Toward One-Party Rule
citizen
Toward One-Party Rule
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a democratic
political system. In practice, until very recently Mexico was a
one-party state. While the ruling party employed intimidation and
electoral fraud when necessary, mainly it kept control through
patronage, cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups,
including the media, were effectively part of the party's political
machine.
Such systems aren't unknown here - think of Richard J. Daley's
Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as a whole? A
forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly shows that the
foundations for one-party rule are being laid right now.
In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together
stories usually reported in isolation - from the drive to privatize
Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon
recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to
the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he
points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented
national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing
one-party rule in America.
Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in which
Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists.
These meetings are the culmination of Grover Norquist's "K Street
Project," which places Republican activists in high-level corporate
and industry lobbyist jobs - and excludes Democrats. According to
yesterday's Washington Post, a Republican National Committee official
recently boasted that "33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is
monitoring went to Republicans."
Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the party that
controls Congress and the White House; but as The Washington Post
explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues have also used "intimidation and
private threats" to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations
with both parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom DeLay,
the House majority leader, once declared, "you have to live by our
rules."
Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage - a reward for the
loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now owe their primary
loyalty to the party, rather than to the industries they represent. So
corporate cash, once split more or less evenly between the parties,
increasingly flows in only one direction.
And corporations themselves are also increasingly part of the party
machine. They are rewarded with policies that increase their profits:
deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of
environmental rules. In return, like G.M. and Verizon, they use their
influence to support the ruling party's agenda.
As a result, campaign finance is only the tip of the iceberg. Next
year, George W. Bush will spend two or three times as much money as
his opponent; but he will also benefit hugely from the indirect
support that corporate interests - very much including media companies
- will provide for his political message.
Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of their
burgeoning machine. "It never ceases to amaze me that people are so
cynical they want to tie money to issues, money to bills, money to
amendments," says Mr. DeLay. And Ari Fleischer says that "I think that
the amount of money that candidates raise in our democracy is a
reflection of the amount of support they have around the country."
Enough said.
Mr. Confessore suggests that we may be heading for a replay of the
McKinley era, in which the nation was governed by and for big
business. I think he's actually understating his case: like Mr. DeLay,
Republican leaders often talk of "revolution," and we should take them
at their word.
Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics - which may well
put an end to serious two-party competition - getting more attention?
Most pundits, to the extent they acknowledge that anything is
happening, downplay its importance. For example, last year an article
in Business Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists"
dismissed the K Street Project as "silly - and downright futile." In
fact, the project is well on the way to achieving its goals.
Whatever the reason, there's a strange disconnect between most
political commentary and the reality of the 2004 election. As in 2000,
pundits focus mainly on images - John Kerry's furrowed brow, Mr. Bush
in a flight suit - or on supposed personality traits. But it's the
nexus of money and patronage that may well make the election a
foregone conclusion.
===========================================================
The Washington Monthly
July/August 2003
Welcome to the Machine
How the GOP disciplined K Street and made Bush supreme.
By Nicholas Confessore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When presidents pick someone to fill a job in the government, it's
typically a very public affair. The White House circulates press
releases and background materials. Congress holds a hearing, where
some members will pepper the nominee with questions and others will
shower him or her with praise. If the person in question is
controversial or up for an important position, they'll rate a profile
or two in the papers. But there's one confirmation hearing you won't
hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum,
the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill
conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican
lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative
from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and
neither is the press.
The chief purpose of these gatherings is to discuss
jobs--specifically, the top one or two positions at the biggest and
most important industry trade associations and corporate offices
centered around Washington's K Street, a canyon of nondescript office
buildings a few blocks north of the White House that is to
influence-peddling what Wall Street is to finance. In the past, those
people were about as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, a practice
that ensured K Street firms would have clout no matter which party was
in power. But beginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in
1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president,
the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan
complexion of K Street. And Santorum's Tuesday meetings are a crucial
part of that effort. Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a
list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's
responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal
Republican--a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White
House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been
demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists
present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors.
"The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K
Street. Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that
that was the purpose of what we were doing," says Rod Chandler, a
retired congressman and lobbyist who has participated in the Santorum
meetings. "It's been a very successful effort."
If today's GOP leaders put as much energy into shaping K Street as
their predecessors did into selecting judges and executive-branch
nominees, it's because lobbying jobs have become the foundation of a
powerful new force in Washington politics: a Republican political
machine. Like the urban Democratic machines of yore, this one is built
upon patronage, contracts, and one-party rule. But unlike legendary
Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, who rewarded party functionaries with
jobs in the municipal bureaucracy, the GOP is building its machine
outside government, among Washington's thousands of trade associations
and corporate offices, their tens of thousands of employees, and the
hundreds of millions of dollars in political money at their disposal.
At first blush, K Street might not seem like the best place to build a
well-oiled political operation. For most of its existence, after all,
the influence industry has usually been the primary obstacle to
aggressive, ambitious policy-making in Washington. But over the last
few years, Republicans have brought about a revolutionary change:
They've begun to capture and, consequently, discipline K Street.
Through efforts like Santorum's--and a House version run by the
majority whip, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)--K Street is becoming solidly
Republican. The corporate lobbyists who once ran the show, loyal only
to the parochial interests of their employer, are being replaced by
party activists who are loyal first and foremost to the GOP. Through
them, Republican leaders can now marshal armies of lobbyists, lawyers,
and public relations experts--not to mention enormous amounts of
money--to meet the party's goals. Ten years ago, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics, the political donations of 19 key
industry sectors--including accounting, pharmaceuticals, defense, and
commercial banks--were split about evenly between the parties. Today,
the GOP holds a two-to-one advantage in corporate cash.
That shift in large part explains conservatives' extraordinary
legislative record over the last few years. Democrats, along with the
press, have watched in mounting disbelief as President Bush, lacking
either broad majorities in Congress or a strong mandate from voters,
has enacted startlingly bold domestic policies--from two major tax
cuts for the rich, to a rollback of workplace safety and environmental
standards, to media ownership rules that favor large conglomerates.
The secret to Bush's surprising legislative success is the GOP's
increasing control of Beltway influence-peddlers. K Street used to be
a barrier to sweeping change in Washington. The GOP has turned it into
a weapon.
Lobbyists on a Leash
To see how effective this machine can be, one need only compare the
Bush administration's current push to reform Medicare with Bill
Clinton's 1993 attempt to pass universal health insurance. Both set
out to enact revolutionary changes in the nation's health-care system.
And by most measures, Clinton would have seemed more likely to
succeed, having staked his presidential campaign on the popular issue
at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. By
contrast, Bush rarely mentioned Medicare during his campaign, and
enjoys much slimmer majorities in Congress. Furthermore, although his
prescription-drug benefit is popular, Bush's stated goal of moving
more seniors into private health plans is most definitely not. Yet
where Clinton's plan met an ignominious death, Bush's appears headed
for speedy passage.
There were, of course, many reasons why Clinton failed, from
mishandling relations with congressional leaders to the perceived
insularity and arrogance of the task force of policy wonks Hillary
Clinton assembled to tackle the challenge of achieving universal
health care. But another major obstacle was the business and
health-care interests on K Street. Clinton worked to win their
backing. Among other things, his plan would have capped employer
contributions to workers' health insurance at a level far below what
many large companies, like General Motors and Kodak, were already
paying to their employees' health plans, saving the companies billions
of dollars. But some of those firms nevertheless denounced Clinton's
plan after it was unveiled, rightly believing that they could bid up
the price of their support even more. Meanwhile, conservative
activists, eager to deny a new Democratic president his first major
political victory, worked to convince business lobbyists that they
would gain more by opposing Clinton than by supporting him. As more
and more K Street lobbies abandoned Clinton, the plan went down to
defeat.
Bush has taken a different approach. Instead of convening policy wonks
to solve a problem, he issued a price tag and a political goal: Set
Medicare on the road to privatization. When legislators from both
parties balked at his initial proposal to offer more generous drug
benefits to seniors who left Medicare for private plans, Bush dropped
it--but retained incentives to lure seniors into the private market.
What he didn't have to do was fight K Street, because the lobbyists
were already tamed. Those health-care interests that had doubts about
Bush's plan have been successfully pressured to keep quiet. Most of
the rest have given Bush their full support.
A good example is the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies have a
natural affinity for the GOP's effort to move seniors into private
plans, because if Medicare were to begin providing prescription drugs,
its bargaining power could drive down drug prices. But over the past
few years, Republican leaders have carefully cultivated and cajoled
the industry. The upper ranks of its Washington trade group, PhRMA,
are stocked with former aides to powerful Republicans, and its
political behavior reflects it: The industry, which gave roughly
evenly during the fight over Clinton's health-care plan, now
contributes 80 percent of its money to Republicans. PhRMA has
essentially become an extension of the GOP. It supported Bush's plan
with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign even before the plan had been
finalized and made public, and continued its support even as Bush
compromised in ways that went against the drug industry's interests.
By contrast, large corporations waited to see what Clinton's plan
looked like and then haggled over its details, while health-care
companies funded the famous "Harry and Louise" ads that eventually
helped sink it.
Bush's Medicare legislation could still stall or get watered down. But
the fact that the White House and the GOP have pushed it so far, so
fast, regardless of the risk and downside, hints not only at the power
of an organized K Street, but at the political end to which it is
being directed. For years, conservatives have tried and, mostly,
failed to significantly reduce the size of the federal government. The
large entitlement programs in particular command too much public
support to be cut, let alone abolished. But by co-opting K Street,
conservatives can do the next best thing--convert public programs like
Medicare into a form of private political spoils. As a government
program, Medicare is run by civil servants and controlled by elected
officials of both parties. Bush's legislation creates an avenue to
wean people from Medicare and into the private sector--or, at least, a
version of the private sector. For under the GOP plan, the medical
insurance industry would gradually become a captive of Washington,
living off the business steered to it by the government but dependent
on its Beltway lobbyists--themselves Republican surrogates--to
maintain this stream of wealth. Over time, private insurers would grow
to resemble the defense sector: closely entwined with government, a
revolving door for Republican officials, and vastly supportive,
politically and financially, of the GOP. Republicans are thus
engineering a tectonic political shift in two phases. First, move the
party to K Street. Then move the government there, too.
Rise of the Machine
The emerging Republican machine is the mirror image of that built by
the Democratic Party under Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors.
The edifice of federal bureaucracy that emerged between the 1930s and
the 1960s shifted power and resources from the private sphere to the
public, while centralizing economic regulation in federal agencies and
commissions. Democratic government taxed progressively, then
redistributed that money through a vast and growing network of public
institutions. Those constituencies that Democratic governance serviced
best--the working class, the poor, veterans, the elderly, and,
eventually, ethnic and racial minorities--made the Democrats the
majority party. "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect," as
Roosevelt's aide Harry Hopkins put it, became the basis of Democratic
power.
For many years, most business leaders adopted a conciliatory approach
to the new system and accepted its basic premises. But during the
1970s, prodded by intellectuals like Irving Kristol and Lewis Powell,
businesses began funding a new wave of aggressively ideological think
tanks and advocacy groups to challenge the intellectual underpinnings
of Democratic governance. Corporations sought influence by opening
Washington offices, launching PACs, and pouring money into their trade
associations. Savvy GOP operatives steered that money toward the
Republican Party. Between the early 1970s and mid-1980s, the number of
trade associations doubled; between 1981 and 1985, the number of
registered lobbyists in Washington quadrupled, vastly augmenting
business power and giving rise to K Street.
But there was a limit to what these groups could accomplish: Democrats
still enjoyed an entrenched majority in Congress. The need to
cultivate them meant that K Street's immediate interests would never
align with the GOP's even if, more often than not, their long-term
interests did. As a result, there emerged a broadly bipartisan
lobbying culture. To facilitate broad access, most trade associations
hired lobbyists from both parties, who were expected to be pragmatic
and nonideological. Although certain industries may have had
traditional ties to one party, most corporate PACs distributed money
roughly equally.
