Get This Partisan Started: Dubya's Federal Election Army
	found on Washington Post written by Philosawyer, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 24 Oct 12:37pm
		"President Bush is pulling out all the stops in deploying the powers and payroll of the federal government to serve his efforts to influence the upcoming Midterm elections: From housing grants in South Dakota and research contracts in Florida to Air Force One rides and photos in the White House driveway, Bush has made Republican success on Nov. 5 a government-wide project. More than 330 administration appointees, some of whom were told by White House officials that they needed to show their Republican credentials, have taken vacation time and are being flown by the party to House and Senate campaigns in states where control of Congress will be decided. The appointees will organize volunteers, work the phones and go door to door.... [L]ongtime activists in both parties said this administration was setting a new standard. "Bush already raised the bar on political fund-raising, by shattering all prior records with more than $150 million raised (more than three times what Clinton raised in his first term before the midterm election), while charging more fund-raising trips to the taxpayers than Clinton did in 1994 and 1998 combined. Many of the Republicans who bitterly complained when Clinton appeared to exploit the Presidency or travel perks for partisan gain are now very, very, quiet. Bush himself is working full time to zealously support Republican candidates at risk of losing, trying to keep Americans distracted from domestic problems, and harnessing the resources of the Federal Government for partisan advantage. Republicans and the White House alike are so confident of their approach that they are already mapping out their plans to use the power with control of all branches of government. The economy and UN resolution on Iraq apparently can wait until after November 5." And it looks like Bush's well-stated disgust with all things 'Washington' appears to have evaporated now that big gubmint can be used to raise funds and get the vote out.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 33 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Is it too late to fix this?   by jbou       at Thu 24 Oct 1:11pm score of 1     The Democrats saw themselves getting their butts kicked in the fund raising game so instead of fixing the problem they hired Terry what's his name, and joined the money grab, so now no one can stand up, and say we need this fixed, nor will they allow the problem to be fixed. Look at what's happening to the campaign finance law that was passed, it's being gutted in the courts by special intrests on both sides. The only way to try, and fix this is taxpayer funded elections, and free airtime for all candidates whose parties have achieved 5 percent of the vote in their states governers election. Talking about why this is wrong is a waste of time, it's wrong, it's a problem, and let's get behind anyone trying to fix the problem. link, link 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 ]

2.  Shocked, SHOCKED to see this is going on!   by profwhat       at Thu 24 Oct 1:35pm score of 1     Many of the Republicans who bitterly complained when Clinton appeared to exploit the Presidency or travel perks for partisan gain are now very, very, quiet. And many of the Democrats who were very, very quiet when Clinton appeared to exploit the Presidency or travel perks for partisan gain are now bitterly complaining. Could it be that one's views on this issue are closely tied to whether one agrees with the political party of the current occupant of the White House? Nah... From what I can tell, what Bush is doing is very similar to what Clinton did, except 1) Bush is doing it better and 2) Bush is doing it legally. If anything all this is an argument to change the law; it isn't an effective criticism of Bush.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Shocked, SHOCKED to see this is going on!   by captainebo       at Thu 24 Oct 1:43pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 2     From what I can tell, what Bush is doing is very similar to what Clinton did, except 1) Bush is doing it better and 2) Bush is doing it legally. If anything all this is an argument to change the law; it isn't an effective criticism of Bush. Ah the "Clinton did it" strawman rides again. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what was done in the past. This is an argument to change the law AND an effective criticism of Bush. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  shocked, no. but you should be pissed.   by coquito       at Thu 24 Oct 1:51pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     i'm sorry, but "not an effective criticism" my ass. hypocrisy is an effective criticism of any politician, even if, increasingly, it looks like a criticism of every politician. we should all be bitching about this guy for saying one thing and doing the opposite and those other guys for having the gall to complain about a set of actions only when they're undertaken by the right set of people. if we all just lounge around and say "well, everyone does it, so?..." all we'll get is more dirty, lyin', stinkin', asswipe politicos running our lives from here to perpetuity. i say full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes, bush should be criticized for this from the top of Mt. Olympus and if (WHEN) the lighting bolts fry the asses of any similarly complicit Democrats, so be it. we don't need their kind in that party either. In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  "Bush is doing it legally..."   