Bush has made a lot of speeches lately blasting Kerry for flip-flopping on issues, yet he has a very short memory about his own politcal positions. In the 2000 campaign, he tarred Gore with accusations of selling the Lincoln Bedroom to major contributors. But in the latest release of the list of visitors to the White House, we see nine of his largest contributors staying overnight in either the White House or at Camp David.
You’ve obviously forgotten that 9/11 changed everything. No doubt renting the Lincoln bedroom now has national security implications that were neglected during the Clinton/Gore years
Uh, quid pro quo isn’t being asserted is it? IIRC, there was an assertion of express quid pro quo before, which was the part the Republicans complained about in 2000. Having your biggest “fans” stay at the White House has probably happened for a long time.
The Republicans never objected to friends or contributors to Clinton/Gore staying at the White House. Rather, they objected to “deals” where nights in the Lincoln Bedroom were assured for contributions of a certain amount.
It’s a very important distinction, and marks the difference between a houseguest and an illegal election practice.
As well they might! Now all you have to do is provide a cite that proves that this was, indeed, the Clinton practice. In your haste to protect the Shining One, you neglected to provide this.
So there you have it; both administrations deny there was a quid pro quo, so until you can prove otherwise, I don’t see any difference. Except that George Bush is a hypocrite, that is.
The only way to avoid charges of hypocrisy from the usual suspects on this board would be to have no guests at all.
From the article cited, Bush’s guests included old partners from when he owned the Texas Rangers, and the man who introduced him to Laura.
Meanwhile, I cited an article that had Clinton casting about for more names to add to the list of invitees, and donations of 100,000 or more, 50,000 or more.
Gee, which one sounds more innocent?
Fear Itself, if you have something more substantial than this, please show it. Right now, all you’ve told me is that George Bush has had houseguests. That’s hardly an earth-shattering revelation.
No, the only way to have avoided charges of hypocrisy is to avoid piously claiming that a practice that you yourself engage in is evidence of corruption when engaged in by the other guy. No sermonizing, no hypocrisy charge. Toss in considerations of appearance of impropriety and you’re there. Clear?
Hmm. All of the people listed in the Yahoo article save one have been friends of Bush for years and years or are the Governor of a state. Not that I expect that to register as relevant with the kinds of people who, ah screw it.
I’m not saying friends of Clinton didn’t stay at the White House. But there’s clear evidence that many people who did were supporters but had no personal relationship with President Clinton. They were expected to be wowed by this access and contribute accordingly.
Meanwhile, we have a list of close personal Bush friends here, many of which have been so for decades. Many of them would have been contributors without a stay in the White House. There’s no quid pro quo here, and thus no real issue.
Well, now, Mannymoto, if you were to take the line that the Oval Office hath certain privileges, whores are whores, merely standard hypocrisy, I wouldn’t give you much grief about it. Its a shrug issue.
You might, for instance, take the same stance on the common whoring practice of charging off campaign trips, like the latest Bush trip to a livestock show to check out the latest in bullshit, as public service activity charged to the taxpayer. Of course it sucks, of course they both do it.
Of course they are both whores. It is only that your our has more obvious suppurating sores and a more comprehensive array of sexually transmitted diseases.
But to attempt to portray your candidate as Ms. TwoShoes as standing on a corner in her communion dress and talking in the windows of passing cars in order to promote abstinence, is chucklesome.
Why, that would be a criminal violation of campaign finance laws! Yet, after five years and $40 million dollars, Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr was unable to indict anyone in the Clinton administration on criminal charges. Are you accusing Kenneth Starr of malfeasance, or just incompetency? Or could it be that there was never enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to sustain a credible prosecution?
To use your phrasing, “Gee, which one sounds more innocent?”
Come on, guys. I think we can cut Bush a break here. After all, he has a good excuse…He can argue that these guys aren’t just staying over as house guests but are actually helping to write the proposed laws/regulations (presumably the ones that regulate their industries)! It is only practical that those writing the laws stay in the White House!
Good point, Jshore! As well, we must be mindful that, as supporters of GeeDubya, they are at the very top of the list for the Fondaista Weathermen!
And we should be embarassed to class GeeDubya’s close, personal friends as “political supporters”, and thus disparage the prayer meetings and soul-searching discussions of ethics and civic propriety. Of course its only natural that GeeDubya would “hang” with persons whose background most reflects his own: rich, white men in suits.
Like “Kenny Boy” Lay. Just for instance.
(I don’t remember…did he ever have a sleepover with GeeDubya? Waitaminute, that’s not quite what I mean…)