This culture flourished even during Ronald Reagan's two terms. When
Reagan was elected and Republicans won the Senate, GOP activists urged
business to donate more to their party. But a little-known California
Democrat named Tony Coelho stopped them in their tracks. As chairman
of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he reminded
business lobbyists that his party still controlled the House and, with
it, the committees and subcommittees through which any legislation
would have to pass. At the same time, he worked to convince
businessmen that Democrats, too, could deliver for them. During
Reagan's first two years, Coelho tripled the DCCC's fundraising. So
even as the Republican realignment chugged ahead, Democrats retained a
rough parity on K Street.
But while Democratic power endured, it contained an inherent tension.
For the most part, K Street groups supported Democrats because they
had to and Republicans because they wanted to. The Democrats needed
corporate money to stay competitive, but were limited by the pull of
their liberal, labor-oriented base. Although the party became
generally more pro-business during the 1980s, it had few natural
constituencies on K Street. At best, control of Congress allowed
Democratic leaders to cut occasional deals with business interests,
delivering key compromises--a tax break here, a floor vote there--in
exchange for a portion of business giving.
Thus, under Democratic rule, the private sector remained unorganized,
with lobbyists wielding huge influence, but in the service of a
thousand different agendas and interests. And, as these multiplied, K
Street became an obstacle to any large reforms. Lobbyists grew adept
at larding ambitious legislation with special-interest provisions.
When a reform threatened a large enough bloc, ad hoc coalitions could
defeat almost anything, regardless of its popularity with voters. This
inherent incoherence disadvantaged Republican presidents as much as it
later would Clinton. Reagan's 1981 tax cut, primarily intended as an
across-the-board rate reduction for individuals, passed Congress as a
special-interest bonanza adorned with far more corporate loopholes and
special breaks than his advisers had planned, so ballooning the
federal deficit that Reagan spent the remainder of his presidency
ratcheting taxes back up, four times between 1982 and 1984 alone. "The
hogs were really feeding," David Stockman, Reagan's budget director,
later confessed. "The greed level, the level of opportunism just got
out of control."
The DeLay School
It took something that hadn't happened in 40 years to begin to change
the culture of K Street: In 1994, Republicans won control of Congress.
All of a sudden, the Democrats' traditional power base evaporated, and
with it much of their leverage over lobbyists. New Republican leaders
like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and a handful of close
advisers like Ed Gillespie and Grover Norquist, quickly consolidated
power in the House, and turned their attention to the lobbying
community. Revolutionaries all, they nursed a deep disdain for K
Street pragmatism. "They had a hard time dealing with lobbyists who
were used to dealing with Democrats [and] were looking at ways to
change this in the interests of the [conservative] coalition," says
one conservative activist.
One way was to start ensuring that the new GOP agenda of radical
deregulation, tax and spending cuts, and generally reducing government
earned the financial support they thought it deserved. In 1995, DeLay
famously compiled a list of the 400 largest PACs, along with the
amounts and percentages of money they had recently given to each
party. Lobbyists were invited into DeLay's office and shown their
place in "friendly" or "unfriendly" columns. ("If you want to play in
our revolution," DeLay told The Washington Post, "you have to live by
our rules.") Another was to oust Democrats from trade associations,
what DeLay and Norquist dubbed "the K Street Strategy." Sometimes
revolutionary zeal got the better of them. One seminal moment, never
before reported, occurred in 1996 when Haley Barbour, who was chairman
of the Republican National Committee, organized a meeting of the House
leadership and business executives. "They assembled several large
company CEOs and made it clear to them that they were expected to
purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with
Republicans," says a veteran steel lobbyist. The Republicans also
demanded more campaign money and help for the upcoming election. The
meeting descended into a shouting match, and the CEOs, most of them
Republicans, stormed out.
DeLay's attempt to corral the private sector stalled soon after. While
corporate giving took on a more Republican cast and more Republicans
began to be hired, the GOP leadership experienced significant
pushback, for two reasons. One was that Democrats still controlled the
White House. The other was that, by most measures, Clinton's
presidency had been very good for business, especially for the large
corporations who had supported Clinton's efforts to bring the budget
deficit under control. By 1996, corporate and trade association PACs
still gave roughly three-quarters of their money to both parties'
incumbents. After Clinton's 1996 reelection, Gingrich's subsequent
combustion, and Democratic gains in Congress two years later, the
bipartisan lobbying culture remained largely intact.
It took the 2000 elections, which gave Republicans the White House and
Congress, to completely change the climate. In the months after,
Santorum became the Senate's point man on K Street and launched his
Tuesday meetings. Working on the outside, Norquist accelerated what he
calls the "K Street Project," a database intended to track the party
affiliation, Hill experience, and political giving of every lobbyist
in town. With Democrats out of power, these efforts are bearing fruit.
Slowly, the GOP is marginalizing Democratic lobbyists and populating K
Street with loyal Republicans. (DeLay alone has placed a dozen of his
aides at key lobbying and trade association jobs in the last few
years--"graduates of the DeLay school," as they are known.) Already,
the GOP and some of its key private-sector allies, such as PhRMA, have
become indistinguishable.
Dinging the Chicks
Republicans, of course, see things differently. "The Democrats are
terrified that our K Street Project is going to replicate the way that
they behaved when they had the House and Senate," says Norquist. For
him and many of his contemporaries, Democratic rule prior to 1994 was
no less autocratic than that of Republicans today. But there's a
fundamental difference: Democrats were limited by the basic tension
between pleasing their labor base and corporate interests. Unions did,
and still do, function as arms of the Democratic Party. When it came
to the vastly bigger interests on K Street, someone like Coelho could
aim only for financial parity and perhaps a slight advantage in jobs.
The emerging GOP machine, however, is premised on a unity of interests
between party and industry, which means the GOP can ask for--and
demand--total loyalty.
With thin Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a market for
Democratic lobbyists remains, and traditional bipartisan lobbying
firms still thrive. But increasingly, the trade associations and their
corporate representatives--those firms run by Republicans--are the
beneficiaries of Washington's new spoils system. And like Mayor
Daley's ward supervisors, they are expected to display total loyalty.
"These guys come downtown thinking that they owe their job to somebody
on the Hill or the influence that somebody brought to bear for them,
and they think it's their primary function, in addition to working for
the entities they've joined, to sustain the relationship between the
Hill and themselves," says Vic Fazio, a top Democratic lobbyist and
former congressman from California. "They rationalize it by saying
it's good for the old boss and the new one, too."
Day-to-day, the most trusted lobbyists--like those who attend
Santorum's meetings--serve as commissars, providing the leadership
with eyes and ears as well as valuable advice and feedback. And
generally, placing party surrogates atop trade associations makes them
more responsive to the party's needs. However, the K Street strategy
also provides the GOP with a number of specific advantages. From a
machine perspective, such jobs are far more useful than appointive
positions in the executive branch. Private sector work has none of
government's downside. Political machines thrive on closed-door
decision-making; on K Street, there's no other kind. Neither are trade
associations subject to inspector generals or congressional oversight;
there are no rules against whom you can meet with, no reporters armed
with FOIAs. These jobs also make for better patronage. Whereas a
deputy undersecretary might earn $140,000, a top oil lobbyist can make
$400,000. Controlling K Street also helps Republicans accumulate
political talent. Many ex-Clintonites who might have wanted top
lobbying positions couldn't get them, and so left Washington for posts
at universities, corporations, and foundations elsewhere. But the GOP,
able to dole out the most desirable jobs, has kept more of its best
people in Washington, where they can be hauled out for government or
campaign work like clubs in a golf bag.
But jobs and campaign contributions are just the tip of the iceberg.
Control a trade association, and you control the considerable
resources at its disposal. Beginning in the 1990s, Washington's
corporate offices and trade associations began to resemble miniature
campaign committees, replete with pollsters and message consultants.
To supplement PAC giving, which is limited by federal election laws,
corporations vastly increased their advocacy budgets, with trade
organizations spending millions of dollars in soft money on issue ad
campaigns in congressional districts. And thanks to the growing number
of associations whose executives are beholden to DeLay or Santorum,
these campaigns are increasingly put in the service of GOP candidates
and causes. Efforts like the one PhRMA made on behalf of Bush's
Medicare plan have accompanied every major administration initiative.
Many of them have been run out of the offices of top Republican
lobbyists such as Ed Gillespie, whose recent elevation to chairman of
the Republican National Committee epitomizes the new unity between
party and K Street. Such is the GOP's influence that it has been able
to marshal on behalf of party objectives not just corporate lobbyists,
but the corporations themselves. During the Iraq war, for instance,
the media conglomerate Clear Channel Communications Inc. had its
stations sponsor pro-war rallies nationwide and even banned the Dixie
Chicks, who had criticized White House policy, from its national play
list. Likewise, last spring Norquist and the White House convinced a
number of corporations and financial services firms to lobby customers
to support Bush's dividends tax cut. Firms like General Motors and
Verizon included flyers touting the plan with dividends checks mailed
to stockholders; Morgan Stanley included a letter from its CEO with
the annual report it mailed to millions of customers.
Lobby Horses
Although this arrangement is intended to mutually benefit the GOP and
the businesses who support it, in practice, the new Republican machine
must balance the needs of K Street with the interests of the party.
Sometimes that requires the GOP to take positions that it knows will
be unpopular with voters or open the party up to criticism from the
press. Shortly after Bush took office, at the behest of business
groups, congressional Republicans summarily tossed out a set of
ergonomics standards that Bush's father had sent wending through the
rule-making process a decade earlier. Similarly, in June,
Republican-appointed commissioners on the Federal Communications
Commission--bowing to the wishes of large broadcasters and newspaper
chains--dumped 50-year-old federal regulations on media ownership,
causing a wave of public anger. And while it's not uncommon for
lobbyists to have a hand in writing legislation on the Hill, the Bush
administration has sometimes shifted the locus of executive policy
making so far towards K Street that Bush's own appointees are cut out
of the process. While environmental groups complained loudly about
being excluded from meetings of Dick Cheney's energy task force,
Bush's own energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, was barely involved. As
Public Citizen pointed out in a February 2003 letter to Congress,
Joseph Kelliher, a senior advisor to Abraham and his point man on the
task force, didn't write white papers or propose ideas of his own, but
merely solicited suggestions from a cross-section of energy lobbyists
and passed them on to the White House, where they were added to the
task force's recommendations nearly verbatim. Top administration
officials then handed the package down to the House, where it was
approved almost unaltered.
But the flip side of the deal is that trade associations and
corporations are expected to back the party's initiatives even on
occasions when doing so is not in their own best interest. When Bush's
recently passed dividends tax cut proposal was first announced, the
life insurance industry complained that the bill would sharply reduce
the tax advantage of annuities sold by insurance companies,
potentially costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. The
industry's lobbyists were told to get behind the president's proposal
anyway--or lose any chance to plead their case. So they did. In
mid-March, Frank Keating, the head of the industry's trade group and a
close friend of Bush's, hand-delivered a letter to the White House
co-signed by nearly 50 CEOs, endorsing the president's proposal while
meekly raising the hope that taxes on dividends from annuities would
also be included in the final repeal (which they weren't). Those firms
that didn't play ball on Bush's pan paid the price. The Electronic
Industries Alliance was one of the few big business lobbies that
declined to back the tax cut, in large part because the high-tech
companies that make up a good portion of its membership don't even
issue dividends. As a result, the trade group was frozen out of all
tax discussions at the White House. The final bill reflected the
ability of the GOP machine to pass legislation largely on its own
terms: Whereas Reagan's 1981 tax bill was a Christmas tree of special
breaks, Bush's was relatively clean, mainly benefiting wealthy
individuals and small businesses, as the administration had intended.
