figure Bush cited about Kerry ($638,358 raised from lobbyists since 1989, to be exact), has some bad news for Bush, too. The president raised $842,262 from lobbyists in the current election cycle -- almost four times the $226,450 Kerry raised. And if you take away the funds Kerry collected for the presidential campaign, he is no longer the Senate's top recipient of special-interest funds. You'd think that the Bush campaign would want to know if they're getting into a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation before they go forward with something like this. I mean, nothing they said was untrue, but Bush llooks as bad or worse when judged by the same standards, and it would be just as easy for Kerry to put that message out there as it was for the Bush campaign. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42569-2004Feb14.htmlI saw the same editorial. I wouldn't think that the Bush folks would want to fight this thing on comparing Bush and Kerry's special interest money, especially considering Enron and Halliburton. They're still trying to figure out what attack will stick. Their best angle is probably to allege hypocrisy and (mis)define Kerry that way.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 15, 2004 18:03:27 GMT -5
What about Enron? For that matter, what do you know about Halliburton and Bush beyond the fact that Cheney used to work there? 95% of the electorate could not even articulate what the alleged connection is. Do you even know it?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2004 12:13:09 GMT -5
Enron is/was President Bush's largest campaign contributor having given over $600,000 to his election efforts. It certainly raises some important questions about why there hasn't been an appropriate level of transparency with respect to the Energy Commission.
My gripe with Halliburton more than anything that is alleged are these no-bid contracts that it has received in Iraq. I find that to be an affront to free trade and the capitalist system, not to mention the other oil/gas equipment companies that are just as capable as providing these services in Iraq.
Not to mention the problem that it appears that Halliburton has overcharged the taxpayers for the services that they render and provide in Iraq.
This truly begs the question of why. Why does Halliburton get this preferential treatment? While Cheney no longer works there, do you truly believe that his hands are clean? Surely, he has put all of his assets in the blind trust, and that removes him somewhat from an open financial interest in the company, and I agree to a certain extent on that front. However, do I believe that he still knows the Board and other Executives? Yes. Do I think that such friendships and collegiality should affect government policy? No.
I should also note in passing that Halliburton contributed roughly $60,000 to Bush's election efforts. That is connection enough for me, although I recognize that even this isn't a huge chunk of change in today's political world.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 16, 2004 12:44:06 GMT -5
The last I heard on Halliburton, they themselves were overcharged and there was no evidence of wrongdoing. If you have something to contradict that, I'll take a look. I don't have any explicit defenses re: halliburton/enron becuase there are no specific and substantiatied allegations. They just appear to be buzzwords bandied about a whole lot by the radical left as arguments in and of themselves- which are rarely substantiated with anything other than Oliver Stone-esque innuendo, not so much by responsible Democratic pols as far as I have seen. I find it somewhat humourous actually that you freely admit that just because companies donated money to the Bush campaign, that "connection is enough for you" to be suspicious if those doners are less than clean. Well, I guess you are not a lawyer either! That is not personally evidence risiing to a serious argument to me. Would you like to see such scrutiny put on every contributor, from Big Hollywood to Trial Lawyers to fugitive criminal Mark Rich, who gave money to Clinton?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2004 13:33:46 GMT -5
I agree with the Clinton examples that you provide. To provide more personal background, I support public financing of campaigns because I dislike how these contributions affect policy and prevent well-intentioned efforts to reform policy across the board. Do I think seniors would have a different Medicare bill without the pharmaceutical companies giving a hump of cash to Bush-Cheney '04? Absolutely.
Admittedly, I was disappointed in Senator Kerry for not accepting the matching funds scheme in the primaries. Did I expect him to do so? Probably, but I recognize that he could not unilaterally disarm in the face of Dean's fundraising machine at the time and Bush's talent at raising a ton of money. Am I disappointed in his personal loan of $6 million? No. Why? Well, he is not beholden to anyone for that money except himself and his wife. For that reason, I also do not criticize Mayor Bloomberg or Senator Corzine for essentially buying their way into their respective offices. What I know with Corzine is that, while he spent a ton of his own money, at least it was not money from special interests (representing interests on the left or right), which may distort his votes.
Anyway, I hope this will provide some context to my criticisms of Bush with respect to Halliburton and Enron. As far as those cases are concerned, admittedly, the evidence is still out. The Senate had hearings last week on Halliburton and its alleged overcharging of American taxpayers. We'll have to stay tuned. On Enron, the evidence or pertinent documents have not been released to substantiate or refute current allegations from the left. What is preventing Cheney from releasing his appointment records from the Energy Commission and putting the charges to rest?
