PDA

View Full Version : Wash Post: He Ought to Know




zimv20
Feb 14, 2004, 11:57 AM
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41097-2004Feb13.html)


IT'S HARD TO RECALL a more brazen display of political chutzpah than the Bush campaign's assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) as a captive of special interests. A video e-mailed Thursday night to 6 million supporters attacks the Democratic front-runner as an "unprincipled" collector of special-interest cash. The video cites a report in this newspaper that Mr. Kerry led the senatorial pack in collecting money from the very Washington lobbyists that he is busy decrying on the campaign trail. As the dollar amount -- $640,000 -- shows on the screen, a female announcer emits a sound of pained surprise. "Oooh," she says, "For what? Nominations and donations coincided." The video concludes: "Fact. Kerry -- Brought to you by the special interests. Millions from executives at HMOs, telecoms, drug companies. Ka-ching!"

Mr. Kerry's fundraising and his relationships with Washington lobbyists are a legitimate topic, even more so now that he has positioned himself, or tried to, as the scourge of Washington business as usual. But -- how can we say this politely? -- let's consider the source.

Mr. Bush's acceptance of special-interest money and his subsequent rewards to the industries doing the giving dwarf anything in Mr. Kerry's record. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, whose figures are cited in the Bush campaign video, Mr. Bush has raised more than four times as much from lobbyists during the 2004 race as Mr. Kerry has -- $960,000 for Mr. Bush to $235,000 for Mr. Kerry. During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign assigned an industry code to givers so it would know precisely how much it was beholden and to whom. As electric utility lobbyist Thomas Kuhn explained in a 1999 letter to fundraisers, putting the code on the check "does ensure that our industry is credited, and that your progress is listed among the other business/industry sectors." Mr. Kuhn's progress may well have been noted; he met at least 14 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

"Nominations and donations coincided"? You wonder what possessed the Bush people to bring that up. Of Mr. Bush's Pioneers -- those who raised at least $100,000 in the 2000 campaign -- 21 snagged ambassadorships, and these weren't hardship postings. Checks from "HMOs, telecoms, drug companies"? Mr. Bush has swamped Mr. Kerry in all three sectors during this campaign, raking in 10 times as much from donors connected to the pharmaceutical industry ($585,000 to $58,000) and telecommunications ($578,000 to $58,000). The liberal group Public Citizen counted 53 registered lobbyists among the current Pioneers and Rangers (the $200,000-and-up crowd.) Total amount bundled by lobbyists? At least $6.5 million this time around. Ka-ching. Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

And, since Mr. Bush brought it up, it's worth remembering that Mr. Kerry actually has some bona fides in the area of campaign finance ethics. He swore off checks from political action committees during his Senate races. He supported the McCain-Feingold legislation to end big soft-money checks to political parties -- which Mr. Bush's party did its best to kill and which the president only reluctantly signed. While the Bush administration fights to keep secret the activities of its energy task force, Mr. Kerry has promised to release the records of his meetings with lobbyists during his time in office.

The Bush video may be a long-shot effort to help derail Mr. Kerry's march to the Democratic nomination. More likely, it's an attempt to neutralize the special-interest issue, to inoculate the Bush White House against accusations that it's a captive of special interests and to muddy the waters by convincing voters that both candidates are equally complicit. We don't think voters are quite that slow.


what isn't so surprising to me is the message, but the source. the post has been quite pro-bush for years now.



Stolid
Feb 14, 2004, 12:34 PM
I think its the Republican party just becomming very very strange Democrats.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040210-105643-1325r.htm

I'm thinking its time for a party change. Wiggs, Federalist, AntiMasons, Republicans -- they all start to loose their initial ideology sometime.
The Republicans are supposed to be small government and state-over-federal (And Democrats vice-versa). Someone tell me how the Patriot Act is a small gov't/state-oriented law. Now someone tell me that it doesn't "sound like a Republican" bill this day and age. There's my point.

And yes I'm simplifying here but that's the historical marker for the parties through time (ie. how we account for whether we call Adams, Washington, and Jefferson a Republican or Democrat despite the fact those didn't exist back then as parties)

Sayhey
Feb 14, 2004, 12:58 PM
Great post, zim! If the GOP thinks they will win on this issue - well to quote Bush himself, "Bring it on!" Let's have a discussion about that Energy task force and Enron. Let's make this an election about Halliburton and Cheney's relationship.

stolid, if I remember correctly Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. The GOP's connections to those early days are much less clear. Obviously, what Political Parties stand for changes overtime. If the GOP was still the party of Lincoln and the "radical republicans" I'd be a registered Republican.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 14, 2004, 01:06 PM
Just to add to this its true Kerry has taken a lot of special interest money his 19 years in politics but its also true Bush had received more special interest money the last election then Kerry's 19 years of it. so who is the Hypocrite? face it Big business runs both parties through these donations. In fact many give to both sides so when their special interest item comes up for vote it gets passed. Both parties are selling America.