Positively K Street
If you read The Washington Post last spring, you might have come
across what seemed, on the surface, to be just another small beer
scandal. This one involved Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio), who heads the
House Committee on Financial Services. Late last year, Oxley was set
to launch an investigation of pricing practices in the mutual fund
industry. But in December, one of his staffers allegedly let it be
known that Oxley might go easy on the mutual funds if their trade
group, the Investment Company Institute (ICI), pushed out its
Democratic chief lobbyist, Julie Domenick. The Post's reporting caused
a minor uproar; the House Ethics Committee briefly considered an
investigation. The press coverage, however, never made clear why a
powerful committee chairman like Oxley would risk his career over one
job on K Street.
What explains Oxley's decision is the same thing that explains why the
Bush administration would risk angering voters by attempting to
privatize Medicare: The GOP needs K Street's muscle for long-term
ideological projects to remake the national government. For years,
conservatives have been pushing to divert part of Social Security into
private investment accounts. Such a move, GOP operatives argued, would
provide millions of new customers and potentially trillions of dollars
to the mutual fund industry that would manage the private accounts.
The profits earned would, of course, be shared with the GOP in the
form of campaign contributions. In other words, by sluicing the funds
collected by the federal government's largest social insurance program
through businesses loyal to the GOP, the party would instantly convert
the crown jewels of Democratic governance into a pillar of the new
Republican machine. But to make the plan a reality, the GOP needed
groups like the ICI to get behind the idea--by funding
pro-privatization think tanks, running issue ads attacking
anti-privatization Democrats, and so on. The ICI, however, had always
been lukewarm to privatization, for which conservatives blamed
Domenick. Hence, the GOP machine decided she had to go. In the end, to
quell the Oxley scandal, Domenick was allowed to keep her job. But ICI
hired a former general counsel to Newt Gingrich to work alongside her,
and the GOP's campaign to get K Street behind Social Security
privatization continues.
If the GOP is willing to be aggressive enough, even the federal
payroll can become a source of patronage. Recently, as part of Bush's
"competitive sourcing" initiative, the Interior Department announced
that over half of the Park Service's 20,000 jobs could be performed by
private contractors; according to the Post, administration officials
have already told the service's senior managers to plan on about
one-third of their jobs being outsourced. (Stay tuned for "Yosemite: A
division of Halliburton Corporation.") But the Park Service is only
the beginning. Bush has proposed opening up 850,000 federal
jobs--about half of the total--to private contractors. And while doing
so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer
money out of the public sector and into private sector firms, where
the GOP has a chance to steer contracts towards politically connected
firms.
Anyone who doubts this eventuality need look no further than Florida.
There, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out last year,
Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, has outsourced millions of
dollars worth of work formerly performed by government employees to
private contractors. There's little evidence that doing so has
improved state services, as the governor's own staff admits. But it
has vastly improved the financial state of the Florida Republican
Party. According to an investigation by The Miami Herald last fall,
"[t]he policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given
[Bush], other Republican politicians, and the Florida GOP millions of
dollars in campaign donations."
The New Spoils System
The Bush brothers would not be the first political family to turn
government contracts into a source of political power. When the
current mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, won his father's old job
14 years ago, civil service reform had already wrecked the old system
of bureaucratic patronage. So the new mayor began to farm out
government services to private contractors, many of which returned the
favor by donating generously to Daley's reelection campaigns. Today,
Daley dominates Chicago politics almost as thoroughly as did his
father. Like his father, Daley has used his power, in part, to improve
city services voters care about, from better schools to the flower
beds lining Lake Shore Drive. By contrast, the fruits of today's
Republican machine--tax cuts and deregulation--have been enjoyed
mainly by corporations and upper-income voters, while federal
services, from college aid to environmental protection, are getting
scaled back.
Indeed, it's striking how openly and unapologetically Bush and his
party have allied themselves with corporations and the wealthy. The
rhetoric of compassion aside, no one who pays attention to what goes
on in Washington could have much doubt as to where the Bush
administration's priorities lie. If the economy doesn't improve or
unemployment continues to get worse, the GOP may find it's not such an
advantage to be seen catering so enthusiastically to monied interests.
But most Republicans seem confident that the strength they gain by
harnessing K Street will be enough to muscle through the next
election--so confident, in fact, that Bush, breaking with conventional
electoral wisdom, has eschewed tacking to the political center late in
his term. And if the GOP can prevail at the polls in the short term,
its nascent political machine could usher in a new era of one-party
government in Washington. As Republicans control more and more K
Street jobs, they will reap more and more K Street money, which will
help them win larger and larger majorities on the Hill. The larger the
Republican majority, the less reason K Street has to hire Democratic
lobbyists or contribute to the campaigns of Democratic politicians,
slowly starving them of the means by which to challenge GOP rule.
Already during this cycle, the Republicans' campaign committees have
raised about twice as much as their Democratic counterparts. So far,
the gamble appears to be paying off.
It wouldn't be the first time. A little over a century ago, William
McKinley--Karl Rove's favorite president--positioned the Republican
Party as a bulwark of the industrial revolution against the growing
backlash from agrarian populists, led by Democratic presidential
candidate William Jennings Bryan. The new business titans flocked to
McKinley's side, providing him with an extraordinary financial
advantage over Bryan. McKinley's victory in 1896 ushered in a long
period of government largely by and for industry (interrupted briefly,
and impermanently, by the Progressive Era). But with vast power came,
inevitably, arrogance and insularity. By the 1920s, Republican rule
had degenerated into corruption and open larceny--and a government
that, in the face of rapidly growing inequality and fantastic
concentration of wealth and opportunity among the fortunate few,
resisted public pressure for reform. It took a few more years, and the
Great Depression, for the other shoe to drop. But in 1932 came the
landslide election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the founding of
the very structure of governance today's Republicans hope to
dismantle. Who knows? History may yet repeat itself.
.......................................
Nicholas Confessore is an editor of The Washington Monthly.
dave
"citizen" <cit...@wdsco.net> wrote in message
news:3f023b3f...@news.io.com...
Bucky Kaufman
manifestos on the evils of Democracy would be appropriate. Bushies hate
Socialist ideals like Democracy and self-rule.
"citizen" <cit...@wdsco.net> wrote in message
news:3f023b3f...@news.io.com...
> June 27, 2003
> Toward One-Party Rule
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
Ted Holden
> [ US moving towards one-party system...]
Hate to say it, but the democrat party at this juncture has clearly gone
rogue and does not deserve to be part of any two party system.
We need runoff elections, so that nobody could ever hold an office in this
land with less than 50% of the vote, and nobody would ever be afraid to
vote for his first choice candidate, at least initially.
My guess is that that would eliminate the dems within four years as a major
party, since they're basically just a gangster organization at this point.
If we got really lucky, the choice might get to be between republicans and
libertarians on most ballots. Or you might end up with republicans,
libertarians, and some sort of a legitimate populist party with Ralph
Nader, Kunicinich, and whatever other honest leftists might be left.
But until that happens, I'd feel safer with just the republicans than I do
with democras anywhere near power.
Thom
wrote:
>It's notable that in a discussion of Bush's Politics - this guy felt like
>manifestos on the evils of Democracy would be appropriate. Bushies hate
>Socialist ideals like Democracy and self-rule.
or poor people having access to jobs, medical care, cheap (legal)
drugs, good housing at a fair price etc etc.
THOM
Stuart Grey
citizen wrote:
> June 27, 2003
> Toward One-Party Rule
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of their
> burgeoning machine.
This has GOT to be the stupidest reason for voting
Democrat! "Yes, we KNOW that the Democrats don't
represent you and you hate our platform! Vote for
us anyway because the Republicans are giving you
what you want and are popular and we're heading
towards a one party system!!"
LOL! Some Democrats seem to see there is a problem,
but have yet to put their finger on the cause of it;
NO ONE LIKES THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE
PEOPLE.
"Libs_R Dumber Than_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Steamroller
"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:3F038A7F...@example.net...
Let's be blunt: today's Democrat Party really sucks.
Gene
@example.net:
Did you forget that we won the popular vote? That is a better indication
of views than a poll. You folks are going to lose. Especially when the
seniors see the crap your party is doing to the medicare program. No way
Bush will win four more years. His actions are quickly showing his
promises were empty.
Stuart Grey
Gene wrote:
> Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote in news:3F038A7F.3010707
> @example.net:
>
>
>>
>>citizen wrote:
>>
>>>June 27, 2003
>>>Toward One-Party Rule
>>>By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>
>>>Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of their
>>>burgeoning machine.
>>
>>This has GOT to be the stupidest reason for voting
>>Democrat! "Yes, we KNOW that the Democrats don't
>>represent you and you hate our platform! Vote for
>>us anyway because the Republicans are giving you
>>what you want and are popular and we're heading
>>towards a one party system!!"
>>
>>LOL! Some Democrats seem to see there is a problem,
>>but have yet to put their finger on the cause of it;
>>NO ONE LIKES THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE
>>PEOPLE.
>>
>>
>
>
> Did you forget that we won the popular vote?
Hey! Yeah, that was the election before last,
wasn't it? Too bad about that. Some kind of
hang up with the actual constitution, eh? Silly
old constution gets in the way of making President
Gore. What's a rule or two when it gets in the way
of Democrats and power, anyway, right?
Did you know that Gore says you should get the
HELL over it and get on with your life?
You remember the last election, when
the Republicans took back the congress. Now
you got some fool as a front runner, Howard
Dean, and the back up fool, JFK - er, J.F.
"Poofy hair" Kerry, who is trying to not be
mistaken for JF Kennedy not at all.
"Libs_R Dumber Than_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Steamroller
"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93ACDF7007...@216.168.3.44...
> Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote in news:3F038A7F.3010707
> @example.net:
>
> >
> >
> > citizen wrote:
> >> June 27, 2003
> >> Toward One-Party Rule
> >> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> >
> >> Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of their
> >> burgeoning machine.
> >
> > This has GOT to be the stupidest reason for voting
> > Democrat! "Yes, we KNOW that the Democrats don't
> > represent you and you hate our platform! Vote for
> > us anyway because the Republicans are giving you
> > what you want and are popular and we're heading
> > towards a one party system!!"
> >
> > LOL! Some Democrats seem to see there is a problem,
> > but have yet to put their finger on the cause of it;
> > NO ONE LIKES THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE
> > PEOPLE.
> >
> >
>
> Did you forget that we won the popular vote?
Nope, not at all. The House is the ONLY branch of government which is
apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote. The Senate is not, nor is the
Presidency. And the Democrats haven't been able to win the race for the
House since 1992. That's over a DECADE ago, pal.
So F U, lying liberal Democrat assh*le.
Foxtrot
>"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote
>> > LOL! Some Democrats seem to see there is a problem,
>> > but have yet to put their finger on the cause of it;
>> > NO ONE LIKES THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE
>> > PEOPLE.
>>
>> Did you forget that we won the popular vote?
>
>Nope, not at all. The House is the ONLY branch of government which is
>apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote. The Senate is not, nor is the
>Presidency.
Gore should have won the 2000 election by double digits,
considering the circumstances. As VP, he was being groomed
to be President during eight years of fairly good times, and
was handed the nomination by a President leaving office due
to term limits (although I doubt BJ could get elected again).
Gore couldn't even win his home state!
>And the Democrats haven't been able to win the race for the
>House since 1992. That's over a DECADE ago, pal.
