Paid For By Friends And Enemies Of George W Bush — Bush Supports Tax Payer Funded Campaining?
	found on The Washington Post written by Philosawyer, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 17 Sep 9:41pm
		"Bush is certainly not the first President to use taxpayer money to defray the cost of flying around to raise money for Republican candidates, but he does appear to be raising the bar considerably. Bush has smashed all prior records for Presidential fund raising with over US$114.8 Million as of September 3, 2002, with much more fund raising to come. With all of the time spent campaigning and fund-raising, keeping physically fit, and spending 42% of his Presidency at three "leisure destinations", its not clear where he finds the time to govern the nation during this time of 'war,'" Philosawyer writes. "Not only is he getting a head start on his 2004 election campaign, while raising records amount of money for Republicans, he is also not shy about using tax payer money to foot a lot of the bills. Bush has a 'template' for day trips from Washington, holding a public policy or 'message' event before the fund-raiser so that he can charge taxpayers for much of these trips, relieving the political committees of some of the costs. Bush's strategists manage to turn the government-paid events largely into political ads , benefitting the candidate Bush is appearing with but also driving up the president's poll numbers in that media market, according to officials who examine the data. During his most recent qualifying 'message' designed for TV sized attention spans, the National and local TV outlets showed Bush in front of a massive White House set that said 'Strengthening Our Economy' in big letters, then repeated it 33 times in a smaller type outlined by a map of the United States.

	"The political purpose of such trips is rendered even more transparent since the political planning inadvertently became public several months ago. A PowerPoint Presentation prepared in June by Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, and his political director, Ken Mehlman, identified states that had been lost by 5 percentage points or less, listed them according to the final margins, then totaled the electoral votes at stake in each category. One highlight of the presentation that ended up in the press includes the notation that the Presidents extensive partisan campaigning has not seemed to hurt his public image too much. "Even though he has a lot of company with prior Presidents, should the American public be subsidizing Presidential fund raising trips? (Army Secretary Thomas White, the former vice chairman of Enron Energy Services, tried to bill the American taxpayers for his trip to close the sale of his $6.5-million ski home in Aspen). It may be legal to 'share the costs' for campaign fund-rasing events that include a political made for TV soundbites, but does that make it right? So long as Bush is calling for congressional belt tightening wouldn't footing the full bill for his fund-raising campaign trips send at least a better symbolic message."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 37 commentsbest: 2 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Like It or Not   by mckoonts       at Tue 17 Sep 9:52pm score of 2.5 funny     He is the President. If he decides to go to a strip joint in Tahiti with three midgits and an emu, we'll have to pay for Air Force One, the Secret Service agents and the condoms. Free Speech is the Right to Burn a Crowded Theater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  But   by jbou       at Tue 17 Sep 10:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I wouldn't mind that. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  It's been done...almost   by Brian Jones       at Wed 18 Sep 5:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Put Clinton on Air Force One with Bob Reich and Janet Reno, and that's one midget and the emu taken care of. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  An impossibility.   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 18 Sep 4:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Dubya would never frequent the same hangouts that Clinton did. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Karl Rove is ...   by jbou       at Tue 17 Sep 10:14pm score of 0.5 incoherent     an evil genius. Karl took Clinton's grassroots campaign strategy, and combined it with some good old fashioned advertising, and what do we get? Bush re elected in 2004. Will the Democrats be able to catch up is the question? Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  OPM to burn   by asthmaticeog       at Tue 17 Sep 10:17pm score of 1.5 astute     And people bitched about Gore making phone calls. Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  News flash!   