by kipmanley       at Thu 24 Oct 2:19pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 2     I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, "no controlling legal authority." I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that - I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here," from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country. It's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, "I don't want you to let me down again." And we can do better than the past administration has done. It's time for a fresh start. It's time for a new look. It's time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism. And so, I don't know the man well, but I've been disappointed about how and his administration has conducted the fund-raising affairs. Well, hey. How about that--profwhat and Gore were both right. There is no controlling legal authority for this stuff... Long story; short pier.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  time for a campaign finance "salary cap" ?   by dewdrops       at Thu 24 Oct 1:51pm score of 1     I'm bothered that more and more politicians are spending their time raising money so that they can be re-elected and continue to be my politician. I don't mind some fund-raising, but it seems like after Clinton got the ball rolling , now it's really growing out of control with Bush, Hillary Clinton, and others spending an increasingly large proportion of their time fundraising. I wonder if the answer is a "salary cap" for politicians. Each type of race (local senate, national senate, presidential) could have a hard cap on how much each candidate were allowed to spend. Campaign finance reform has never been embraced by Democrats or Republicans, but I have to imagine that at some point both sides will realize that it's a waste for them to be spending all of their time fund-raising, as it only means the other side will do the same. NFL owners realized this and the NFL's cap has brought parity to that league. Maybe politicians will realize the same thing ? The current finance reform bill just has too many loopholes (see Hillary Clinton link above), and I think the only way to truly correct the situation is to slow the growth of campaign spending.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Repeated Broken Promises and Empty Rhetoric   by Philosawyer       at Thu 24 Oct 2:27pm score of 4.5 informative     "You can't say one thing and do another." -       George W. Bush, 10/31/00 Ironically Bush continues to keep reciting the same promises over and over while continuing to do the opposite: *Campaign 2000* During his campaign he promised to end partisanship in Washington: "Beyond all of his policy promises, Bush centered his campaign on a sweeping pledge to reach beyond party lines and soothe the partisan hostilities in Washington." *Post Election 2000* After he was elected despite getting fewer votes than his opponent he promised to be not just a President for Republicans but a President representing all Americans. *November 2001* After 9/11Bush procaimed that ending partisanship was more important than ever: "I came to Atlanta today to talk about an all-important question: How should we live in the light of what has happened? We all have new responsibilities. Our government has a responsibility to hunt down our enemies -- and we will. Our government has a responsibility to put needless partisanship behind us and meet new challenges -- better security for our people, and help for those who have lost jobs and livelihoods in the attacks that claimed so many lives. It is oftentimes said that when it comes to foreign policy, partisanship stops, and that's exactly what has happened here at this table. I've had a lot of discussions with both Chairmen up to now and I will continue having discussions with the leaders of the House and the Senate, because whether you're Republican or Democrat, we all want to win this war. *April 16, 2002 I think we can do so in the spirit of cooperation, focusing on what's best for America. This doesn't have to be a time for harsh partisanship, where people are trying to advance their own political agendas as opposed to focusing on what's best for the country. What's best for the country is winning the war on terror, buttoning up the homeland, and keeping this economy growing so people can find work. That's what's best for the country. *July 11, 2002* And we need a voice in the United States Senate who will focus on the people's business, not the needless partisanship, the bickering, the name-calling that too often -- too often fills that great chamber. We need somebody who can work with both sides of the aisle, somebody who's focused on what's right for Minnesota and what's right for America. *Sept 5, 2002 at political fundraiser* You see, what we need in the political process is people who put the people ahead of partisanship. They put people's concerns and hopes and aspirations ahead of personal success, their own personal success. Despite all of these promises Bush continues to be one of the most partisan and conservative President's in modern history. Despite for his call for bipartisanship in the face of terrorism, he has used the war on terror as his single most powerful partisan weapon. I am still waiting for him to keep his promise to bring a higher level of honesty character and integrity to the White House. 