I wouldn't get overconfident, they'll be back. But at the moment,
Dems remind me of the Reps during the 90s. The more they
try to damage their opponents, the worse they look.
dave
"Steamroller" <Rene "Libs_R Dumber Than_Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:w%LMa.23765$fG.11986@sccrnsc01...
Both you and Stuart are proud of your ignorance so you two are hopeless. You
DO NOT represent most of America.
dave
"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:3F03905B...@example.net...
followed as it should have been. So, as with other similar "non-elections"
of sons and grandsons of Presidents such as Adams and Harrison, there will
be one term for the corrupt Bush.
dave
popular vote. This instance was way outside that as it was rushed through
sooner than need be buy Florida Republicans and a Republican Supreme Court.
a recovering liberal
> >
> We have one party rule today, through coercion, propaganda and fear.
What State do you live in? California?
a recovering liberal
Did you forget the Repubs won the electoral vote? That trumps the
popular vote in our politics.
You go up to some young working voter and ask him for money to pay for
the drugs of some old person. Tell me what he says to you.
Hello Man
>
>
> Nope, not at all. The House is the ONLY branch of government which is
> apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote. The Senate is not, nor is the
> Presidency. And the Democrats haven't been able to win the race for the
> House since 1992. That's over a DECADE ago, pal.
>
> So F U, lying liberal Democrat assh*le.
You fuckers are going to get your asses handed to you in '04. I can't
wait to watch the fuckers at Fox say the phrase "President Dean".
Refucklicans won't be able to disenfranchise enough blacks to cover
how much they're going to lose by this time.
Gene
news:a385f5a1.0307...@posting.google.com:
I know what I say when they ask me to pay more taxes for education even
though my kids are grown. I say yes. You are a selfish little shit
practicing the new religion of MEism and represent the worst of the
republican party. Your sight extends to the tips of your fingers and no
farther than their grasp. It would be useless to try to explain how the
values of compassion, generosity, integrity and dignity are important to
advance the condition all Americans and than their success will lead to
our success as a society and culture. So I won't bother. I will say that
after 25 years of military service, every time I run across a shithead
like you it makes wonder if I had my weapon systems pointed in the right
direction. But then I realize there has always been the Scrooges, the
'Doctor Smiths', and the Helmsly's in this country. You and your ilk are
why we need laws, regulations, and prisons. Still, it would warm the
cockles of my heart to have hellfire headed up your narrow tight little
ass.
Julian D.
Tell me Gene, old man,...what do you think of the trillions the
government has already given towards education? Why is it still
terrible? What makes you think that throwing more money at it will
improve it?
Concerning the prescription drugs, what have old people done to
deserve free medication? Live to an old age?
Gene
news:3k88gvscd5d0950v7...@4ax.com:
Well clearly money will stop the schools from closing early.
Your president Said "No Child left behind" Then accomplished that by
insuring all would be left behind. That's his solution. What's yours?
Corporate education? Education of the wealthy only.
You folks constantly want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Amazingly foolish response.
And I see we have another MEist. The selfish generation. At this moment
I can't remember who said 'United we stand ... Divided we fall' but it
applies to all aspects of life in this country. You poor excuses for
humanity and perfect advertisements for birth control are really coming
out of your holes these days. The better question would be what did you
do to deserve to be born? Nada, nil, nix. You turn on the tap and drink
the water and are unable to equate that with a bunch of low paid workers
whose sweat allowed you to accomplish that simple feat. You walk thru
life with blinders on and in true Helmsly style think you did it all on
your own. Well, if Bush is successful in removing all labor laws you will
quickly find out how dependant we are on each other. The slowdowns,
strikes and shutdowns will be enormous. The repercussions of this time in
our history will insure this type of abuse of power will be a long time
happening again and once again you folks will have to hid back in your
holes.
Stuart Grey
dave wrote:
> "Steamroller" <Rene "Libs_R Dumber Than_Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:w%LMa.23765$fG.11986@sccrnsc01...
>
>>"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
< snip >
>>Let's be blunt: today's Democrat Party really sucks.
>
>
> Both you and Stuart are proud of your ignorance so you two are hopeless. You
> DO NOT represent most of America.
Let's see... I say that the Democrats
are in danger of becoming irrelevant, the
Democrats say the Democrats are in danger
of becoming irrelevant, and the data on
the congress and the polls show that the
Democrats are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
The whole thrust of the Krugman article was
that we are moving towards one party, Republican
rule.
The only person here who doesn't seem to be
clued in on this is YOU.
Mark Cook
The Law in Florida says that a recount in an federal election must include
ALL ballots. Gore to ignore Florida law and only ask for a partial recount.
> The Constitution wasn't followed as it should have been.
You are correct, Gore did everything he could to make sure that all the
ballots were NOT counted.
> So, as with other similar "non-elections"
> of sons and grandsons of Presidents such as Adams and Harrison, there will
> be one term for the corrupt Bush.
Blah Blah Blah
Mark Cook
Gore had more than 30 days to follow the law and ask for a complete recount.
Instead, he decide to try to steal the election.
dave
"Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:XkWMa.372$aC7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Bush stole the election.
"Libs_R_Dumber_Than Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Steamroller
>
> "Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:XkWMa.372$aC7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Bush stole the election.
Nope. Bush obeyed the law. Gore didn't. So the court stopped him, and put
a halt to Gore's attempted shenanigans.
a recovering liberal
Stats scores go down, grades go down and dropouts increase; and you
want to pay more taxes to fund it. I don't need to say more.
And to back it all up; you give an ad hominum attack!
" When was the last time you read an article about poverty, about
crime, about the problems of our educational system that didn't point
to one overriding truth: that every single one of those problems is
tied to the disintegration of the marriage-based, two parent family
the most important institution in the land? When are we going to wake
up? The moral problems of this country are it's practical problems."
- Alan Keyes
dave
"Steamroller" <Rene "Libs_R_Dumber_Than Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Ul_Ma.4497$Ey6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
you.
Mark Cook
>
> "Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:XkWMa.372$aC7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Bush stole the election.
ROFLMAO.
All Gore had to do was follow Florida Law and ask for a full recount. Did he
do it? No. Did the FSC make him follow the law? No, they decided to change
the law.
Too bad, Gore loses because he tried to cheat the system.
Next!
Julian D.
No..school choice. Simple. Let the public schools get very, very
afraid. There's so much waste, it boggles the mind. Bring the
competition in.
>You folks constantly want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
>Amazingly foolish response.
>
>And I see we have another MEist. The selfish generation. At this moment
>I can't remember who said 'United we stand ... Divided we fall' but it
>applies to all aspects of life in this country. You poor excuses for
>humanity and perfect advertisements for birth control are really coming
>out of your holes these days. The better question would be what did you
>do to deserve to be born? Nada, nil, nix. You turn on the tap and drink
>the water and are unable to equate that with a bunch of low paid workers
>whose sweat allowed you to accomplish that simple feat. You walk thru
>life with blinders on and in true Helmsly style think you did it all on
>your own.
Well, yes...I did do it on my own.
Liberal inspired guilt-trips are dead sir.
>Well, if Bush is successful in removing all labor laws you will
>quickly find out how dependant we are on each other. The slowdowns,
>strikes and shutdowns will be enormous. The repercussions of this time in
>our history will insure this type of abuse of power will be a long time
>happening again and once again you folks will have to hid back in your
>holes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bush is evil, blah blah blah. We have enough
liberal ninnies here spouting this nonsense. You call it 'MEist', I
call liberal ideas 'Give me yours, it's not fair you have more.' You
engage in class-warfare along with the other redistributionists.
Gene
With a statement like what you said about the seniors in this country
what the heck did you expect? It was a stupid, shallow and childish
remark.
Now if your want to talk about the problems, you may find we have common
grounds. Grades haven't gone down, they have been inflated. The public
education system is important enough to save. Can it be done better? Yes.
We spend to much money on support personnel. They almost out number the
teachers. They include a tripling of administrative folks, security folks
and psychologists. This was done for several reasons. The increase in
admin folks was to increase the number of disciplinary folks and to give
more room at the top for teachers to strive for; It has gotten out of
hand and some schools around here have a principle and vice principle for
each grade. The addition of security folks was needed when failure and
expulsion was found 'politically incorrect'. The touchy feely
psychologist were added to parent the kids when the parents relinquished
that job.
Is the root problem as Mr. Keyes indicated? Yes, I believe he is
right. I have always believed this. But is it a liberal or conservative
caused problem -no. It began to occur in the 70's when women woke up and
demanded equal treatment. They left the home and the children for the
corporate world in droves and in doing so almost doubled the work force
over two decades. This caused the cheapening of labor and resulted in
lower real incomes. Consequently, more women were required to work in
order to pay the bills - most of these women would have preferred
remaining as home makers.
The departure of women from the home also corresponded to the rise in
crimes committed by teens. The lost of the teacher of compassion, fair
play, kindness and sharing from the household, resulted in whole
generations of future selfish, far rightwing republicans in the best case
and criminals in the worst. We as a society managed to take the
absolutely most important job any of us could do - homemaker - and
allowed a small group of radical feminists convince us the homemaker was
a low job when in reality it was the single most important job in the
household.
Recently, a small number of women have been giving up their jobs for
the home. We can only hope this trend grows. I see no realistic way to
fix this mess near term. Long term, perhaps letting the stay at home mom
count as a doubling factor for exemptions. So a family with two children
and a stay at home mom would count as a family of eight on the tax roles.
The deduction would have to be enough to replace about 50% of their
wages. Nature and child care expenses would take care of the other 50%.
This would be a far better use of the tax cut than giving it back as Bush
has done. Wages would eventually rise as labor became in shorter supply.
The loss of Mr. Keyes was a huge loss to the moderates in the
Republican party. I am sure he was pushed by the far right like DeLay. I
wonder Delay's mother worked?
j
wrote:
>Hey! Yeah, that was the election before last,
>wasn't it? Too bad about that. Some kind of
>hang up with the actual constitution, eh? Silly
>old constution gets in the way of making President
>Gore. What's a rule or two when it gets in the way
>of Democrats and power, anyway, right?
Rule or two, my ass. Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush wiped what we know
now to be over 94,000 LEGAL VOTERS, mostly black and hispanic off the
voter rolls. That is a FACT. It was a STOLEN election. And anybody
that thinks we should "get over" the destruction of democracy in this
country should go live in a country where people aren't allowed to
vote.
How you Nazis can go on pretending to be patriots baffles me.
Educate yourself, moron.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1
dave
"Julian D." <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:b689gvshfn2du4tt4...@4ax.com...
You engage in class warfare and bemoan educating and paying our teachers
decent salaries. You are a selfish MEist.
Gene
Any educated man shivers everytime they hear the word 'evil' It belongs
in the Salem witch hunt days or a grade B horror flic, not today. The
word 'Evil' allows you folks to ignore the reasons behind the actions of
fanatics like Ben Laden and go straight to 'GO' bypassing bumps in the
road like diplomacy and prevention. You folks have really gone and
elected a full blown born again fanatic. Evil my ass, people make choices
some right, some wrong, most a mix of both. Nature and nurture, along
with experience and circumstance seasoned with intelligence dictate our
choices. You folks have decided to emulate your President and forego the
seasoning and react with your gut. You folks are as predictable as water,
always choosing the path of least resistance. Things like integrity,
generosity, and genuine compassion are the hard choices, they require
sacrifice and thought. None of these traits can be found in the current
Administration or most of their supporters.
Raymond Luxury-Yacht II
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3F038A7F...@example.net...
> >
> >
> > citizen wrote:
> > > June 27, 2003
> > > Toward One-Party Rule
> > > By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> > > Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of their
> > > burgeoning machine.
> >
> > This has GOT to be the stupidest reason for voting
> > Democrat! "Yes, we KNOW that the Democrats don't
> > represent you and you hate our platform! Vote for
> > us anyway because the Republicans are giving you
> > what you want and are popular and we're heading
> > towards a one party system!!"
