0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:23 pm
Well, instead of concentrating on the issues or the problem, we could always discuss the opposition's tactics.

Bye-bye, Mr DeLay.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:25 pm
Quote:
The last talking point slogan was "culture of curruption".


You are aware that that talking point is correct, aren't you?

I'd like you to state that there doesn't exist a 'culture of corruption' amongst the Republican party, so that I can repost that claim 6 months or so from now.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:28 pm
I do not believe there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst the Republican party any more than there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst any other party.

Happy?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:28 pm
Well, it is fair enough to point out talking points advanced by either party. That allows us some elevation or distance from the manipulative part of politics.

But I do hope folks come to understand how this particular system really does corrupt and really does diminish the ideals of American democracy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:32 pm
Quote:
I do not believe there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst the Republican party any more than there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst any other party.

Happy?


Very. How many members will your party have to lose to corruption before you agree that there is a culture of corruption amongst the Republican party?

Just wondering.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I do not believe there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst the Republican party any more than there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst any other party.

Happy?


Very. How many members will your party have to lose to corruption before you agree that there is a culture of corruption amongst the Republican party?

Just wondering.

Cycloptichorn


At least one more than the Democrats lose to corruption assuming that in both cases more than say 30% are indicted?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:35 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I do not believe there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst the Republican party any more than there is a 'culture of corruption' amongst any other party.

Happy?


fox

Have you tuned into any of the cspan coverage of this matter? This really is not an equal opportunity corruptedness. It just isn't. It isn't a matter of Dem vs Republican, of one being worse than the other either inevitably or overall. It is, like the case of the Nixon administration or the Chicago Daley machine, a matter of a specific group of individuals in a particular period of time setting up corrupt systems. It's serious.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:39 pm
It has always been serious and there is nothing new and the side not in power is going to try to make it look like it is all the fault of the side that is in power. Those who break the law to dishonestly feather their own nests should be hung out to dry no matter what party they represent. And those who use speculative or distorted innuendo to try to smear good people to make political points should be held in the contempt they deserve.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:41 pm
And I watch or listen to Cspan usually part of every day along with several other news sources.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:50 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It has always been serious and there is nothing new and the side not in power is going to try to make it look like it is all the fault of the side that is in power. Those who break the law to dishonestly feather their own nests should be hung out to dry no matter what party they represent. And those who use speculative or distorted innuendo to try to smear good people to make political points should be held in the contempt they deserve.


You understand that McCain decidedly does NOT agree that there is nothing new in this scandal? And it is not ALL the fault of just one side, there are long term problems here, but THIS scandal is fundamentally a problem for the Republican party because that is almost totally who it involves (as revealed by who has been indicted so far, for example). Of course, anyone who is found to be guilty ought to suffer the consequences.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 03:11 pm
fox wrote: "...innuendo to try to smear good people to make political points should be held in the contempt they deserve."

Just who might that be? Looks like a sraw man to me!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 03:26 pm
If McCain has said this is a Republican scandal, then he's an idiot. There is a HUGE laundry list of major contributions from Abranoff or his clients to dozens of major Democrats including all the top leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al)

McCain has his own problems re tribal campaign contributions too. A huge chunk of his constituency in Arizona are the tribes and he saw fit to exempt them from his campaign finance reform bill--in other words the scandal re any tribal contributions, bribes, etc. that currently comprises a lot of the speculative charges may be questionable from an ethical standpoint, but are probably not illegal.

In other words the contributions may not be at all illegal if there was no bribe involved.

Here is one source discussing this
LOOK HERE
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 03:33 pm
I also think McCain has some screws loose in his brains. This administration destroyed him during the 2000 elections, and he supports the very people that did him in. On the other hand, he's been a good advocate for many good things such as torture of prisoners and campaign financing. He hasn't lost all his credibility, but he's lost too much for me to vote for him.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 07:07 pm
blatham wrote:

fox

Have you tuned into any of the cspan coverage of this matter? This really is not an equal opportunity corruptedness. It just isn't. It isn't a matter of Dem vs Republican, of one being worse than the other either inevitably or overall. It is, like the case of the Nixon administration or the Chicago Daley machine, a matter of a specific group of individuals in a particular period of time setting up corrupt systems. It's serious.


The CSpan coverage has been remarkable (and long). Watching McCain and Dorgan trying to question that blonde friend of Abramoff's (Italian name) was hilarious, so if you missed it be sure to catch the reruns.