by wrestler       at Wed 18 Sep 12:20am score of 1     'I am shocked and outraged to hear that politicians are out fundraising under color of statesmanship.' - Ug the Caveman, 1,000,000 B.C. Come on, folks, this is the world's oldest profession. It's pandemic to and inseparable from democracy. Attempts to curb it will always be even less effective than attempts to supress that other old profession. Trying to pick a statesman by political campaigns is like trying to pick a quarterback by, uh, political campaigns. What a surprise that we end up with great ... political campaigners. It's just luck if the guy can also move the ball up the field. In matters of state, Dubya is moving the ball, but frequently in the wrong direction. His average is bad enough that I'm more than happy to hear that he's taking lots of time off. The more the better. Take solice in the thought that all of the funds he's raising are to be spent trying to move the free market of ideas. Almost any amount of wealth can be quickly dissipated trying to move a deep market that isn't ready to move. (Government treasuries have lost tens of billions of dollars per day in failing to learn this lesson.) In a market of ideas, volume and repetition have to compete against qualities like astute/interesting/novel/clever/etc. In other words, you can potentially float a sufficiently worthy meme in a Plastic comment to offset weeks worth of Dubya's campaign funds. If the system sucks, it isn't because of campaign finance policy, it's because you haven't been brilliant enough lately.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Political Ads impact elections more than "plastic"   by Philosawyer       at Wed 18 Sep 5:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Take solace in the thought that all of the funds he's raising are to be spent trying to move the free market of ideas. Almost any amount of wealth can be quickly dissipated trying to move a deep market that isn't ready to move. The money being raised here in addition to television exposure to the President is only in small part aimed at trying to generally "move" the free market of ideas. Most of this money spent has a much narrower objective of making people in specific area slightly more likely to vote for one candidate or not vote for another. It is more about trying to influence opinion of particular people than about changing peoples ideas. Bush's backdrop for his free TV exposure illustrates this quite well with 'Strengthening Our Economy' in big letters, then repeated it 33 times in a smaller type outlined by a map of the United States. This certainly is not about trying to get people to change there ideas about whether "Strengthening Our Economy" is a good idea. Nor is it really about explaining an "issue" to the public despite being purportedly funded by public money for that reason (in fact efforts are made to ensure that only people who support Bush already are present for his "message" as a "cheering crowd" for tv and a warmup for the real fundraiser). Rather it is designed to market a candidate via an image of appearing to do something and appearing to stand for something by literally being shown on TV standing in front of a billboard. This not about moving the free market place of ideas as much as it is selling a product via image and emotional appeal that may or may not be actually descriptive of the product. When it comes to influencing how people vote in targeted campaigns I am afraid that your claim that "float[ing] a sufficiently worthy meme in a Plastic comment [can] offset weeks worth of Dubya's campaign funds" is completely unfounded. Millions of dollars every week go a lot farther in this game. The primary "meme" proposed here is that least taxpayer money shouldn't be used to subsidize it further (of course there is also the meme that Bush is abusing the system, but that message in this forum tends to change very few minds if any at all). In any case, reason and rationality have relatively little to do with this type of marketing. Finally, the marketplace of ideas is also moving, for example, one of the more disturbing areas discussed in Plastic is the . The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Complete Last Sentence for Comment 6   by Philosawyer       at Wed 18 Sep 6:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Furthermore, the marketplace of ideas is also moving, for example, one of the more disturbing areas discussed in Plastic is the erosion in support for the First Amendment. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Political Ads impact elections more than   by wrestler       at Wed 18 Sep 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     This not about moving the free market place of ideas as much as it is selling a product via image and emotional appeal that may or may not be actually descriptive of the product. I don't think that there's a difference. When you sell a product you're just selling a package of ideas about a product. Opinions to the contrary have bought us severe damage to the first amendment in the form of regulatory restrictions to non-fraudulent commercial speech. The Feinstein - Huffington senate race, in which Huffington outspent Feinstein 2 to 1 and lost badly anyway, is a demonstration of the relative strength of memes and dollars. (I'd rather Huffington had won, but I frequently don't get what I want in the free market.) I'm not saying that dollars aren't an effective tool to replicate memes. Of course they are. But a good argument will replace a whole lot of dollars, especially in the long run. Especially when the good argument is used to seduce dollars by an effective campaigner. A lot of Bush's fundraising effectiveness is the result of that old leader's trick: figure out where the flock is flying, and fly ahead of them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Political Ads impact elections more than   by miriamsong       at Thu 19 Sep 2:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     When you sell a product you're just selling a package of ideas about a product. Hey, just because you swallowed a bunch of horseshit, don't try to feed us your leftovers. Those 30-second things you hear and see on TV are not about "ideas". Advertising and selling are not the same as intellectual discourse or even persuasive