> >
> > LOL! Some Democrats seem to see there is a problem,
> > but have yet to put their finger on the cause of it;
> > NO ONE LIKES THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE
> > PEOPLE.
>
>
Let's continue to be blunt. The Republican Party and Bush are
starting to act more like liberal Democrats.
Bush is going to become like his pappy and become a moderate. This
will be a big mistake for him.
He also better stay out of Liberia. His pappy went into Somalia
because the liberal media scum were whining that something had to be
done. Bush 1's Somalia humanitarin plan was not that bad until
Clinton changed the mission ti a military mission. Clinton then
refused to send the Army Bradley M2's. The Army kept asking for the
M2s for back up. Clinton said no and the result was "Black Hawk
Down."
Stuart Grey
LOL! The Democrats are unpopular because assholes like
you represent them. Even Gore says you're full of shit
and should leave it alone.
And the facts just don't support your wild claims. Like
all Democrats, you just see YOUR side of the issue. You
totally ignore that there were thousands of Felons who did
vote, and we know that they voted heavily for Gore and
gave him another 3000+ votes that WERE counted.
And then there are you lies.
Do carry on acting like a crank! It was the Democrat wing
of the Democrat party, acting like assholes at the Welstone
memorial, that gave the Republicans control of the Senate
in the last election. Twits like you are the best thing that
ever happened to the Republican party!
dave
Sphincter Mouth Stu spouts again.
Julian D.
Bingo! The main crux of the argument between liberals and
Conservatives.
We'll never believe there was any valid, rational, or sane 'reason'
behind the actions of bin laden. Except for their maniacal following
of the teachings of the pedophile-prophet mohammed.
I personally do NOT want to hear their excuses, their rational. The
only way to help these people is to kill them. We give them
legitimacy by hearing them out. F 'em.
>and go straight to 'GO' bypassing bumps in the
>road like diplomacy and prevention.
These bumps were ignored by Clinton. It had to take a real President
like Bush to flatten them out.
>You folks have really gone and
>elected a full blown born again fanatic.
yeah yeah yeah....evil Bush, Bush the fanatic..blah blah blah
>Evil my ass, people make choices
>some right, some wrong, most a mix of both. Nature and nurture, along
>with experience and circumstance seasoned with intelligence dictate our
>choices. You folks have decided to emulate your President and forego the
>seasoning and react with your gut.
You don't reason with muslim anti-American fanatics. History has
taught us that.
>You folks are as predictable as water,
>always choosing the path of least resistance. Things like integrity,
>generosity, and genuine compassion are the hard choices, they require
>sacrifice and thought. None of these traits can be found in the current
>Administration or most of their supporters.
>
I think Bush is being compassionate by killing them, not
molly-coddling them or using 'diplomacy' like the UN would.
You know Gene, your claim of spending so much time in the military is
hard to believe. You write as a Democrat, even a liberal with
namby-pamby 'can't we just talk about it' type of diplomacy, which is
proven never to work with anti-American muslims. Hard-line,
Bush-hating Democrats are not fond of the military, and liberals
certainly despise it. And those in the military know it. That's why
most love President Bush and are Republicans.
So I'm putting it down to 3 things. You're lying about your military
experience, you've suffered a massive head-wound receiving some brain
damage during your active service, or you are one of the few, the
unique, the not-so-proud liberal veteran yes-men from the Carter or
Clinton administrations.
Droopus
[..]
> Concerning the prescription drugs, what have old people done to
> deserve free medication? Live to an old age?
Yep, there's that compassionate conservatism shining through once
again.
What would you suggest instead, drowning, incineration or simply
dropping them into a wood chipper to use for fertilizer to grow crops
for the Fatherland?
dave
"Droopus" <droop...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:55bfebbe.03070...@posting.google.com...
The wood chipper is in Chapter 12 of Kristol's book. It's coming.
Stuart Grey
Hey! I know! They have a much better chance of paying
for their own drugs than some 5 year old kid. How about
instead of killing them like you suggest, we let them
pay for their own drugs.
Hell, you don't seem too concerned for the 5 year old,
and he has NO chance of paying for his own drugs. Why
the hell are you for taxing his parents to pay for someone
else's drugs?
Oh, wait! The 5 year old can't vote, and Seniors do vote
with a pretty good turn out! Ah! Now we know the real
reason for Democrat concern.
Gene
Sorry to bust your bubble, CW4 Eugene T. Garrett USA Ret,
1970 - Enlisted by Nixon
1995 - Retired by Clinton
Any one who knows what an old time chief warrant is knows we as a group
are the most unlikely to be 'Yes Men'. If anything most pilots,
especially test pilots are control freaks. You can't afford to screw
around and play politics or word games. You have to do it right everytime
or you pay the price with your ass.
Education - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University graduated 1977 and a
bunch of graduate courses mostly in History and Internation Relations
from Various Universities - Last one USC -Graduate studies for
International Relations. Been going to school my whole life. Still going.
Best man I've ever known - Col. William Reeder, my Brigade commander at
Ft Hood Texas. His Bio is on the web. He is also a Liberal and extremely
smart, besides being a Hanoi Hilton POW and a man with the highest of
integrety.
First Unit - 1972-1973 A troop 7/1st Air Cav Vinh Long, Vietnam AH-1/UH-1
Pilot
Last Unit - 1989-1995 1st Infantry Division, Ft Riley Kansas AH-64 Test
Pilot/G1 Assignments Officer.
Jobs: Pilot/Test Pilot/Maintenance Officer/Commander/Assignments Officer
That's enough info to check out my truthfulness.
As for my health, No head wounds - got shot down in Vietnam a couple
times but then everybody did. I spent my life walking the walk, not
talking the talk like your chickenhawk president. But I'm no hero, I was
raised to love this country and that actions speak louder than words and
that the only kind of man to be was a gentleman.
I come from Charles Garrett an irish catholic emigrant and a private in
WWI, John Garrett A retired Air Force Pilot who served in WWII and Korea.
dave
Gene,
You are wasting your time, talking to a do nothing, know nothing
chickenhawk.
Gene
news:nvecncTWW-d...@gbronline.com:
I've only been newsgrouping for a few weeks now. I have no idea whose on
the other end. My son showed me this stuff - pretty neat. No wonder the
communists in china are having so much trouble keeping them on the farms.
One computer can open a whole world of information and ideas. Amazing
times.
dave
<snip>
> I've only been newsgrouping for a few weeks now. I have no idea whose on
> the other end. My son showed me this stuff - pretty neat. No wonder the
> communists in china are having so much trouble keeping them on the farms.
> One computer can open a whole world of information and ideas. Amazing
> times.
This may be one hope for communication without the censorship we see in US
media. There are fanatics from the right who use multiple e-mails, perhaps
because they have multiple personalities. But they tire and spend time in
prison so the names will change. We are living in scary times that
Eisenhower warned us of. I still have hope that American people will wake up
to the lies since 2000.
"Libs R_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
>
> "Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93AE4CAFCA...@216.168.3.44...
> <snip>
>
> > I've only been newsgrouping for a few weeks now. I have no idea whose on
> > the other end. My son showed me this stuff - pretty neat. No wonder the
> > communists in china are having so much trouble keeping them on the
farms.
> > One computer can open a whole world of information and ideas. Amazing
> > times.
>
> This may be one hope for communication without the censorship we see in US
> media. There are fanatics from the right who use multiple e-mails, perhaps
> because they have multiple personalities.
Or perhaps simply because most adults with an IQ higher than 65 realize the
value of having more than 1 email address in their household. For example,
many households have an email address for the wife, another for the husband,
a couple addresses so each of the kids can have their own, etc. etc. etc.
Sadly, some liberal Democrats think they are limited to "1 per household" or
something....
Gene
news:8SadnfgFU5G...@gbronline.com:
Yes, Eisenhower was the last decent Republican President. His speech on
the threat of the Military-Industrial complex is valid today. Wonder
where the honest men went? I don't see anyone running that sparks one's
heart and mind. Except maybe Nader, but he has a one track mind. He is a
good speaker. Well, Have a great holiday, I gotta get going.
Gene
"Libs R_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
> > I've only been newsgrouping for a few weeks now. I have no idea whose on
> > the other end. My son showed me this stuff - pretty neat. No wonder the
> > communists in china are having so much trouble keeping them on the
farms.
> > One computer can open a whole world of information and ideas. Amazing
> > times.
>
>
> lunatics.
TRANSLATION: "I, dave, believe in free speech and all that, but just for
liberal Democrats and other people like them and me."
"Libs R Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
> "dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in
> news:8SadnfgFU5G...@gbronline.com:
>
> >
> > "Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93AE4CAFCA...@216.168.3.44...
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I've only been newsgrouping for a few weeks now. I have no idea whose
> >> on the other end. My son showed me this stuff - pretty neat. No
> >> wonder the communists in china are having so much trouble keeping
> >> them on the farms. One computer can open a whole world of information
> >> and ideas. Amazing times.
> >
> > This may be one hope for communication without the censorship we see
> > in US media. There are fanatics from the right who use multiple
> > e-mails, perhaps because they have multiple personalities. But they
> > tire and spend time in prison so the names will change. We are living
> > in scary times that Eisenhower warned us of. I still have hope that
> > American people will wake up to the lies since 2000.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, Eisenhower was the last decent Republican President.
Except for Nixon (who opened up trade with China - remember when the
Democrats USED to claim that being a part of the "global community" was a
good thing?) who was also decent, as well as presidents Bush, junior and
senior, who are also decent Republican Presidents, in addition to Ronald
Reagan (who destroyed the Soviet Union and brought unprecedented financial
prosperity to the American Worker) who was also a VERY decent Republican
President.
> His speech on
> the threat of the Military-Industrial complex is valid today.
Yes, national defense is very important, and the military-industrial complex
plays a VERY important role in that defense. Something which the
now-collapsing Democrat Party simply cannot understand.
> Wonder
> where the honest men went? I don't see anyone running that sparks one's
> heart and mind. Except maybe Nader, but he has a one track mind. He is a
> good speaker. Well, Have a great holiday, I gotta get going.
> Gene
Bye!
David L. Moffitt
:
: "Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
%%%% Just hang around and you will find quite a few leftist that use
multiple names and addresses to falsely make it look like there are more
than there really are.
:
:
Droopus
> Droopus wrote:
> > Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message news:<3k88gvscd5d0950v7...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> >
> >>Concerning the prescription drugs, what have old people done to
> >>deserve free medication? Live to an old age?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yep, there's that compassionate conservatism shining through once
> > again.
> >
> > What would you suggest instead, drowning, incineration or simply
> > dropping them into a wood chipper to use for fertilizer to grow crops
> > for the Fatherland?
>
> Hey! I know! They have a much better chance of paying
> for their own drugs than some 5 year old kid. How about
> instead of killing them like you suggest, we let them
> pay for their own drugs.
With what? These people are on Medicare, and some take twenty
different medications. Please tell me what you will tell all these
seniors when they can't afford their meds.
Perhaps "the wood chipper is out back?" You obviously know nothing
about geriatrics and living on a fixed income.
> Hell, you don't seem too concerned for the 5 year old,
> and he has NO chance of paying for his own drugs.
I don't? And exactly where did I express this opinion? This post was
specifically about seniors' drug benefits. I didn't discuss my
opinions on Medicaid, welfare, or lawn mower repair. So, exactly how
could you possibly know my opinion on Medicaid (which would pay for
indigent 5 year olds' medication)?
>Why
> the hell are you for taxing his parents to pay for someone
> else's drugs?
So, we shouldn't pay for anyone's medication? Close down Medicare,
Medicaid, national immunization programs, the African AIDS program
that Bush announced....which all focus on providing medical care and
medication to the indigent. Close them all down, you suggest?
