Just in? Just in . . . what? Just in the wrong thread? I thought this one was supposed to be discussing the campaign tactics Bush might use late in the race. There’s a whole bunch of places you can put your partisan bashing. Why do you feel the need to poison every single political thread with inane off-topic comments?
I hate to inform you, Douglas, given that the partisan in me is enjoying seeing Elvis’ pants yanked off yet again, but I’m afraid you’re wasting your keystrokes. You see, Elvis is congenitally unable to admit his mistakes.
I hasten to thank friend Uncle Beer for his avuncular, if stern, criticism of my failure to remain cogently on-topic, and for his demonstration on how to avoid personal slurs in favor of clear and non-partisan rhetorical purity.
I will study this further, as I must. I must confess, in my limitations, it is not instantly clear to me how my post (regarding GeeDubya’s sheepish retraction of what had been a triumphant political claim) is less germane to the topic at hand than his sarcastic sneer at friend Elvis’ efforts.
Perhaps, if he has time, he can clarify that point to the edification of us all.
As for this:
Yup. Same place Kerry’s getting his money, despite his claiming that he’s dedicated to sweeping out special interests which he contends are attempting to manipulate federal law. Kerry’s heavy contributors are drug companies, HMOs, lawyers, investment firms, real estate interests and contractors.
Here’s what Kerry had to say about these special interests just a couple weeks ago in St. Louis:
But here’s the facts:
Kerry, in this election cycle has accepted donations of more than ½ million dollars from the health care industry, a figure that ranks him right behind Bush and ahead of Dean and Lieberman. In this half-million bucks are 34,000 from HMOs and 55,000 from pharmaceutical companies. Kerry has also accepted donations of more than 26,000 from oil and gas PACs. And then there’s the 3.3 million dollars he’s taken from lawyers and registered lobbyists. His broom seems to be missing more than a few straws.
Let’s look at transportation. Kerry’s a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He’s also a top-ten recipient of cash - to the tune of 87 grand - from transportation interests.
Consruction - a market sector that takes in billions of federal money for road and bridge projects? Kerry’s got over $300,000 of their money, too.
Finance, insurance and real estate? Again, he’s right behind Bush with 2.6 million.
Communications and electronics? Yup. Bush is one, Kerry is two - $880,000.
These numbers are all from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics and/or Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Because my comment is directly related to events and remarks which are part of this thread. Your comment has jack shit to do with anything under discussion here. The difference is quite obvious.
How will President Bush this election?
He’ll just be himself, and will easily win by at least 5 percent.
I fear that the obvious eludes me, Uncle Beer. I’ll just take your word for it that friend Elvis’ personal failings are directly relevent to the issue at hand. If he should admit his failings and promise repentence, does this mean that you will agree that GeeDubya is a liar and a scoundrel? In that case, I will use all of my influence to direct him to the Path of the Righteous, so clealy personified by your illustrious self.
If it is not too much of a hijack (and I humbly await your ruling), might I offer a counterpoint to your cite of relative obligation to “special interests” and lobbyists.
This is offered by FactCheck, a project of the Annenburg Foundation, which you can find here:
under the headline: Bush’s Misleading Attack Video
"The Bush campaign sent an e-mail Feb. 12 to six million supporters with a link to an Internet video attacking Kerry for being “unprincipled.” The ad claims Kerry got “more special interest money than any other senator,” which is false.
While it is true that Kerry got $640,000 over the past 15 years from individual lobbyists, that’s only one type of special-interest money. And the Bush campaign itself has reported raising $960,000 from individual lobbyists in the past year alone…" (emphasis gleefully added)
There’s quite a bit more, including the following…
"Looking only at individual lobbyists, Bush has reported getting four times as much as Kerry in this presidential race.
Looking at the other categories of “special interests” mentioned specifically in the ad, Bush has received five times as much from HMO’s, seven times as much from the pharmaceutical industry, and 28 times as much from telephone utilities"
I offer these cites in the cringing hope that they will meet your austere standards for what is germane.
You can be condescending if you wish, elucidator, but I find it tiresome and unbecoming one attempting to make legitimate debate.
Oh, Elvis’ admission of his own failings (which I doubt is forthcoming despite your most generous and altruistic offer of influence, because he’s never to my knowledge admitted his mistakes here in the past) isn’t necessary to get me to admit that GeeDubya is a liar and a scoundrel; he’s both of those - and more. I have no love for Bush, his policies, or his administration.
