I’m really surprised no one has mentioned this, so lets compare the Treasury’s blurb of April 9th:
with the following, dated April 2nd:
Kind of identical, no? The second one, dated earlier, is from the Republican National Committee’s website, GOP.com.
Search the site for “Gore”. You find the same thing: identical passages in multiple press releases. Do liberals even know what liberalism is anymore? It’s about human rights and dignity. It’s about freedom, and about government interfering only to help, to rescue, to edify. The fact that you’re all so fricky dicky over shit like this is so discouraging. Change, or you’re going to lose.
Libertarian, thanks for the advice, I guess, but please stop advising just for a moment and listen to something.
It’s nice to see a committed libertarian become a temporary amateur liberal for the course of this election period, but please realize that we careerists already know why we do what we do, and we each know which forms of liberalism are important to us individually. Beyond that, “liberalism” isn’t so easily defined, and it certainly isn’t a philosophy which precudes -or should preclude- concern over personal appropriation of public money for individual campaigns (which none of your cited press releases come close to showing). Nor does liberalism preclude concern over sensitivity of language, which appears to be another chronic criticism you have, and nor should it preclude this concern, as it is a core part of “helping, rescuing and edifying”.
Sit back, enjoy your brief ride as a liberal, and leave the driving to the permanent staff. Thank you.
Is it even possible that so few people see the parrallel with the quote that Libertarian included?
Really Not All That Bright please fight my ignorance. Explain the difference. They both seem to be governemnt resources used for political purposes.
Finally, I don’t even see what the problem is. In principle. There may be some law or other which forbids such things. In which case fine. But in general, this looks just like an add. It does not look anything like an official government determination that Bush will be better for the economy than Kerry. I doubt very much if the Clinton quote provided by Libertarian enjoys the same virtue. In which case, perhaps I have detected a difference. 
Lib’s gotta point, this is just garden variety stuff, just the usual dainty corruption that is one of the perks of undeserved power. Not much different than the President flying to campaign in the state of Nascar and charging it to us as an “official function.”
I’m so convinced, I hearby shanghai and hijack this thread! We will return at once! to serious issues… Are O’Neil, Clarke, and Woodward the new Axis of Evil? Is it true that flowers wilt when Richard Perle passes?
Don’t mess with me on this, I’ve got the full weight of the Libertarian Party behind me! Tremble and obey.
The difference is context pervert The text quoted in Libertarian’s passage was from a press release stating what some political shill of Clinton’s said in a speach (treasyry Seceratary Lawrence H. Summers at a Finance converence on the New Economy Boston College, Boston MA). It says so clearly on the top of the press release. The quote AHunter3 and several of the rest of us object to is from a press release explaining how to file your taxes electronicaly. It has no bearing on the content of the rest of the text, and amounts to an ad on a public document.
I should let RNATB answer this… but my two cents is this. The text is indeed quite similar, but the context is not. In the case of the OP, the document is a supposedly neutral, informational document, telling me the ways that the IRS is making tax time easier for me. In the case of the others (at least in the ones I read, which is far less than all of the 391 Libertarian linked), they’re the text of speeches.
Speeches are places where you express a viewpoint or opinion. A press release saying “John Bigboote said the President is a good guy and his opponents are bad” is an objective document – at least, assuming the guy said that. In those cases, the perspective or opinion is credited to a particular person. In this case, it’s not, which creates the impression that the Treasury Dept. as an institution is backing the president.
I find it reprehensible. And I find it even more reprehensible that the text is word-for-word reproduced from the RNC.
Libertarian: *Cabinets have always shilled for their bosses. That’s their job. *
We all know that. But that doesn’t mean that all kinds of shilling are equally acceptable or tolerable. We can tolerate a certain amount of certain kinds of political promotion in certain contexts while objecting to other kinds, and that doesn’t make us hypocrites. That’s why a boost for the current Administration in a report of an Administration official’s speech in a press release is significantly different from a boost for the current Administration in a campaign ad in a PSA ostensibly on an entirely separate topic.
I agree with xeno that if you’re going to make common cause temporarily with liberals, you need to learn how to deal with gray areas and the valid distinctions within them, and ease up on your typical all-or-nothing, black-or-white approach to issues. (It would also be nice if you eased up on your arrogant lecturing and scolding, but I don’t expect miracles.)
What a profoundly ironic statement.
Well, friends don’t let friends drive drunk. My point is that what y’all need to do is bring people in who don’t already want to vote for your guy. When you were discussing the issues, that’s when I decided to jump ship. But crap like this just pushes people away except for the choir that you’re preaching to.
So, If I understand you guys correctly, it is perfectly OK for a Treasury under secratary to give a speach entitled “Priorities for Economic Policy in a New American Economy” at an economic conference and include a political add as part of the speech. Even if he includes the contention that American economic success depends on Clinton Gore policies and would be threatened by Republican policies?
Remember, the remarks were included in the speech as if they were assertions by the under secretary about the american economy. They were not made at a political rally by a “political shill”.