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: Repeated Broken Promises and Empty Rhetoric   by skuunk       at Thu 24 Oct 8:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     And of course let us not forget when he blamed the Democrats for "taking their time" to approve(which they eventually did unfortunately) his war resolution and terrorism bills amidst his claims that "they do not care about the security of this country". Then again you could argue that he is not so much a partisan as a totalitarian You are either with us or agin' us   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Repeated Broken Promises and Empty Rhetoric   by tdahnsn       at Fri 25 Oct 4:45am score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 7     You just have the definitions wrong: Engaging in Partisan Politics: When someone of a different party disagrees with you. Consensus Building: When someone of a different party can be bribed into agreeing with you. Beltway Thinking: When any representative of the Federal Government disagrees with you. Partisanship: When someone of a different party stands by the platform of that party. "Working with both sides of the aisle": Strong arming legislation through congress by crying "Partisan!" anytime anyone asks any questions. Harsh Partisanship: When the other party disagrees with you because they firmly believe you are an idiot. Needless Partisanship: When the other party disagrees with you for having no clear plan of action. Partisan Hostilities: When anyone without absolute conviction in the whack-nut ideas of a single elected official questions those ideas. Particularly if the questions raised flow from basic reasoning or well understood data. See, doesn't that make it all much clearer? Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Repeated Broken Promises and Empty Rhetoric   by snarkism       at Fri 25 Oct 7:27am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 7     And we need a voice in the United States Senate who will focus on the people's business, not the needless partisanship, the bickering, the name-calling that too often -- too often fills that great chamber. Naturally, Bush is right here. Democrats ARE bickering whiners. When Republicans bitch publicly, it is just a non-partisan expression of what's good for the country. Remember: BUSH = WINNER DEMOKKKRATS = EVIL PARTISAN BITCHES DOWN WITH THE LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY! Bush is just a lot better at getting corporate head. You know you want it too, but the best you can do is some fat intern chick. I'd rather have Enron any day of the week. There is no hypocrisy in Bush's statements - it's just a fact that Demokrats are partisan and Republicans are not. So suck my fat one, you circle jerkers! GW Snark That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Republicans do it better   by Karkovice       at Thu 24 Oct 2:39pm score of 1.5 interesting     I think the problem here is the Republican's have co-opted an idea of the Democrats and did them one them up. Clinton changed the rules of the game, he ushered in the era of the permanent campaign. Republican's aren't blind, they saw how successful a President could be at raising money. Now Bush is doing the same thing only better. You can fairly criticize republicans for castigating Clinton for such behavior, but Democrats who sat silently when Clinton did it are just as hypocritical for criticzing Bush. IT sorts reminds me of the impeachment issue, where you saw the same sort of hypocrisy displayed. I remember laughing at pious Democrats like Senator Leahy vehemently attacking Republicans for prying into the President's personal life. Of course, 10 years earlier, said Democrats poured over the video tape rentals of Robert Bork and peered into every aspect of the lives of Senator Packwood and Clarence Thomas. Republicans, in vain, protested these invasions of privacy. Of course, when the Republican adopted the Deomcrats methods and went after Clinton for his personal life, they were more then happy to hide the behind the shield of privacy that they so blatantly ignored 10 years earlier. Wake up to this   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: Republicans do "Hypocrisy" better   by Philosawyer       at Fri 25 Oct 6:09am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     Clinton changed the rules of the game, he ushered in the era of the permanent campaign. That's an nice conclusory statement, but it just isnt true. Presidents for a long time have been raising money while President. You can fairly criticize republicans for castigating Clinton for such behavior, but Democrats who sat silently when Clinton did it are just as hypocritical for criticzing Bush. You have it wrong, I am not criticizing republicans who castigated Clinton for such behavior, I am castigating their failure to criticize Bush for engaging in much greater abuse of the office of President and taxpayer funds. You also miss one crucial difference - Clinton is not President, Bush is, so Republicans who have thus far been hypocritical can change by trying to get Bush to stop his abuse of the office that he has brought to all new levels. Finally, you also fail to address the critics of Bush's policies who did not sit idily by during the Clinton administration or werent around to see it. The remainder of your comment even if accepted at face value is all about the past which can not be changed. If you continue with this childish "you did it first" there is no end. Why are you spending your time defending the President instead of calling a spade a spade. Repeat after Me: Bush is abusing the office of President for Partisan gain and using unprecidented amounts of taxpayer resources to raise money for the Republican party. It should stop and Republican candidates should refuse his assistance when it entails such abuses. If you want to claim the same thing about Clinton, then fine, but he isnt President anymore and whatever he did does not justify more of the same, especially when the current President promised to end all such practices. 