Anyway, on to the point you’re making. What is it? That the Bush campaign engages in low tactics and he has accepted campaign donations from special interests and PACs? I already know that. In fact, that was an essential part of the point I was making with that laundry list of Kerry’s sources of donations. That they are pretty much the same sources as Bush’s. You stated above, somewhat cynically, that we knew from where GeeDubya’s war chest was coming. As I showed, indeed we do. The same places where Kerry’s originate. The upshot of which is, that if it’s bad for Bush to be accepting these donations, it’s bad for Kerry to be doing it also. You may argue that Bush’ acceptance is worse because of the higher dollar amounts involved, but I’m not sure I’d subscribe to that view. Principles violated are principle violated. It’s a difficult thing to quantify 'em. And both of these guys are being hypocritical about their acceptance of these funds, so that’s a wash, too.
That tactic didn’t work last time; what makes you think it’ll work this time? Especially now that the American voters have firsthand experience of what kind of “leadership” he brings to the table…
Hey, Unk, you had it coming. I mean, sequentially you rag on Elvis for posting something you, personally, considered off topic and then make entirely personal sneers on his character. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the canard.
I quite take your point about the principle involved, but it’s a bit like a committment to pacifism, isn’t it? Without money, there is no politics in America. Perhaps it comes down to choosing one whore over another, one has less obvious running sores and STD’s.
If you wish to start a campaign to expunge the influence of money on American politics, you will find no quicker nor more sincere ally than myself, nor more feverish opposition than Karl Rove.
A step in that direction, perhaps, is offered. Last election, the candidate with most money to spend lost the popular vote. (I’m sure you heard). Perhaps if this time out, the corporate monies invested prove fruitless, even counterproductive, the bean counters will suggest it is money ill spent.
Yeah, you’re probably right, 'luc. Please accept my apologies for being snappish towards ya.
Ahhhh. A capitalist solution; I like it. That’s something I would find wholly satisfying.
Heh. I made some statements on campaign finance reform here a while back - several times. I’m afraid they weren’t accepted as sincere. Perhaps we could do (yet) another thread on that topic soonish - now that I’m freed from the shackles of MPSIMS and might have a spot more time to dedicate to it.
Por nada, companero If it don’t happen again, it never happened at all.
So, Unc, when do I get my apology from you, huh? It would be a little strange to have to report posts *by * a moderator, but if that’s what you want, it can happen. I’ll spare you the embarrassment of that while you think up what to say. (Gaudere, thanks for keeping an eye out here).
I’m also still waiting for what you think I’ve been “mistaken” about, rather than simply providing the facts that disprove your preferred worldview. It’s been said many times before, but it still works: Put up or shut up.
As for you, DS, it may be true that Republican fundraising has been entirely honest, with no strings attached, and the Democratic version the opposite, but your assertions in that direction are hardly based on insider knowledge, or are entirely in accord with the already-known facts, ya know? Your claim was that Kerry can’t get at his wife’s money. It may or may not be strictly legal, but of course he can if she wants to let him have it. The decision would be based on the potential reward of winning vs. the *political * consequences of it getting found out, not on the legalities involved. The rest of what you’ve been going on about just isn’t relevant. If it shocks you to think that a politician might not always obey the law, then that shock is your own problem, and yes, worthy of derision. A good debate argument it is not.
The political consequences might not be dire, either - wouldn’t John Q. prefer to see a candidate spend his own family’s money rather than whore himself out to the extent Bush has? Sure, Kerry has taken money from “special interests”; what successful pol hasn’t? The problem is what is owed in return and the efforts the pol makes to make good on it - on that, the “cleaner” candidate is certainly not obviously Bush except to those who have concluded that already. The numbers are already posted in this thread.
It is pretty silly to resort to an argument that says: “He can do it if he wants to, even if it’s illegal.” Of course, anyone who wishes, can break the law. You “can” drive your car 150 MPH down the middle of San Francisco if you want to. There will be legal consequences, of course (not to mention the practical consequences of hitting the back of one of the ubiquitous cable cars). But I’d venture to say that you would disagree with a statement that, “ElvisL1ves will make it to work in the Financial district in time by driving like Mario Andretti” when offered as a counterpoint to an assertion that, “ElvisL1ves is going to be late for work because it’s already five minutes to nine.” The implication that you would drive 150 MPH, despite the legal and practical (not to mention moral) consequences would be (I presume, maybe I’m wrong) incorrect.