So, it seems your opinion is "if you can't afford your medication or
medical care, die."
> Oh, wait! The 5 year old can't vote, and Seniors do vote
> with a pretty good turn out! Ah! Now we know the real
> reason for Democrat concern.
Do you just sit there and think you have some sort of omniscience
about people after reading a four line usenet post? Or, as is more
likely, do you simply tar all your opposition with the same broad
brush?
You know fuck all about me and my politics so stop dreaming crap up.
Droopus
[...]
> You
> totally ignore that there were thousands of Felons who did
> vote, and we know that they voted heavily for Gore and
> gave him another 3000+ votes that WERE counted.
I'm calling BS on this one. Got a factual cite for this?
a recovering liberal
If it weren't for the dreaded Military-Industrial complex, Eisenhower
would have been hanged by the Nazis and MacArthur hanged by the
Japanese fascists.
Stuart Grey
Droopus wrote:
> Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote in message news:<3F0501EE...@example.net>...
>
>>Droopus wrote:
>>
>>>Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message news:<3k88gvscd5d0950v7...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Concerning the prescription drugs, what have old people done to
>>>>deserve free medication? Live to an old age?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, there's that compassionate conservatism shining through once
>>>again.
>>>
>>>What would you suggest instead, drowning, incineration or simply
>>>dropping them into a wood chipper to use for fertilizer to grow crops
>>>for the Fatherland?
>>
>>Hey! I know! They have a much better chance of paying
>>for their own drugs than some 5 year old kid. How about
>>instead of killing them like you suggest, we let them
>>pay for their own drugs.
>
>
> With what? These people are on Medicare, and some take twenty
> different medications. Please tell me what you will tell all these
> seniors when they can't afford their meds.
Same thing I was told when I was a kid and
couldn't afford medical care at all, even
though I was working and paying taxes. TOUGH SHIT.
> Perhaps "the wood chipper is out back?" You obviously know nothing
> about geriatrics and living on a fixed income.
Oh, boo hoo. Being poor is the pits. But not all the
people on medicare are poor. The idea is to make
it easier to get by on less, and to do that, you
can shitcan the stupid payroll tax which amounts
to about 15% of the worker's income when you consider
the true cost, only half is attributed to the
worker, the other half is hidden as the employer
contribution.
>>Hell, you don't seem too concerned for the 5 year old,
>>and he has NO chance of paying for his own drugs.
>
>
> I don't? And exactly where did I express this opinion?
Then why are you pro taxing his parents to pay for someone
else's meds who may be much better off? This drug benefit
is not needs based. Usually you share the wealth socialist
work in Robin Hood mode; literally robbing the rich and
giving the the poor. Not with this! You rob from everyone
and give to the highest turnout voter!
Democrats are whores. Bush just being skanky trying to take
the Democrat's corner, that's all.
> This post was
> specifically about seniors' drug benefits. I didn't discuss my
> opinions on Medicaid, welfare, or lawn mower repair. So, exactly how
> could you possibly know my opinion on Medicaid (which would pay for
> indigent 5 year olds' medication)?
>
>
>>Why
>>the hell are you for taxing his parents to pay for someone
>>else's drugs?
>
>
>
> So, we shouldn't pay for anyone's medication? Close down Medicare,
> Medicaid, national immunization programs, the African AIDS program
> that Bush announced....which all focus on providing medical care and
> medication to the indigent. Close them all down, you suggest?
Yep.
> So, it seems your opinion is "if you can't afford your medication or
> medical care, die."
It's been that way a long time, if you were a young working
male.
>>Oh, wait! The 5 year old can't vote, and Seniors do vote
>>with a pretty good turn out! Ah! Now we know the real
>>reason for Democrat concern.
>
>
>
> Do you just sit there and think you have some sort of omniscience
> about people after reading a four line usenet post? Or, as is more
> likely, do you simply tar all your opposition with the same broad
> brush?
>
> You know fuck all about me and my politics so stop dreaming crap up.
Oh, the mystery man! Oh! How mysterious! Just cut the crap. You're
another run of the mill socialist who has a half assed argument
and you can't even explain your position. Instead of giving your
position you whine that the reader of your stupid post "can't know".
Why don't you just hang a big sign on your post that your
gibbering? You yourself say that the if the reader reads
your post that he will "know fuck about me and my politics". LOL!
Who am I to argue with a confessed moron who claims that
he's gibbering and can't express himself? You're right!
You gibber.
Stuart Grey
My cites are better than your gibbering European socialist.
Pretty bold after that line of bullshit YOU'VE posted.
And for a stupid ass like you, cites are a waste of time.
You'll just stick your head up your ass and say you don't
see it. I've been there and done this a dozen times with
you dumb ass lying sacks of socialism.
Basically, they went through the voter roles and found
that there were 5,000 convicted criminals who had their
right to vote taken by due process who VOTED in the 2000
election. Most of them, some 4000, were registered Democrats.
It is estimated that at least 3000 of them voted for Gore.
There was no outcry on the part of the Democrats to remove
these votes.
But to the point, I don't even care to educate you assholes
who keep trying to refight the 2000 election. I'd rather you
go into a tizzy and bust a vein and die. It would improve
the species. :-)
"Libs R_Dumb As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
dave
"Rene" <Rene "Libs R_Dumb As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dOzNa.14124$Ix2.3924@rwcrnsc54...
Droopus
> Droopus wrote:
> > Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote in message news:<3F04DB07...@example.net>...
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>You
> >>totally ignore that there were thousands of Felons who did
> >>vote, and we know that they voted heavily for Gore and
> >>gave him another 3000+ votes that WERE counted.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm calling BS on this one. Got a factual cite for this?
>
> My cites are better than your gibbering European socialist.
So you have no cites, you just, well, made it up. Mmkay.
> Pretty bold after that line of bullshit YOU'VE posted.
Eh? Twelve words simply asking for cites. Wow, that's some bold
action, lemme tell ya.
> And for a stupid ass like you, cites are a waste of time.
So, some people are not worthy of education? Subhuman, say, would you
call them? Perhaps "untermenschen" gets your feelings across best?
Yeah vaporcites are a waste of time.
> You'll just stick your head up your ass and say you don't
> see it. I've been there and done this a dozen times with
> you dumb ass lying sacks of socialism.
So, again, you have no cites. Why am I not surprised?
Why am not further surprised that you instantly tar all those in even
slight opposition to a single tenet of your hard right agenda with the
same broad brush?
> Basically, they
"They?" Exactly who might "they" be? The RNC? Florida Election
Committee? The WWF? The Washington Times? Association of Good Humor
men? Who exactly is the "they" to whom you refer with such reverent
respect?
>went through the voter roles
"rolls"
> and found
> that there were 5,000 convicted criminals who had their
> right to vote taken by due process who VOTED in the 2000
> election. Most of them, some 4000, were registered Democrats.
> It is estimated that at least 3000 of them voted for Gore.
Interesting indeed. Where did you get this fascinating information? I
would like to read more. What state are we discussing? Or is that a
figure from across the 50 states?
> There was no outcry on the part of the Democrats to remove
> these votes.
I never heard of this incident. Perhaps you can provide us with the
location where you obtained this information. If there was illegal
voting proven in the national election I would like to know about it.
> But to the point, I don't even care to educate you assholes
> who keep trying to refight the 2000 election. I'd rather you
> go into a tizzy and bust a vein and die. It would improve
> the species. :-)
Yeah, there's that compassionate conservatism rearing its head again.
"Death to all those who don't think exactly as I do!!"
Post the cites for this accusation of thousands of felons illegally
voting for Gore.
You won't because you can't. You'll just claim "I dont do your
searching for you" indicating you simply made it all up, as I suspect.
You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
But since you see no problem with the president making up stuff to
acheive his agenda, I'm sure you feel justified in doing the same.
BC
few comments? Thanks, much obliged.
1) It IS water under the bridge, but the 2000 election was
indeed essentially "stolen" by the Republicans via the abuse
of absentee ballots, the mishandling of the voting process
in minority neighborhoods, and the disproportionate number
of votes thrown away, also in minority neighborhoods.
This is a somewhat partisan site, but it has a pretty good
list of the sins: http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239
2) Gore ran a horrible campaign and didn't deserve to win.
Marital infidelities aside, the Clinton years were marked by
prosperity and peace, so Gore should have had an easy time
of it. He tried to present himself as a clean politician by
distancing himself from Clinton's sordid personal misbehavior,
but by doing so, he lost a very important strategic weapon:
Clinton was the only Democrat capable of beating the
Republicans at their game of slick media manipulation and
disinformation (which I guess is some sort of comment).
With Clinton out of the picture, the Republicans had an
easy time with the slow-footed and slower-witted Gore. It
was no wonder that many Democrats abandoned Gore to vote
for alternative candidates like those from the Green Party.
3) The Democratic Party is a muddled mess. No clear
message, and extremely lame in going after even the most
obviously lamebrained Republican measures: the Patriot Act,
the Microsoft Settlement, the "preemptive" strike at Iraq;
loosening of environmental regulations, the inevitable tax
breaks for the rich, etc, etc, etc. Republicans unchecked are
prone to myopic, fascist and divisive behavior, and are
really dependent on Democrats to balance them off (just as
Republicans balance off the traditional Democratic behavior
of excessive and unconditional social spending, and timidity
for quick military action when needed.)
4) In theory and in surveys, Democratic ideas have a much
broader support than Republican ones, but the Republicans
have traditionally been better salespeople (well, in a used car
sense). Lately, though, all you've been hearing is Republicans
selling various forms of snake oil, with virtually no counter-
sales pitches from the Democrats. Everyone wants a clean
environment, a balanced ecology, ethics in government and
business, efficient use of resources, equal opportunity,
competitive industries, consumer protection, general fairplay,
etc, etc etc, and these are all issues that Republicans have
traditionally sucked at, excepting the occasional odd maverick
like John McCain. Republicans are again bashing these things
with their usual nonsensical reasoning, but the Democrats
are again not responding with any sort of force.
5) Republicans may or may not be evil (well, at the least they
aren't too far removed from their depiction in The Simpsons),
but the Democrats are definitely incompetent – which is really
the lesser evil?
Hope this helps.
-BC
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"BC" <bcon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dba7d68e.03070...@posting.google.com...
> Cute little thread you guys have here. Mind if I interject a
> few comments? Thanks, much obliged.
>
> 1) It IS water under the bridge, but the 2000 election was
> indeed essentially "stolen" by the Republicans via the abuse
> of absentee ballots, the mishandling of the voting process
> in minority neighborhoods, and the disproportionate number
> of votes thrown away, also in minority neighborhoods.
Nope. The Republicans won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And
the Republicans repeated those wins in the House and the Senate again 2
years later, in 2002. In fact, the Democrats haven't been able to win the
House since 1992, which is over a decade ago. The Republicans keep
"stealing" that election from the Democrats. And the interesting part is
that the House is the ONLY branch of the federal government which is
apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote. Apparently the Democrat Party
is not as popular as the Republican Party, BC.
Mark Cook
> >> Stuart Grey <us...@example.net> wrote in news:3F038A7F.3010707
The problem is that not everyone can afford to pay more and more and more
and more taxes. Let me give you one prime example. This year in Indiana, we
have seen our sales tax raised by 1%. In the county that I live in, a
innkeeper's tax has been raised 1% (charged by motel, hotels, and
restaurants), and our property taxes have been raised by an average of
29.4%. Notice an "average".
In some cases the new property tax valuation translated into $5000 or more a
year increase. Your first thought is that the rich people who live in big
house expense houses were the ones who were billed for this kind of money.