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 ]   32.  Re: Republicans do "Hypocrisy" better   by mekon       at Fri 25 Oct 8:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     if you want to claim the same thing about Clinton, then fine, but he isnt President anymore and whatever he did does not justify more of the same, especially when the current President promised to end all such practices. Thank you for saying this so succintly --I don't hear this often enough (read ever) -mekon, same taste --less filling "I heard Tom DeLay's blood was in the water and the sharks were encircling, but unfortunately, it turned out a metaphor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  eh, the usual political hypocrisy   by 1fastdog       at Thu 24 Oct 4:38pm score of 1.5 astute     No surprises here except for the fact that the general populace isn't complaining about taxpayers footing the bill for partisan fundraising. IS Bush a hypocrite? Yes. Are politicians of all stripes hypocrites? Yes. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush doesn't have John Q Public on his ass for billing the taxpayers for all this political stumping. As this CSM article points out, Bush is somewhat underneath the radar on this issue: It is a feat of political derring-do unprecedented in America, even by President Clinton, who was pummeled by critics - including Mr. Bush - for being too political. What makes Bush's achievement more extraordinary is that it comes largely below the public radar and apparently at no cost to his approval rating, which remains above 60 percent. "Bush's fundraising record will be hard to break," says Norman Ornstein, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute here. "The most astonishing thing is, here we've brought the entire world to a halt to deal with Iraq, plus terrorism, the Middle East, and North Korea - and the president is taking 12 days out of Washington to campaign. No one has called him to account." Bush is just being Bush; that is, he's behaving like any politician. The problem here is not so much that Bush is doing what he's doing; after all, at the end of the day he's just another politico doing what all good politico's do eventually: fleece the taxpayer. The problem is that we're letting him (and them) do it. Where's the press? Where's the outraged taxpayers? Where's my refund? These are the questions we oughtta be askin'. Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Re: eh, the usual political hypocrisy   by Ananna       at Thu 24 Oct 10:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Are politicians of all stripes hypocrites? Yes. Since there is never any positive feedback from us for good behavior, is there any reason we should expect politicians to ever act within ethical guidelines? It's not the politicians who are hypocrites, it's the voters. You can't show a bear wearing only a shirt, since that implies that the bear ought to be wearing pants, but isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  A question and a comment   by Djerrid       at Thu 24 Oct 6:20pm score of 1     I'm curious about the legality of spending this much government time, personnel and resources on influencing elections. What laws or areas of the Constitution addresses abuses of power in this regard? Anyway, the way I see it is the Bush team is sidestepping the intention of all safeguards set in place to stop the government from influencing elections and is trying to milk the system for all it's worth (as well as just being extremely hypocritical). This strategy of trying to get the most out of the system (and trying to change the system when it doesn't suit you), regardless of moral implications, is similar to the financial shenanigans of WorldCom, Enron, et al. As I have mentioned before: The reason that Enron stands out is that it exploited the well designed loopholes to the umpteenth degree whereas most companies do it just enough to "keep up with the Jones". Keeping with the analogy, the previous Administration pushed the bounderies of what was considered morally appropriate to stay competitive while the current White House has no concept of these moral bounderies. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  The Question that keeps me awake at night   by MrFadedGlory       at Thu 24 Oct 7:33pm score of 0.5 incoherent     All of the above is appalling, the money flying around, the dirty tactics from both sides of the political sphere, the whole lot. Democrats pork barrelling, Republicans pork barrelling and all in YOUR name. Things are the same here in Australia...they are the same in the UK...they are the same in Japan...what worries me is: To what end is it all this way? Is it enough to simply to say that they are doing it to stay in office? There's an incredible amount of work going on to raise all this money. Is it a sufficient reason to say that the politicians do it so that they can regain power so that their backers can suckle from the teat of government plutocracy and that in so doing the politicians and the "business people" will all get rich? I know that this is the accepted