I challenged you to state whether or not you think Mr. Kerry will use his wife’s money. You still refuse to answer that direct question, despite your original assertion to that effect. We see you pinned to the wall by the harsh searchlight of truth and logic; we wonder when you will finally say, mea culpa and move on gracefully.
Let Bush do any damned thing he wants to try to win, just so long as he doesn’t try to lead us into a third war before election day.
Errmm . . . we are discussing Bush in this thread, right? The last few posts seem to be focused on what Kerry will do to win.
You’ll get no apology from me, Elvis. Simply because my observations are correct. and I have nothing to apologize for. You have never, to my knowledge, admitted making any mistake on this board. Surely you don’t consider yourself as perfect as Christ’s adherent’s suppose him to be. This makes iyour condition appear to congenital. But hey, knock yourself out if you wish to report my post(s). I’m willing to go before the judge.
Well, that is an argument for another thread - a Pit thread. But it seems to me we’ve already done what you ask. And when my worldview coincided quite favorably with actual, real world, you chose to slink away; you showed no honor and admitted making no mistake.
Further, once again, my worldview is borne out by the events in this thread. DSYoung has effectively yanked your pant down around your ankles. You are so bound up in the fabric, you’re left with no means of escape. But do we see you admitting your mistake, showing some honor? Nope. Not this time either.
My apologies to everyone for the totally off-topic aside, but requests were made.
No. See, here is your mistake. DsYoung never claimed that Kerry couldn’t get at his wife’s money. He merely claimed, correctly, that it would be illegal. As well as financially impractical, and politically inexpedient. Nowhere does he say what you claim he say - that Kerry can’t get at the money.
Isn’t it against the rules to use the threat of reporting messages to moderators to extort apologies from people? I thought you were supposed to report posts without public comment.
And I’d be awfully careful going down this road, because if we started reporting every post in which ElvisL1ves was rude to someone, we’d fill up the SDMB’s hard drive.
Possibly.
At least, when you send illegal campaign contributions to John Kerry, you get his influence in return.
Who’s definition of an honest politician was it - “When you buy him, he stays bought”. Perhaps Kerry could adopt that as one of his slogans.
Regards,
Shodan
What a splendid idea, Shodan! Truly splendid! Tell you what let’s do, let’s make the entire campaign dependent on which candidate is more beholden to corporate donors, and which party is more blatantly subservient to them! I think that’s a perfectly wonderful idea!
Not all your ideas are this magnificent, but this! this is a peach! Ready when you are, Shodan! Mayhaps we can start here. The following is from FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Foundation, devoted to the dogged pursuit of campaign falsehoods, responding to a video ad put out by those paragons of civic sainthood, the Republican Party, assailing that notorious corporate whore, John Kerry. No, really, you’re going to love this, given your “born again” devotion to political purity.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143
**Bush’s Misleading Attack Video **
Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He didn’t. And Bush got lots more.
"While it is true that Kerry got $640,000 over the past 15 years from individual lobbyists, that’s only one type of special-interest money. And the Bush campaign itself has reported raising $960,000 from individual lobbyists in the past year alone.
The ad says Kerry got “millions from executives at HMO’s, telecoms, drug companies,” which is true – for Kerry’s entire political career. But so far Kerry’s presidential campaign has received a small fraction of what the Bush campaign has received from those particular sources. By any definition, Bush’s “special interest” money greatly exceeds Kerry’s…"
“Looking at the other categories of “special interests” mentioned specifically in the ad, Bush has received five times as much from HMO’s, seven times as much from the pharmaceutical industry, and 28 times as much from telephone utilities…”
I’d quote more, but that would merely delay you from rushing to the cite offered and spreading your vigorous campaign for civic purity far and wide!
Oh, yes, indeedy! Bring it on, Shodan, bring it on!
<Tweet!!> The “Who Gets More Money From Bad Sources and Is Thus Corrupt” thread is over ----------->. Or somewhere in GD, it has to be, there is always such a thread. But it ain’t THIS thread. Please. 