A couple of things to keep in mind, though. This almost seems to be a 'ruling party' affair. The Republicans are in the thick of it now, but when the Dems were in the same position, they had the same sort of practices in the decades they ruled.

Gerrymandering - it's become very scientific, I think, and may mitigate any loss of seats. It's much, much harder to turn over seats from one party to another - moreso now than any time I can remember.

"Bad news for the Republicans" - undoubtedly, but also for politicians in general. And that makes it good news for everyone else. It seems that every decade or so our system needs this sort of 'pressure' renewal - at least at the national level.

I sincerely hope that all of them - whatever side of the political divide - who are found guilty of corruption are thrown out. Hopefully for good. If the Republicans take the major share of the 'hit', so be it.

But, back to CSpan. After what I've seen so far, I don't expect McCain - or even a whole lot of Democrats - to get too near this whole mess.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 08:55 pm
Printed from http://www.texasobserver.org
© Texas Democracy Foundation


The Pimping of the Presidency

Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist Billing Clients for Face Time with G.W. Bush

BY LOU DUBOSE


Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. In May 2001, Jack Abramoff's lobbying client book was worth $4.1 million in annual billing for the Greenberg Traurig law firm. He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush "Pioneer," delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove's personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay. Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President.Since the Post's Susan Schmidt broke the Jack Abramoff story, the media has focused on the stunning $82 million Abramoff and Scanlon billed six tribes for lobbying and public relations work. Far less attention has been paid to the political contributions, by Abramoff's account $10 million, made by the six tribes. That piece of the story involves the K Street Project, which moves the money of corporate lobbyists and their clients into the accounts of Republican candidates, PACs, and issue advocacy groups.

Republican Campaign Accounts
Abramoff advised tribal leaders that the contributions were the cost of doing business in Washington, where he could protect them from other tribes trying to open casinos to compete with those that already had them. He sent orders for the checks to be cut, designating each recipient. On March 6, 2002, for example, Coushatta Tribal Council Chair Lovelin Poncho followed Abramoff's orders and disbursed $336,300 in tribal funds, according to tribal accounting ledgers obtained by the Observer.

The Coushattas, a southwest Louisiana tribe of 837 members, operate a casino that does an estimated $300 million in annual business. The $32 million they paid Abramoff and Scanlon makes the tribe the largest victim of the fraud their lawyers now allege in a lawsuit filed by Texas plaintiff's firm Provost Umphrey. The tribe also contributed what tribal council member David Sickey said was probably "many millions" of dollars to political causes and charities designated by Abramoff.

Since we first reported the White House ATR fundraiser and the $1 million contribution to the Capital Athletic Foundation (see "K Street Croupiers," November 19, 2004), the Coushattas, speaking through Austin attorneys at Hance, Scarborough, Wright, Ginsburg & Brusilow, and through Louisiana political consultant Roy Fletcher, have vociferously denied that tribal Chairman Poncho visited the White House after contributing $25,000 to ATR. They also denied the $1 million contribution to Abramoff's foundation. Recently the story has changed. Or at least the version told by the majority that controls the council has begun to change. Two minority members of the five-seat council have pointed to the pay-to-play meeting with President Bush and the $1 million contribution to Abramoff as examples of the council's financial mismanagement. That doesn't square with the paper trail Abramoff and Norquist left behind, which makes it evident that they were selling access to the President.
The Coushatta Tribal Council majority has also revised its response to questions about the $1 million contribution, which critics in the tribe have insisted was made to Abramoff's Capital Athletic Foundation in 2001. The foundation funded Abramoff's Jewish prep school in Bethesda, MD, which closed soon after his lobbying scheme unraveled. When the Observer inquired in November 2004 about the $1 million contribution, we had obtained a copy of the Capital Athletic Foundation's tax filing, but the contributor's name was redacted. Following the lead of Lake Charles, Louisiana, American Press reporter Shawn Martin, the Observer last week obtained an un-redacted copy. The $1 million contribution, roughly 95 percent of what the foundation raised in 2001, was attributed to the Coushatta Tribe. A source working with the Coushatta Tribal Council majority said it now appears that the contribution was made in response to a bill sent by Mike Scanlon. Accountants working under the direction of Hance Scarborough found a $1-million Greenberg Traurig invoice that Scanlon sent the tribe. Scanlon routinely sent un-itemized bills for larger sums, which the tribe routinely paid. But as he was not a Greenberg Traurig employee, he billed on his own Capitol Campaign Strategies invoices. On the $1 million Greenberg Traurig invoice Scanlon sent the tribe in 2001, the company name was misspelled.