orthodoxy, but is it enough? Is the money EVER enough? Wouldn't it be the power that goes with the money? If it's the power, it's pretty pointless to have it and not use it...so if they are going to use it, what is it used for? Anyway...that's what keeps me awake at night ::Fading away aka, Michael (Plastic)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  There's only one thing for it.   by Genady       at Thu 24 Oct 8:02pm score of 1.5 clever     Ventura/McCain in '04! Hell, who knows maybe we'd get trade restrictions lifted from Cuba, at least to the point that the pres can get his Cigars ;) Hell maybe we could even take Saddam up on that mano a mano thing. -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  God Damn America   by Gestalt       at Thu 24 Oct 11:46pm score of 2 brilliant     This topic of hypocrisy, greed, and foolishness has inspired me to vent some long-stored bile. I feel nothing but mistrust and hatred for anything in our country that represents the interests of established government, commerce, or popular culture. I like nice things, I like being well-fed, I like my world of leisure and freedom. But, something is wrong, nonetheless... Should I be suprised when I hear these interests have not lied, stolen, or otherwise cheated their way to achieving something? Should I be suprised when whatever that achievement is turns out to not be ultimately motivated by ignorance and greed? Anymore, I am. I find it tragic that in many situations, what is judged as good is that which appeals most to the lowest common denominator, or that which causes the least amount of change in the culture. And, of course, what is judged as good is what you will be told to like and want and emulate. Of course, Gordon Gecko, Michael Douglas's character from Wall Street would remind us that "Greed is good-- greed works". Indeed it does. For some, anyway. The problem with greed is that what it gives to some, it takes from many others. Greed means fighting, competing, wanting-- needing to screw the other guy more than he's screwing you. Let the buyer beware, but make that awareness hard to achieve. It doesn't appeal to anyone's virtuous tendencies; it's predatory and relentless and unconcerned with the pain it causes- and it's at the very core of our country, our culture, our wants and our needs. If you want to be an American, though, it's impossible not to participate in our greed-centered culture. So, in spite of my best intentions, I am a consumer whore who gladly shovels coal into the fires of our national engine of subjugation. As a result, my daily routine as a participant of this modern life of convenience and leisure is a constant battle between the quest for contentment and a ambiguous sense of self-loathing. I think I am embarrased from the knowledge that no matter what I do, my actions will ultimately fuel a machine which causes suffering. I fear the only way to remove myself from it is to remove myself from the world entirely-- to emigrate, or live in a cave, or work in Antarctica, or get that cabin north of Yellowknife. But, as promising as any of these might sound to me, It would be a lot better if we could just find people to be in charge who actually had souls and compassion. People who made decisions born out of contemplation and wisdom, not emotion, vanity, or self-interest. People would probably encourage me to get out there and vote, but it seems pretty clear to me that democracy in our country is dead. My proof will be the upcoming elections, where I predict our discontent populace will voice its feelings and yet, end up with the same gang of platitude-spouting buzzword dispensers that always get elected. It matters little who they are, as anyone with real insight won't be swallowed by the trailer-park set, or if elected, drowned in a sea of their contemporaries' corruption and idiocy. In the mean time, a great deal of the rest of the world recognizes that there are a few things things about America that are fundamentally wrong and will have to be addressed. Most days, I can feel a geniune sense of embarrasment that I am who I am; an American citizen, the most important mouth to feed in the world, even if it means people elsewhere have to die. It's sad that we are the bully, that nobody is really equipped to put us in our place. I feel frustration that there is very little I can do with my circumstance to effect change. And, I feel anger at those in charge for telling me that this is exactly the way things are supposed to be. God damn these United States, God damn George W. Bush and the whole shit-eating American government, God damn the smiling face on my 42-inch high-definition TV screen telling me what I will be buying next, God damn every soulless corporation who ever caused misery in the name of greed, and most importantly, God damn me for being a part of the whole thing. The plumber's pipes are the leakiest.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Don't think your alone...   by stuporific       at Fri 25 Oct 6:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     ...feeling this way. Our more cynical brethern may think this is just a game, but what is happening to this country and the world matter far more than just our individual lives and comforts. Your angst is justified and shared. Best to do what we can for those we can do it for. Most importantly guard your hope for these are truly times of despair for all who believe in enlightened progress and the 'goodness' of humanity.