speech. The "ideas" in most ads may not be overtly fraudulent, but they are certainly irrelevant to the product, admittedly so. If you dissect ads you will not find ideas, you will find gimmicks that are intended to distract you from the lousy logic. Some "marketplace of ideas" -- it costs millions to get into the market! Your argument is that since good ideas can sometimes overcome dollars spent to push bad ideas, that the dollars are somehow not relevant? Then why do they spend them? And before you pigeonhole me, I'm not talking about limiting anyone's free speech or making laws limiting campaign spending. I'm just in favor of a little honest recognition that money has a big influence on politics. And that money is not evenly distributed across all possible political positions. The world of politics may not be perfectible, but let's not ignore its flaws just because we don't know how to fix them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Political Ads impact elections more than   by wrestler       at Thu 19 Sep 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Those 30-second things you hear and see on TV are not about "ideas". Advertising and selling are not the same as intellectual discourse or even persuasive speech. Sure they're about ideas. You might not like them, and I usually don't. They may be self serving, anti-intellectual, trivial, wrong, etc., but anything that can be communicated is an idea. I'm glad you don't want certain sorts of ideas banned by campaign finance laws. But there are a lot of people who use your distinction between real ideas and non-ideas to justify those laws. You seem to agree that such a cure is worse than the disease.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: News flash!   by nmiguy       at Wed 18 Sep 10:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I'm just happy you quoted Ug the Caveman. Haven't heard from him in a while. Always the same tired old quotes of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Plato. They could learn a thing or two from my main man Ug. You know Ug was married to Le. It was a really big event, the Ug-Le marriage. Republicans and Democrats were invited, and they were both mugging it up for the free publicity. Ug was a littled pissed off by it, but what could he expect at an Ug-Le marriage of Democrats and Republicans?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Here in the nation's capital, we say...   by sglover910       at Wed 18 Sep 12:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     ...that politics is show-biz for ugly people. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  You don't want a crook in office?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 18 Sep 8:02am score of 1 nuanced     Then don't fucking vote one in office. Wait a minute. . .   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Think hard   by scareduck       at Wed 18 Sep 8:53am score of 1.5 clever     With all of the time spent campaigning and fund-raising, keeping physically fit, and spending 42% of his Presidency at three "leisure destinations", its not clear where he finds the time to govern the nation during this time of 'war,' But would you really want Bush actively governing? How many John Ashcrofts can be packed into a Supreme Court? We're smarter individually. -- Larry Niven   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Mebbe I'm missing something...   by tomc       at Wed 18 Sep 8:56am score of 1.5 astute     ...but I don't see how Bush's behavior here is much different from that of any other president in recent history. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Mebbe I'm missing something...   by Norman108       at Wed 18 Sep 9:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     His style is not so different in kind, it's just different in quantity. He's just so BIG about everything he does. Big vacations, big spending, big fund raising, big wars, big changes. Whether or not you like what he's doing, we're just not used to this style of presidency after Clinton. After all, he is from Texas! In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  I'm numb to it in New York   by Brian Jones       at Wed 18 Sep 9:58am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 11     I lost track of how many dozens of flights Hillary took to and around New York "in her capacity as First Lady" in 1999 and 2000...and personally covered all three Senate candidates (Hillary, Giuliani, Lazio) as they took varying other liberties with government vehicles, stretching the definition of "security" to its limits. What each of them needed with a seven-SUV motorcade, all left with engines and A/C running during a fuel crisis, remains beyond my understanding. In no case were there even enough Secret Service agents to drive all the vehicles, and the remainder of the retinue were a couple office staffers and a whole bunch of campaign flunkies. (Chuck Schumer, in case you were wondering, travels in one car, with one press person.) Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  The Difference   by Scola       at Wed 18 Sep 10:01am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 11     The difference is in the way the broadcast media is covering these "questionable fundraising activities". When the Clinton administration did this sort of stuff (the Lincoln Bedroom, Gore's Buddist monk fundraiser, etc) the result each time was a month long media "scandal" and all of the Republican outrage sound bites that come with it. However, now that the Bush administration is engaging in similarly questionable fundraising tactics, the broadcast media has elected not only to remain silent about these possible abuses, but to actively play into them - to pretend that a partisan fundraiser/advertisement is actually a serious discussion of policy, and to cover it in that context. The upshot of all this is a terrible double standard which, once again, makes the idea of a "liberal media" very hard to believe.