I’m not particularly objecting to this point of view. Just trying to understand. Thanks for any understanding you can impart to me.
Try it in a slightly different context.
Let’s say that Rumsfeld says something like “The President’s brave decision to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein made the world safer for the American people”. It’s no big deal. The Secretary of Defense would be saying something about defense, and promoting the President, which is political but not unexpected.
If on the other hand, the DoD started putting a footnote on all its internal memos to staff saying something like “Only President Bush cares about our Armed Services”, that’d be an entirely different kettle of fish.
What if it said, “The President’s attention to our military has reversed the trend of disrespect that it endured in the 1990s when it was used to do carpentry and janitorial services during third world civil wars.”?
Lib: What a profoundly ironic statement.
What you’re trying to say is that I do quite a bit of arrogant lecturing and scolding on my own part. You’re right. Tell you what, I’ll ease up on it if you will. Actually, I should ease up on it even if you don’t, because it’s the right thing to do.
When you were discussing the issues, that’s when I decided to jump ship. But crap like this just pushes people away except for the choir that you’re preaching to.
I don’t know that I agree with you there, Lib. I think that the extent to which the current Administration is manipulating many of the supposedly nonpartisan or bipartisan functions of government is also a valid issue. Especially considering that Bush originally ran on the claim that he was a “uniter, not a divider”, somebody who supposedly respected opposing views and relied on compromise rather than bullying. I think the extent to which he’s let us down on that promise is much more than a trivial flaw in his Administration, and I think it’s important to point it out.
As I said, we all know that no government office is going to be totally politically neutral, and all Cabinet members will do a certain amount of PR for their boss. But that doesn’t mean that we have to just shrug our shoulders about every political manipulation of what’s supposed to be a public-service function.
Yes, I expect Treasury secretaries (or as Desmo pointed out, secretaries of defense or state or any other cabinet position) sometimes to give speeches bragging about what a great job their Administration is doing. But I don’t expect all the functions of the Treasury Department to be co-opted for Administration propaganda (and I think plenty of people besides “the choir” share my view). I wouldn’t want to see the Treasury Dept. printing “Bush Is Better Than Kerry” on the ten-dollar bill (any more than I would have wanted to see “Clinton Is Better Than Dole” there eight years ago), and I don’t want to see them printing it on what’s supposed to be a public service announcement on how to file your taxes, either.
Lib: What if it said, “The President’s attention to our military has reversed the trend of disrespect that it endured in the 1990s when it was used to do carpentry and janitorial services during third world civil wars.”?
If that’s part of a political speech, as we said, it’s within the bounds of permissible rhetoric (although it won’t be immune from criticism on its use of the facts).
But if it’s slapped onto what’s ostensibly a politically neutral public service document, such as, say, an announcement telling servicepeople’s families how to file for extended benefits or something, then it crosses the line.
I have to wonder, though, Lib: if you really think this issue is trivial and counterproductive and you don’t want us to make a thing of it because you think it will detract from the merits of our cause, then why are you taking up so much of our time and attention arguing about it? Why not just say “hey folks, for your own good I advise you to let this go” and then let it go?
Because it’s important to me, I guess. This is a critical time. The loss of liberty and the abuse of government is looming large this time around. I firmly believe that it will be beyond rescue if we lose this time. I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but from the Florida vote in 2000 to the invasion of Iraq, this administration is almost fascist. Every word matters because Bush has a bazillion dollars and megatons of power. There’s no time to waste on stuff like this. Failure is not an option because this time, it is catastrophic. Right now, this country needs a Patrick Henry, not a Jimmy Carter. Stir up our souls, and we will vote with you. You’ve got to reach the apathetic and the discontented. This won’t do that.
By the way, thanks for your olive branch, Kim. Very classy. I’ve never been comfortable with our enmity.
Political campaigning of this sort is blatantly illegal. Heads are going to roll.
Lib I’ve never been comfortable with our enmity.
Me either, though goodness knows I’ve done enough to promote it. I’ll try to improve.
*I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but from the Florida vote in 2000 to the invasion of Iraq, this administration is almost fascist. *
I’ve never used that word about an American politician (other than explicit supporters of fascist governments like Hitler’s and Mussolini’s in the 'thirties), but I see what you mean. Nonetheless, I think that it’s precisely this sort of detail, the extent to which the Administration has no scruples about co-opting every activity of the federal government to serve their particular message, that really illustrates the scariness of the scope of what they’re doing.
To use my own paranoid exaggeration, it reminds me (in a much more mild, embryonic way, admittedly) not so much of fascism as of various African dictatorships with pictures of the Leader stuck all over everything. From the EPA to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this Administration seems to feel that promoting its own message is the underlying function of all executive departments, and anything that doesn’t promote that message is fair game to be either co-opted or suppressed.
However, you are quite right that compared to lots of other things, this particular governmental hijack in itself is not all that important, and I hereby contribute to the cause of solidarity by pledging to shut up about it henceforth.
And following your steady advice and example, I will as well.
Revealing the identity of undercover CIA agents is also illegal. Still no signs of rolling heads, though.