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: God Damn America   by astrogirl       at Fri 25 Oct 10:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     I find it interesting that you make a case for governmental change and include the fact that you are not voting on November 5. This makes your case less compelling and more like whining. Please consider the incredibly small margin that put Bush into office before you decide not to vote on November 5. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: God Damn America   by Gestalt       at Mon 28 Oct 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     you make a case for governmental change and include the fact that you are not voting on November 5. That's what I said. I don't know, maybe I'll vote, but my feeling (to clarify) is that even if I take advantage of every chance to voice my opinion that I am entitled to, the effort is more like masturbation than democracy. The opinion I register by casting votes is most likely to fall onto the ears of people so disconnected from ideals that the only thing we're really accomplishing is some sort of exercise in self-gratification; motions we are allowed to go through that give us the illusion that we have some degree of control. But... We have no control. It's no mistake that these days, the terms "citizen" and "consumer" are all but equivalent, because money talks, and bullshit (like democracy) walks-- and in the ecology of money, my friends, we are the little amoebas at the bottom of the food chain. The titans of power and influence look upon us as single-celled organisms that eat products and crap cash, only useful as long as we keep up our materialistic frenzy and our mouths shut. So-- the choices I have and the likelihood of actually seeing the progress I may pin to a candidate becoming a reality are pretty much null. It's out of our hands, and unless you can buy your own candidate like the big boys do, getting what you want involves taking what you can out of the table scraps thrown to the lowest common denominator. This makes your case less compelling and more like whining Yes, it is whining. Voting won't change this. Revolution would. Unfortunately, we're too comfortable and fat and stupid (myself included) to actually make it happen. Oh yeah, and we have spent the sixty years building the largest military and intelligence force in the world, able to crush any and all detractors. So, instead I'll sit and complain, because that's all that I feel is left to me. The plumber's pipes are the leakiest.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: God Damn America   by VootGuy       at Mon 28 Oct 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     I find it interesting that you make a case for governmental change and include the fact that you are not voting on November 5 I think that was kind of his point, that no matter who's elected its just flip sides of the same goddamn coin. And I agree with him. I'll vote Democrat, since they seem to at least attempt to look like they care, but ultimately every politician in the 2 parties is only interested in maintaining the status quo, ad nauseam. E pluribus unum.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Want to slow the flow of money?   by Brian Jones       at Fri 25 Oct 5:42am score of 0.5 irrelevant     All donations above $10000 must be made in cash - presented to the candidates in person, on the steps of the Capitol, by men who bear a striking resemblance to Luca Brasi. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Want to slow the flow of money?   by Genady       at Fri 25 Oct 7:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     The really sad thing is that most donations are delivered by men who bear a striking resemblance to Albert Neri. (and not just physically) -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Look a little harder...   by Symmetry       at Fri 25 Oct 10:51pm score of 1     ...and they look exactly like Kenneth Lay, handing over $1.8 mil. - and a friendship ring. "He had but one eye, and the popular prejudice runs in favor of two" - Charles Dickens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  What do you expect?   by strumbucket       at Sat 26 Oct 11:13am score of 2 astute     Before we were so rudely interrupted by constant saber rattling, the arc of junior's life was starting to get substantive coverage in the "press." That malicious grin at Exeter (or whatever equivalent institution he was bustled off to), mediocrity excused by endowment at Yale, a miraculous (not really) admission to Harvard, AWOL from the Air Guard, DWI, followed by swearing off drink a mere 10 years later, the "lost years," Arbusto, Spectrum 7, Harken, the Rangers deal, governor of Texas (and the ensuing entanglement of the UT endowment in a payback for said Rangers deal). Is there anything, ANYTHING, in his past that provides any measure of principle, sacrifice, achievement or merit on any account? I sure can't find it. But that is the rub with the pigs, they trot out tinpot moralizers like Lynn Cheney and Bill Bennett to hector us like grade school children while providing a front for looters and confidence men. We are getting what we deserve. That this dullard puppet continues to have high approval ratings just shows that the American people (or at least a majority of the voting segment thereof) have the character assessment skills of the average sap strolling the rows at a used car lot, waiting to be preyed upon by false cheer and appeals to non-existent loyalty. Too bad the world had to pay for our gullability. got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]