But that is not the case. The increases came about because of a statewide
reassessment which changed the way houses were valued, i.e. they are now
based on market value. The homes that were affect the most were the ones
build several years ago. Think what that could mean to some fixed income
elderly who have owned their homes for several years, are now required to
pay hundreds of dollars more a year.
Then comes the school board asking for ANOTHER property tax increase. Of
course it was voted down by a wide margin. Soon after this vote, a local
citizen start his rant (sounds just like you) about if you can afford an
increase in property taxes for the schools, then you really can't afford to
own a home anyway. His suggestion was to sell the property in move in to
something that you could afford.
The question that I have is why should the Government have the power to
PRICE YOU OUT OF YOUR HOME? Why don't you tell us how compassionate it is to
throw people out of their homes, especially the working poor, or those who
are on fixed incomes. Is this what passes as "compassion, generosity,
integrity and dignity" in the Democrat party today?
http://www.infarmbureau.org/news/2001releases/taxdeadlline.htm
dave
"Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:KQ_Ma.2392$Nl....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
wealthy.
dave
"Rene" <Rene "Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KRTNa.50297$Xm3.11896@sccrnsc02...
Rene, put your head back up your ass where it's comfortable.
Gene
news:Ovqdnd48uJL...@gbronline.com:
I hope this idiot realizes that you are absolutely and completely right.
Why is it the republican voters can't seem to be able to connect the
dots. I guess they wake up each day with a clean slate and once they get
the sound bites from Rush and Foxy News down there is no more room for
original thought. I think I could have trained my dog to tell the
difference in true and false by now.
Brain Death
Why in the world would you believe this? Were federal taxes on the
wealthy being diverted to local governments?
BD
"Our policy is simple: We are not going to betray
our friends, reward the enemies of freedom, or
permit fear and retreat to become American policies.
... None of the four wars in my lifetime came about
because we were too strong. It is weakness ... that
invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken
judgments."
-Former President Ronald Reagan
Gene
news:u1cggv4hm3ai9877p...@4ax.com:
Let me help, the tax cut depleted the federal governments ability to fund
the normally funded federal mandates like education. Consequently, since
these programs are required by federal law the states had to fill the
void. With no support from the Federal Government and the decrease in
state tax reciept from a piss poor economy the states are finding they
will have to raise property taxes or other taxes like their sales taxes..
Basically the states are going broke, the federal goverment is spending
money it doesn't have and shortly we will all be paying more taxes than
bush gave back except the wealthy. They are, in actuality, the only folks
that will benefit in the long run. Was it planned that way - yes. Bush
wants to bankrupt the state and federal governments ability to fund any
social programs like public education, social security and medicare which
he hopes kills them all. If in the process folks lose their homes, jobs,
and even lives he doesn't care because as the Iraq war points out - The
End Justify the means in his mind. Any man who works for a living and
votes republican is a fool.
Eugene Kent
It lingers somewhere on Mars.
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:QUudndtP5uu...@gbronline.com...
a recovering liberal
> Cute little thread you guys have here. Mind if I interject a
> few comments? Thanks, much obliged.
>
> 1) It IS water under the bridge, but the 2000 election was
> indeed essentially "stolen" by the Republicans via the abuse
> of absentee ballots, the mishandling of the voting process
> in minority neighborhoods, and the disproportionate number
> of votes thrown away, also in minority neighborhoods.
Should we charge it to Democrat mishandling, since Democrats were in
charge of the voting in the minority neighborhoods and also couldn't
throw out enough military absentee ballots?
You do make a good point though. The Democrats are obsessed with the
'minority' vote.
>
> This is a somewhat partisan site, but it has a pretty good
> list of the sins: http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239
Ah yes, read all about politics from the politically incompetent.
>
> 2) Gore ran a horrible campaign and didn't deserve to win.
> Marital infidelities aside, the Clinton years were marked by
> prosperity and peace, so Gore should have had an easy time
> of it. He tried to present himself as a clean politician by
> distancing himself from Clinton's sordid personal misbehavior,
> but by doing so, he lost a very important strategic weapon:
> Clinton was the only Democrat capable of beating the
> Republicans at their game of slick media manipulation and
> disinformation (which I guess is some sort of comment).
> With Clinton out of the picture, the Republicans had an
> easy time with the slow-footed and slower-witted Gore. It
> was no wonder that many Democrats abandoned Gore to vote
> for alternative candidates like those from the Green Party.
Peace and prosperity do not always make a great or even good
President. Unless you're willing to include Harding and Coolidge with
Clinton.
Clintons poll numbers were high during the scandal, so the Dems made
the mistake of backing him to the hilt. They paid for it in the long
run. When Clinton left office the Dem Party was in dissarray. They
lost conrtol of both Houses and their were far less Dems in State and
Federal elected office than when he took office, but that didn't seem
to bother the Dem professionals, they loved the amount of cash he
could generate.
>
> 3) The Democratic Party is a muddled mess. No clear
> message, and extremely lame in going after even the most
> obviously lamebrained Republican measures: the Patriot Act,
> the Microsoft Settlement, the "preemptive" strike at Iraq;
> loosening of environmental regulations, the inevitable tax
> breaks for the rich, etc, etc, etc. Republicans unchecked are
> prone to myopic, fascist and divisive behavior, and are
> really dependent on Democrats to balance them off (just as
> Republicans balance off the traditional Democratic behavior
> of excessive and unconditional social spending, and timidity
> for quick military action when needed.)
Dem leaders don't know what the Hell they're doing. Divide the
country into little groups and play them off against eachothe is a
tactic that is no longer workf, if it ever did.
The myopic , fascist and divisive behavior of the extreme
inviormentalist movement will in the longrun bring defeat to the Dems
if they keep going alon with those wacko's.
Voters are realizing that the Dem politicians think that any working
person who is able to support their family, is a rich fat cat and
should be taxed until he bleeds.
>
> 4) In theory and in surveys, Democratic ideas have a much
> broader support than Republican ones, but the Republicans
> have traditionally been better salespeople (well, in a used car
> sense). Lately, though, all you've been hearing is Republicans
> selling various forms of snake oil, with virtually no counter-
> sales pitches from the Democrats. Everyone wants a clean
> environment, a balanced ecology, ethics in government and
> business, efficient use of resources, equal opportunity,
> competitive industries, consumer protection, general fairplay,
> etc, etc etc, and these are all issues that Republicans have
> traditionally sucked at, excepting the occasional odd maverick
> like John McCain. Republicans are again bashing these things
> with their usual nonsensical reasoning, but the Democrats
> are again not responding with any sort of force.
Dems got themselves in a lather over campaign finance reform. They
got it put into law and Bush signed the bill. Who did it hurt the
most? Democrats, of course!
Voters will have a choice in the '04 election to vote Repub and keep
the tax cuts or vote Dem and have them repealed after the election?
Whic way do you think the voters will go?
>
> 5) Republicans may or may not be evil (well, at the least they
> aren't too far removed from their depiction in The Simpsons),
> but the Democrats are definitely incompetent ? which is really
> the lesser evil?
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -BC
When the Democrats are in the process of destroying themselves; the
best thing the Repubs can do is get out of their way.
Stuart Grey
BC wrote:
> Cute little thread you guys have here. Mind if I interject a
> few comments? Thanks, much obliged.
>
> 1) It IS water under the bridge, but the 2000 election was
> indeed essentially "stolen" by the Republicans via the abuse
> of absentee ballots, the mishandling of the voting process
> in minority neighborhoods, and the disproportionate number
> of votes thrown away, also in minority neighborhoods.
Bush won the count and won the recount. Gore's attempt
to steal the election via the courts and legal manuvering
didn't work.
If Democrats want to say that elections are not fair, either
they should get their guns and meet us out on the battlefield,
shut up and learn to live with it, or admit that they are
lying and it's all just sour grapes.
Yes, it WAS a close election. Close does not mean it goes
to the Democrats.
> This is a somewhat partisan site, but it has a pretty good
> list of the sins: http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239
SOMEWHAT PARTISAN??!!
It's flaming loony Democrat.
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
What's worth noting here is that you couldn't dispute any of what I just
told you and the other posters, dave.
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
readers, Eugene. That speaks volumes.
Today's Democrat Party sucks.
"Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3f083b50$0$88059$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
dave
"Brain Death" <jgl...@valhalla.com> wrote in message
news:u1cggv4hm3ai9877p...@4ax.com...Brain Dead,
Local taxes are up because federal funding is unavailable. States did well
in the boom and saved a cushion, but not enough to cover being Bushwhacked.
dave
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rbmggvg1lvsesiagl...@4ax.com...States were in good shape and those that could saved for emergency, but none
of them could be prepared to be bushwhacked with unfunded mandates.
Papa Smurf
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:L_ScnaOdRJ7...@gbronline.com...
The eight states that did put a cushion aside are doing the best today.
Those that continued spending more and more and didn't make hard decisions
when the economy started turning in 2001 are the ones in trouble now.
Federal money to states has been reached new levels each year for the last
13 years. The only action by Bush that could be considered "Bushwackery" is
his refusal to bail the states out of their own foolhardness, greed and
short-sightedness. I respected him when he first made this stand with
California, and I respect it even more now. If States want to go off on
these flights of whimsy and social insanity let them do at it their own
risk, not at the cost of the rest to the country.
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
news:hL3Oa.31552$U23....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
constraining them to a balanced budget, which Bush obviously couldn't
handle.
Papa Smurf
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:u7WcndGOe5Z...@gbronline.com...
California is drowning in it's own Liberal policies. Corporations are
fleeing in droves, revenues were beginning dive well before the economy
turned south, and the budget was balanced through laughable smoke and
mirrors for three years.
Mark Cook
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:L_ScnaOdRJ7...@gbronline.com...
>
BC
> BC wrote:
> > Cute little thread you guys have here. Mind if I interject a
> > few comments? Thanks, much obliged.
> >
> > 1) It IS water under the bridge, but the 2000 election was
> > indeed essentially "stolen" by the Republicans via the abuse
> > of absentee ballots, the mishandling of the voting process
> > in minority neighborhoods, and the disproportionate number
> > of votes thrown away, also in minority neighborhoods.
>
> Bush won the count and won the recount. Gore's attempt
> to steal the election via the courts and legal manuvering
> didn't work.
Silly boys -- there was never a legitimate recount in any
sort of meaningful way. The mess with the absentee ballots
and the minority neighborhoods were likely the deciding
factors anyway and Gore didn't try to steal the election.
Anyway, as I said, it's water under the bridge and it's for
historians and others to decide who stole or tried to steal
what. It seems Europeans and most neutral outside parties
lean towards it being stolen by Bush & Bush, but they don't
get the electoral college thing too well.
Also, to the other poster, environmental laws are good. If
Republicans have always had their way like they've had
recently, tap water would be labeled a poison, gas masks
would be needed for midday walks, cars would be averaging
5 miles per gallon, we'd be running out of oil even after
drilling out the Alaskan reserves, and the polar caps would
just be dirty slush by now.
>
> If Democrats want to say that elections are not fair, either
> they should get their guns and meet us out on the battlefield,
> shut up and learn to live with it, or admit that they are
> lying and it's all just sour grapes.
>
That's the basic problem. Bush has been a terrible president,
far, far worse than Clinton, so there should be a flood of
Democrats bashing him and his stupid policies and cohorts,
but where are they? The Iraq mess, for instance -- anyone
could have spent a half hour on Google before the war started
and easily found major problems with Bush & Powell's stated
reasons for invading. The most vocal anti-war politician was
actually a Republican, Ron Paul of Texas. That's not right.