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: The Difference   by nuckferr       at Wed 18 Sep 12:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I don't think it's a media double standard, I just think the republicans do a better job of sowing the seeds of scandal and whipping up the media than do the dems. Conservatives are such moral absolutists and they use terms like "sin" and "immorality" when referring to scandalous deeds. They call press conferences and point fingers and denounce behavior that they don't approve of with passion and hyperbole. The democrats could learn a lesson from the republicans in this department.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: The Difference   by kipmanley       at Wed 18 Sep 3:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     The democrats could learn a lesson from the republicans in this department. Oh, sure. Just what we need. Ramp up the hype and shrill factor even more by having both sides get apoplectic. I'd much rather the Republicans learned a lesson instead. The media focussing their profligate outrage on exposing the howling lies spread by the conservative punditocracy and the NRC spin machine might be a good place to start--and yet. (After all, we once had a media that went out and found stories and talked to people and dug up dirt themselves. Not one that endlessly analyzed competing press releases and the color of candidates' polo shirts.) I'd still go with double standard, but I'm more than willing to blame laziness and stupidity rather than deliberate mendacity on the media's part. How's that? Long story; short pier.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: The Difference   by Scola       at Wed 18 Sep 3:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     The Democrats can call all the press conferences they like, but if the media doesn't cover them, they amount to little more than a few hours worth of C-SPAN fodder. And though Brian Lamb is the MAN, I still don't think enough people watch C-SPAN for these press conferences to make any real impact on public opinion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Yes, you did miss somethings, including the point   by Philosawyer       at Wed 18 Sep 11:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     ...but I don't see how Bush's behavior here is much different from that of any other president in recent history. It is ironic how many people "defend" Bush by attacking someone else. This is especially given the President's attacks on the evil lures of moral relativism. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that Bush is no "worse" one thing you might be missing is two wrongs don't make a right. Another one is that whatever your allegations are about what happened in the past you cannot change, however, the present is another matter all together. At the moment we only have one President actually in office abusing the system and taking it to heights never seen before. Although I am sure you heard his campaign rhetoric promising to bring character and integrity, perhaps you also missed George Bush's Statement on Standards of Official Conduct: a www.whitehouse.gov link It it is this kind of talk that can be used obstruct attempts to improve virtually all chronic problems with politics. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Gee whiz.   by tomc       at Wed 18 Sep 1:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Don't think I've ever been accused of defending Bush before. But as far as his promise of character and integrity, I don't think anyone will deny that Dubya is quite a character. And he's filled the White House with all sorts of characters as well. Ultimately, the only chronic problem we have with politics is people's unwillingness to cast a ballot. Everything else pales by comparison. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Gee whiz. - Vote America -   by Philosawyer       at Wed 18 Sep 2:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Ultimately, the only chronic problem we have with politics is people's unwillingness to cast a ballot. Everything else pales by comparison. In that case I will just close with some words of wisdom from our President that I hope voters (and potential voters) will keep in mind when he is up for election: There's an old saying in Tennessee --I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 (Maybe I was a little over-ready to respond to a point I knew someone would make.) The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Gee whiz.   by adamrice       at Wed 18 Sep 2:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Ultimately, the only chronic problem we have with politics is people's unwillingness to cast a ballot. Everything else pales by comparison. The lack of candidates who can generate widespread enthusiasm to vote is a bigger problem. if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Gee whiz.   by tomc       at Wed 18 Sep 6:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     I'm not sure that's true. There's this theory that says you can't really vote FOR anybody, you can only vote AGAINST someone (Karl Popper). This is how third parties can become relevant. Also, since I'm a big proponent of civic duty, if someone feels that no candidate is worth their vote, they should get involved with a political party (or help start one) and become part of the process that gets candidates nominated in the first place. If nothing else, you get a lot of free chicken dinners. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Vote America   by tomc       at Wed 18 Sep 6:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     "There's an old saying in Tennessee --I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. " He's a god-damned poet! A mixture of Star Trek and Rock and Roll. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Gee whiz.   by adamrice       at Wed 18 Sep 9:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Interesting--I hadn't heard that before (though I've certainly voted against, rather than for). I would think that third parties would only flourish if people were voting for, though, not against. With two parties, you always know how to cast your vote if there's one guy you really want to vote against. With three parties, you're never sure. Still, in a race between bad and worse, apathy will rule the day. if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Gee whiz.   by tomc       at Thu 19 Sep 8:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     "Still, in a race between bad and worse, apathy will rule the day. " Unfortunately you're right, adamrice. If more voters cast ballots, then candidates will have to smarten up. But I'll admit that it's a chicken and egg argument. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Gee whiz.   by ignoblus       at Thu 19 Sep 10:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     You know, Nazi Germany had a voter turnout around 95 percent, in part because they suffered under some of the worst economic conditions of the industrial age. If you want massive voter turnout, sabotage the economy. It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Gee whiz.   by tomc       at Thu 19 Sep 3:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     So you're predicting a record voter turn-out this November? ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Well   by sulli       at Wed 18 Sep 9:33am score of 2 clever     Every time Bush stands in front of a "Strengthening the Economy" backdrop, the Dow drops 200 points. So (a) this can't help him much; and (b) there is only a finite number of times he can do it! Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  The "Junket" Clock   by SacredGroundChuck       at Wed 18 Sep 12:47pm score of 1     There needs to be a new kind of "Debt Clock", along the lines of the National Debt Clock that got restarted a few months ago in New York. Calculate the cost of each Dubya's junkets, factor in the time spent on each (including going to and from Air Force One in Marine One - that costs money, too) and come up with a cost per hour or even cost per minute amount. Then total up how much was spent on the policy or "message" event and how much was spent on the fundraiser. Split all other time down the middle for each. Then post the numbers. I would imagine a counter that had "George Bush used $X,XXX,XXX,XXX of your money to raise money for candidates" would begin to get attention. Unfortunately, it will take a Republican candidate for office not officially sanctioned by the White House, whose Republican opponent in the primaries got the glory of being with the Prez, to make this a big issue - and even then it will seem like sour grapes. "Did you know that the human brain is the only computer in the universe made of meat?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  public funding of campaigns a blessing   by MakesYouFrown       at Wed 18 Sep 12:47pm score of 1     The Northern European model of completely funding party campaigns has some healthy effects: - less time wasted on fund raising - less influence on policy by corporations - ability for very different voices to be heard For a non-American it is weird to see how much accepted the custom of financial contributions to politicians is. In the old country they would call it corruption...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: public funding of campaigns a blessing   by cy guy       at Wed 18 Sep 2:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     The Northern European model of completely funding party campaigns has some healthy effects: Not to mention it reverses the vicious circle that continually reduces the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. The rich give to politicians (on both sides) to get special tax breaks. If the politicians depended on taxes to fund their campaigns, then corporations would want to demonstrate what good taxpayers they and how by keeping them in business they would be able to continue to pay taxes that support the the politicians campaigns. "Everybody's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."-Andy Warhol   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  we call it corruption here, too   by Smallest       at Wed 18 Sep 3:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     but no change is likely. the people who could change it are in too deep, and it's apparently impossible to get too far into the system without becoming part of it. besides, most people don't see a problem. they just want their bread and circuses; and while there's a little less bread these days, the circuses are way up. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]