Stolid
Feb 14, 2004, 01:24 PM
The parties have risen and fallen over the years;
Most US history books won't list a president (in the index o presidents that is) as, say, Wigg or Mason. Instead they'll "cast" them into R or D.

Jefferson's role in founding parties:
http://uvaguides.zapto.org/resources/historical/political_parties.asp

He had the Democratic-Republican party. Opposing the Federalist.
We have then historically had: Anti-mason, National Republican, Whig, Free Soil, "Know-Nothing", Liberty, Greenback, and Populist -- among others.
At most times in history there have been 2 parties; though a few notable elections had a 3rd make a showing. If I were to put my odds on any parties this coming election:
Green - if they can seperate themselves from Democrats better as well as the image "all they care about is the enivronment"
Libertarian - if they can get over their complex of not campaigning to non-libertarians
Reform - if they can figure themselves out again (most doubtful I think) -- are they still even calling themselves that? :P I don't keep much track of the reform party

Stolid

Krizoitz
Feb 14, 2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Stolid
The parties have risen and fallen over the years;
Most US history books won't list a president (in the index o presidents that is) as, say, Wigg or Mason. Instead they'll "cast" them into R or D.

I don't know what history books you have been subjected to, but having studied history for many years and having a father who teaches high school history and gov't I have never seen a text book that doesn't list a president by their actuall party.

Krizoitz
Feb 14, 2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Stolid
The Republicans are supposed to be small government and state-over-federal (And Democrats vice-versa). Someone tell me how the Patriot Act is a small gov't/state-oriented law. Now someone tell me that it doesn't "sound like a Republican" bill this day and age. There's my point.


Whats even more hilarious is how the Republicans and Democrats have flip-flopped completely since the civil war. The Democrats back then were states-rights, old white men party. The Republicans were the progressive, federal rights, little guy party.

Now the Democrats want stronger federal government, and are the party of the average joe (i.e. labor, minorities) and the Republicans are supposed to be small govt, power to the old white men party.

pseudobrit
Feb 14, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Krizoitz
I don't know what history books you have been subjected to, but having studied history for many years and having a father who teaches high school history and gov't I have never seen a text book that doesn't list a president by their actuall party.

I found that odd too.
I've never seen that or heard of that.

Stolid
Feb 14, 2004, 06:09 PM
I distinctly remember this in my US AP History book from High school.
In the back of the book every president was listed with an R or a D next to them, if you wanted the "real" party you had to read the bullets on the far right of the entry.

zimv20
Feb 14, 2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Stolid
I distinctly remember this in my US AP History book from High school.
In the back of the book every president was listed with an R or a D next to them, if you wanted the "real" party you had to read the bullets on the far right of the entry.

what a far cry from:
Originally posted by Stolid

Most US history books won't list a president (in the index o presidents that is) as, say, Wigg or Mason. Instead they'll "cast" them into R or D.

pseudobrit
Feb 14, 2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Stolid
I distinctly remember this in my US AP History book from High school.
In the back of the book every president was listed with an R or a D next to them, if you wanted the "real" party you had to read the bullets on the far right of the entry.

I distinctly remember never having this type of thing in any of my textbooks, high school or college. So is it still "most" textbooks that have this problem?

Stolid
Feb 14, 2004, 06:48 PM
I'm not in the habbit of going to read every history book I stumble upon. I distinctly remember my AP book did that, and I also have memories of earlier books, particularly my 4th grade (I know I know) book doing it.
Perhaps I was right, perhaps not. I was going on a "most" based on what I've run into

zimv20
Feb 14, 2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Stolid
I was going on a "most" based on what I've run into

c.f. my comment about getting some more experience. methinks you've not seen enough of the world and life and make the rookie mistake of scaling what you see around you to generalizations of the world at large.

Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance. -Will Durant, historian (1885-1981)

Stolid
Feb 14, 2004, 07:12 PM
Well; I would've made that guess regardless of how much experience I had. I'm no history major and so chances are I won't ever read a textbook style history book again. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.