The Florida election, the war, the tax cuts, the gutting of
environmental rules, the Patriot Act -- these were all things
that Dems should have taken to the battlefield against. The
Dems inaction has actually forced conservative activists to
join in with their traditional opponent, the ACLU, in
resisting some of the more intrusive aspects of the Patriot
Act. That's stupid. There has been a balanced ecology of sorts
in this country regarding Democrats, Republicans, liberals,
conservatives, intellectuals, rednecks, and so on. The
Democrats seem to be opting out of their traditional duties
and responsibilities, hence causing unlikely shifting by
the other groups to cover.
As an intellectual and a do-gooder, voting Republican is
never an option, obviously, but voting Democratic these days
is almost as unseemly, so I'm being forced to look at Green
Party candidates and such.
> Yes, it WAS a close election. Close does not mean it goes
> to the Democrats.
Very close, so close that it was up for grabs for whoever
wanted it more, through legal maneuvering and whatnot, and
Gore and the Dems didn't have the heart or cojones to do so.
> > This is a somewhat partisan site, but it has a pretty good
> > list of the sins: http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239
>
> SOMEWHAT PARTISAN??!!
>
> It's flaming loony Democrat.
Sorry, I just did a quick Google for a site with a comprehensive
list and that was the first one I found. A more balanced, if
not so comprehensive list is on this Green Party page:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_21_01.html
Note that the Democrats get a bit of the blame as well.
But as I said - 'tis water under the bridge.
The real test will be the next election -- Bush should be
crushed easily with any sort of intelligently plotted
campaign, to the point that the Democrats deserve to lose
again if it's even remotely close.
-BC
Papa Smurf
"Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:IQ5Oa.178$nK3...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
a recovering liberal
He's a Liberal Democrat. Anything that makes taxes go down is bad.
Mark Cook
> Do you vote?
Yes I do, in fact I was once a Democrat voter (Carter 1980, my first
election). Back in 1986, a Republican House candidate (IN-8) won by less
than 100 votes. A recount showed the same. The Democrat Congress came in and
threw out a bunch of votes so the Democrat could win the election. I didn't
vote for the Republican candidate, I have yet to vote for a Democrat since.
Gore tried the same thing in Florida, see Robert Harris vs. Florida State
Election Canvassing Commission. Instead of trying to count every vote, the
Democrats were trying to throw out as many as they could so Gore could win.
So much for the Democrat LIE of "we want every vote to count".
Papa Smurf
"Mark Cook" <mc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:DxeOa.7$fw4.9...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> "Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
> news:2Y5Oa.31628$U23...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > Do you vote?
>
> Yes I do, in fact I was once a Democrat voter (Carter 1980, my first
> election). Back in 1986, a Republican House candidate (IN-8) won by less
> than 100 votes. A recount showed the same. The Democrat Congress came in
and
> threw out a bunch of votes so the Democrat could win the election. I
didn't
> vote for the Republican candidate, I have yet to vote for a Democrat
since.
>
> Gore tried the same thing in Florida, see Robert Harris vs. Florida State
> Election Canvassing Commission. Instead of trying to count every vote, the
> Democrats were trying to throw out as many as they could so Gore could
win.
>
> So much for the Democrat LIE of "we want every vote to count".
"We will recount these votes until Gore wins," was pretty much the feeling I
got from the 2000 escapades.
And the crap they pulled with the military ballots was shameless. Remember
when Lieberman was on TV denying his memo (giving directions on how to
discount military ballots) existed, unaware that it had already been leaked
onto the net? I was reading it, while he was denying it. Sort of like that
Iraqi denying that the aemrican troops were in Bagdad.
Sometimes I honestly think that they feel mad because they feel they got
outcrooked, as opposed to seeing that the various laws were upheld. Or to
paraphrase, that since it's all about doing whatever you can get away with,
we must have gotten away with more. That's why they still can't get over it.
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
Harris/Bush threw out with the Texas system, for example.
Papa Smurf
It's just possible that I might agree with you, if I had a clue what you
were talking about. Does anyone post links any more?
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
concern by the Bush mob, and actually attacks by the Bush gang against any
and all opposition, Bush has done many states more damage than necessary,
including California. Federal mandates without funding exacerbate the mess.
dave
dave
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:41:10 -0400, "dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> >
No, the Enron mess was not one of the unfunded mandates that screwed
California, it was however some of Bush's gang. The energy battle is flawed
on both sides but conservatives choose to look only at environmentalists and
not review their own positions.
California saw tremendous tech growth and suffered from the speculation. Is
Davis perfect? Of course not. Was almost everyone giddy over the growth of
the 90s. Yes, including government optimism. Does Gray Davis control the
state legislature in California? No. Are Republicans using opportunistic
behavior to consolidate control? Yes. Is that a good thing for our
Democracy? No.
The Homeland Security demands and others go unfunded, or inadequately funded
by the feds.
Papa Smurf
Got any links on this. I'd like to know what percentage of California's
liberal meltdown is due to "unfunded mandates"?
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
>
> It's just possible that I might agree with you, if I had a clue what you
> were talking about. Does anyone post links any more?
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
>
that Bush Florida purchased a system to eliminate felons from voter roles
recommended by Bush Texas. The system parameters allow for removing extra
names. In running the system, only 80% of the names pulled are those of
felons, by the structure of the program, and 20% are non-felons. Voting
systems and enforcement are not sexy enough for US media and it was covered
by the UK media. John Bush (Jeb) refused to speak with the British
correspondent who came with a copy of the contract in hand. Conveniently the
US press has not covered this very well, perhaps in their zeal for the
sensational rather than the serious.
Papa Smurf
So you are saying that they tried to get illegally voting felons off the
voting rolls? Shocking.
dave
felons, with felons.
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
Papa Smurf
to correctly bottom post.]
news:3G6dnZlQj-w...@gbronline.com...
> Twisting Smurf, they took many legitimate voters off the roles, who were
not
> felons, with felons.
And they did this on a 20% basis you say? Deliberately programmed into the
system, you say? Designed only to chuck Democrats, I assume? Got a link that
asserts any of this?
stopBush
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
What he is saying is that when they purged 57,000 voters 20,000 were not
felons! That is like killing 2000 deathrow inmates then finding out that 660
of them were actually innocent and not guilty of anything! And even worse
the US newsmedia has not run this story only the BBC. So if you want to find
out how the election was stolen in Florida read about it a foreign news
source not here it would be unpatriotic to question that stolen election!
THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME How the ?felon? voter-purge was itself
felonious
Harper's Magazine
Friday, March 1, 2002
by Greg Palast
In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the
Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the
ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some
Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and
Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and
Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700
"ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from
voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote,
roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was
compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here;
DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million
for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same
service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more
voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.
Click here to view full size
Two of these "scrub lists," as officials called them, were distributed to
counties in the months before the election with orders to remove the voters
named. Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate
and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters
(such as "David Butler," (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone
books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race
matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in
the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research
to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to
conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial
records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In
Harris?s elections office files, next to DBT?s sophisticated verification
plan, there is a hand-written note: ?DON?T NEED.?
Thomas Alvin Cooper (2), twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for
which he will be convicted in the year 2007. According to Florida?s
elections division, this intrepid time-traveler will cover his tracks by
moving to Ohio, adding a middle name, and changing his race. Harper's found
325 names on the list with conviction dates in the future, a fact that did
not escape Department of Elections workers, who, in June 2000 emails headed,
?Future Conviction Dates," termed the discovery, "bad news.? Rather than
release this whacky data to skeptical counties, Janet Mudrow, state liaison
to DBT, suggested that ?blanks would be preferable in these cases."
(Harper's counted 4,917 blank conviction dates.) The one county that checked
each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual
felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's
elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her
own name on it.
Rev. Willie Dixon (3), seventy, was guilty of a crime in his youth; but one
phone call would have told the state that it had already pardoned Dixon and
restored his right to vote. On behalf of Dixon and other excluded voters,
the NAACP in January 2001 sued Florida and Harris, after finding that
African-Americans?who account for 13 percent of Florida's electorate and 46
percent of U.S. felony convictions ?were four times as likely as whites to
be incorrectly singled out under the state's methodology. After the
election, Harris and her elections chief Clay Roberts, testified under oath
that verifying the lists was solely the work of county supervisors. But the
Florida-DBT contract (marked "Secret" and ?Confidential?) holds DBT
responsible for ?manual verification using telephone calls.? in fact, with
the state?s blessing, DBT did not call a single felon. When I asked Roberts
about the contract during an interview for BBC television, Roberts ripped
off his microphone, ran into his office, locked the door, and called in
state troopers to remove us.
Johnny Jackson Jr. (4), thirty-two, has never been to Texas, and his mother
swears he never had the middle name ?Fitzgerald.? Neither is there evidence
that John Fitzgerald Jackson, felon of Texas, has ever left the Lone Star
State. But even if they were the same man, removing him from Florida?s voter
rolls is an unconstitutional act. Texas is among the thirty five states
where ex-felons are permitted to vote, and the "full faith and credit"
clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids states to revoke any civil rights
that a citizen has been granted by another state; in fact, the Florida
Supreme Court had twice ordered the state not to do so, just nine months
before the voter purge. Nevertheless, at least 2,873 voters were wrongly
removed, a purge authorized by a September 18, 2000 letter to counties from
Governor Bush's clemency office. On February 23, 2001, days after the U.S.
Commission of Civil Rights began investigating the matters, Bush's office
issued a new letter allowing these persons to vote; no copies of the earlier
letter could be found in the clemency office or on its computers.
Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his
sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a
bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights
commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15
times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned
officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be
included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to
be more names than were actually verified." Last May, Florida's legislature
barred Harris from using outside firms to build the purge list and ordered
her to seek guidance from county elections officials. In defiance, Harris
has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb
Bush's reelection fight this fall.
###
Special thanks to Fredda Weinberg for cracking the Florida computer files
and crunching the numbers as well as to all the volunteer researchers who
contributed to this investigative effort.
Read the complete and latest material on the ethnic purge that fixed the
election in Palast's new book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, out this
week from Pluto Press.
At www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast's London
Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.
dave
"stopBush" <S...@sbc.org> wrote in message
news:umnOa.40750$JY1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
that they don't bother to read through.
stopBush
"stopBush" <S...@sbc.org> At www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to
Greg Palast's London
> Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.
>
Thanks, I didn't have a link at the time. You know these cons request links
that they don't bother to read through.
Yes the problem is when will these stories be seen in the national media?
Papa Smurf
While a travisty if true, I don't see how disqualifying random people
(mistaken for others is essentially random) from a state pretty equally
split in active voters, gives either side an advantage.
Mark Cook
> If you are honest, than you are not a Bush supporter.
Didn't support him in the primaries, but wasn't left with much of a choice
in the general elections.
Papa Smurf
> > At www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast's London
> > Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.
> >
> Thanks, I didn't have a link at the time. You know these cons request
links
> that they don't bother to read through.
We request links so we can seperate those that just make stuff up, from
those that simply misquote the facts, from those that are merely basing
there opinions on other biased reports, from those that actually have
something factual to say that we can learn from.
Depending on the source I read on average between 20% and 100% of each link
provided that I ask for. I then respond according.
dave
that would research and present real news in the US. We don't even get all
that CNN International carries. I'd like to see Ted Turner start something
new, as CNN has gone downhill as the other cables have drawn down the
standards.
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
before so we don't know one another. Cons tend to cherry pick and rail, drag
up minutia from the past or <plonk>. Thinking about truth and solutions
comes very hard from the right. Certainly there are extremes on both sides,
however, the improbable generally seems apparent. I have tended to see most,
and most of the baiters, with or without a link as I have serious questions
about the future of my country. Cons tend to be happy with what they chose
and overlook Bush mistakes.
Obstructionism by today's Cons, and I am sorry but they are con-democracy,
con-truth and conning America, is a danger to our republican government.
dave
"Papa Smurf" <fakea...@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message
Democrats were disproportionately denied their votes.