There will need to be more accounting, probably by different accountants. And perhaps by different legal representation, or at least under a different understanding between the tribe and its lawyers. In the May 28 tribal election on the Elton, LA reservation, a reform slate won a majority on the five-member council. Sickey, who five days before the election maintained that the $1 million contribution was made and that tribal chair Poncho indeed went to the White House in 2001, predicted the new majority will hire forensic accountants to determine where all the money went. (A week before the election he was looking for a tribal newsletter in which, he said, Poncho described his 2001 White House visit.) The shift on the council does not bode well for its Austin law firm. Hance Scarborough had gone to tribal court and successfully blocked a recall election that would have forced the council majority to stand for election a year ago, and David Sickey was a proponent of the recall. "Kent Hance doesn't represent me or [the other minority dissident] Harold John," said Sickey. "He represents Lovelin Poncho."

The White House press office has not responded to our questions about other visits Jack Abramoff might have made to the White House or about Norquist using the official residence of the President to raise funds for Americans for Tax Reform. None of the political contributions Abramoff insisted the tribes make as yet have been returned.

Lou Dubose is a former Observer editor and co-author of The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money and the Rise of the Republican Congress. This story was written with support from the Fund for Constitutional Government.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 08:58 pm
A copy of the $25,000 check made payable to ATR and other documents can be seen at: http://www.texasobserver.org
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 07:45 am
The Military Times joins Liberal Media, Aids and Abets Enemy

I mean, that must be it, right?

Quote:
U.S. Military Confidence in Bush Hits New Low

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (IPS) - Although morale among members of the professional corps of the U.S. military remains generally high, their confidence in President George W. Bush and other civilian government leaders slipped substantially during 2005, according to major new survey released Monday by the "Military Times".

The survey, the third in an annual series, found that approval of Bush's Iraq policies by military professionals fell from nearly two-thirds at the end of 2004 to just 54 percent in late 2005, while their support for his overall performance dropped from 71 percent to 60 percent over the course of the year.

While both ratings remain significantly higher than the approximately 40 percent approval given Bush and his Iraq policy by the general public in late 2005, the military levels appear remarkably low given the fact that 60 percent of the military respondents identified themselves as Republicans -- twice the percentage of the civilian population.

Among self-described Republican civilians, Bush's approval ratings have been much higher -- 80 percent or more -- while support for his Iraq policy among civilian Republicans stands at about two-thirds.

"The military had been so steadfast behind Bush," said Times managing editor Robert Hodierne, who said he was surprised by the decline in confidence. "When (the president's ratings are) dropping nine and 11 points -- especially in this community, which is very Republican and noticeably more conservative than the general population -- then the president needs to pay attention."

If support for Bush and the Iraq intervention among the professional military appears to be waning, however, lack of confidence in other civilian institutions -- particularly Congress and the media -- is even more pronounced, according to the survey. It found that the estrangement between the military and the country's civilian leadership, a concern since the early 1990s, appears, if anything, to have grown over the past year.

And the civilian leadership in the Pentagon also appears to be viewed with scepticism. Fifty percent of respondents said they did not believe the civilian leadership of the Defence Department had their "best interests at heart".

The vast majority of military respondents also took issue with the Bush administration's estimates that the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large number of U.S. troops over the next year or two. Only 29 percent agreed with that projection, while 40 percent said it would take three to five years, and additional 24 percent said from five years to more than 10 years.

The survey, which was based on 1,214 completed questionnaires that were sent to 4,000 active-duty personnel in all major services, has come to be seen as one of the most accurate barometres of attitudes held by the professional career military, a group that has been notoriously difficult to poll.

Read on...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 08:44 am
Link to the original article at MilitaryCity.com: Troops sound off - Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort
Quote:
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/poll1col.gif
Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military's professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

[...]

But few of those shifts appear as significant as those on the president.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:27 am
Ticomaya wrote:


And the fact that I'm posting her here would seem to be in keeping with the purpose of this thread. You might want to look again at its title.



So, Coulter is an aftermath of bu$h supporters? I'll drink to that!
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:30 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
I could set up the adoption process. You are clearly hungering for a strong father figure. Who better than I?


Ann Coulter?


He may have a point there Blatham..... only on the father part though.

That adam's apple keeps bobbing up and down pointing to a male feature but I would never go so far as to call her an actual father figure. To me a father figure is someone who gives a damn about something other than himself.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 02:28:46