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 16, 2004 13:41:13 GMT -5
cheney gave kenneth lay a seat at the table of the energy task force, one of a host of corporate bigwigs who were apparently given a dangerously prominent role in drafting the admin's energy policy (thankfully, much of which was ultimately scrapped by congress). there's a case pending before the supreme court in which cheney is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the records related to the task force from being made public. suggesting there is nothing more than cheap innuendo surrounding these accusations of cronyism isnt accurate.
as for halliburton, we can argue all day over why they overcharged the US taxpayers for their work in iraq, but the bottom line is that they were handed no-bid contracts which the admin has to understand looks pretty damn fishy in light of its cozy history with the company. and spare me the argument that halliburton was the only company capable of performing the work in question--b/c its bogus.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 17, 2004 12:47:41 GMT -5
Wow - big deal. A long-time member of the Senate has taken money from lobbyists. Bush spent much of his 2000 campaign touting himself not being a "Washington insider", but I believe he's taken a few dollars from Washington "special interests since his election (and I bet he had a few "special interest" bucks in his gubernatorial campaign coffers over the years). As for Kerry calling himself a "man of the people": when was the last time a candidate said "F the people! I'm running for the special interests!"? The issue is not that a Senator has taken money from lobbyists, but that this is a Senator who has taken money from lobbyists and then decries the influence of special interests and tries to portray himself as different than other politicians. If you're going to make the "man of the people" label work, you better not be #1 on the list of Senate money grabbers. As to your point on Bush's 2000 campaign - DUH! What he said in 2000 on this point is irrelevant. In 2000, he was an outsider (as much as a Governor and son of a President can be) and campaigned as such. This time around, he's not running as an outsider because, to state the obvious, he's the President of the United States.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2004 13:01:34 GMT -5
Lobbyists themselves are not sufficient to comprise what has been defined as special interests. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Senator ranks 92nd among current Senators in taking special interest money. Special interests also comprise PACs, from whom Kerry refuses to take political contributions.
I should also note that Bush has taken more money from lobbyists during this cycle than Kerry has taken from them during the course of his entire career in the Senate, and I ask who is more for the people. The question of degree is important.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 17, 2004 13:45:24 GMT -5
The issue is not that a Senator has taken money from lobbyists, but that this is a Senator who has taken money from lobbyists and then decries the influence of special interests and tries to portray himself as different than other politicians. If you're going to make the "man of the people" label work, you better not be #1 on the list of Senate money grabbers. As to your point on Bush's 2000 campaign - DUH! What he said in 2000 on this point is irrelevant. In 2000, he was an outsider (as much as a Governor and son of a President can be) and campaigned as such. This time around, he's not running as an outsider because, to state the obvious, he's the President of the United States. Well, as Cam noted, I don't think Dubya was shy about taking 'special interest' money when he was Governor, so what he said in 2000 on that issue IS somewhat relevant - but that's quibbling over semantics. I wouldn't carve that in stone just yet; given how well his "But I'm a War President..." defense appeared to go over in the wake of his Meet the Press appearance, I wouldn't be altogether shocked to see him convene another press conference over a woodpile in Crawford, TX.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 17, 2004 14:12:12 GMT -5
I should also note that Bush has taken more money from lobbyists during this cycle than Kerry has taken from them during the course of his entire career in the Senate, and I ask who is more for the people. The question of degree is important. Well, I would be worried if the President of the United States wasn't raising more money than a Senator who is 1 out of 100.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2004 14:45:31 GMT -5
KC,
I don't know what to tell you other than that Kerry simply will not be able to convince some people to vote for him just as Bush won't be able to convince some people to vote for him. So far as I can tell, Kerry cannot convince you to support him on Election Day, and that's fine.
Senator Kerry is #1 in the Senate as far as lobbyists' contributions are concerned. I should note that these contributions are also private contributions and do not originate from mega-corporations or trade unions, meaning that they are not soft money contributions. I see nothing wrong with taking private contributions. Of the contributions from lobbyists that Kerry has taken, they comprise less than 1% of the political contributions that he has taken, so he is not beholden to any of these individual lobbyists.
I would suggest that Bush isn't going to win or make too much progress on this issue considering some of his major donors (Ken Lay). Both McCain and Feingold would tell you of Kerry's major contributions to campaign finance reform and would applaud what he has done with his campaigns in not taking PAC money.
As a Kerry supporter, I like where we are sitting today. The AWOL story continues to dominate the news despite right wing attempts to push the invented and unsubstantiated intern allegation (see Drudge, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et. al.). I would also like to point out the ridiculousness of the photograph of Kerry sitting behind Fonda at a rally by noting that the photo was taken before Fonda went to Vietnam and by pointing out that Kerry denounced Fonda afterwards. McCain denounced the veteran who was behind the photograph by pointing out how this veteran assaulted a McCain staffer and has failed to come to terms with the findings of the POW-MIA committee that Kerry led. I would also like to point out how right wing sources continue to misquote Kerry and suggest that he has accused Vietnam veterans of committing war crimes. Kerry was taken out of context and only was reporting what others reported to him upon returning from Vietnam.
None of the attacks seems to be sticking in the mainstream press. Maybe the President should come out and present some ideas about where he wants to take the United States in the future.
|
|