Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration

randall_burns writes "Open Secrets is running an interesting story about major donors to Bush's inauguration. The founder of Dell is one of the high rollers funding Bush's party."

Comments

Money isn't bad

[Anonymous Coward]

But I do wish Badnarick was taking the oath. G Dubya has done some interesting things with politics, but no need to hate. Think that the "Right" sat through 8 years of Clinton. The Left through 8 years of Reagan. Eevrything is equal. And the world hates the US.

Re:Money isn't bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Left" had control of Congress during the Reagan years and the "Right" had it for 6 of Clinton's years as president. That's a big difference from the situation now where an extremist president* has no real opposition within the government to stop him from pushing through a reactionary agenda.

* And different from Clinton, who was extremly centerist. In spite of what the Republicans wanted people to think and in spite of all of their hatred of the man.

Re:Money isn't bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the world didn't hate us nearly as much under Clinton.

Re:Money isn't bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The Left has sat through 90 years of US administrations. Clinton wasn't left; he was only slightly right of centre.

Money is bad

[SimianOverlord]

Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.

Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

I'm really not sure Bush would go for the whole Platonic thing... Would he even be able to understand it?

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected? Just how stupid is America?

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

OK, fair enough, most votes. Good one.

As for the royal family...what's wrong with them? OK, so they're a very expensive form of entertainment, but we can afford it.

Re: Money is bad

[Black Parrot]

> Well, he garnered the most votes, IIRC. How's that royal family of yours coming along?

LOL.

Re: Money is bad

[Black Parrot]

> Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

A third option would be to hand over the money to someone who would spend it wisely, such as me.

Re: Money is bad

[Black Parrot]

> Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected? Just how stupid is America?

Americans tend to get pretty f'ing stupid when someone promises to make them wealthier or safer. (Or 3" longer, though the politicians haven't caught on to that one yet.)

Re: Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

Well I'd get pretty silly myself for another 3 oh never mind

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

That was at least one thing the French got right. If you are gonna overthrow a monarchy make sure to kill every person who would have any sort of claim to the throne.

The Brit royals may be mildly amusing, but I'd imagine better entertainment value for the dollar would be found by confiscating every bit of their stolen property and removing even the ceremonial remnants of their power. You could add some direct profit to the savings (and maintain some of the entertainment value) by turning the subsequent hillarious hijinks of the hapless former royals into a reality television show.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for the French Revolution. The only things the French truly "got right" were during the Enlightenment.

On a more serious note, though, I do agree that the monarchy has become largely indefensible in an age of mass poverty and starvation, and where even in supposedly developed countries basic public services (NHS; Royal Mail; public transport; state education) do not function. The amount of money they have/make could and should be better spent on (e.g.) education and healthcare. Were the monarchy actually to have some kind of functioning constitutional power there might be a case for their existence, but as (pragmatically) powerless figureheads, British monarchs serve no real purpose.

Interestingly, the British still seem to love them. The response to, and turnout for, the Queen's golden jubilee more than secured the future of the monarchy for another 25 years in my opinion.

On the other hand, Royal Big Brother is certainly something I'd pay to see.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

I was being facetious about the French Revolution, but not about my dislike of the royals. It is one of those things I've never understood about the British - how they can accept that the degenerate and inbred descendants of bandits and raiders are somehow magically better than everyone else.

Re:Money is bad

[ImaLamer]

Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

I don't think so...

The candidates don't just get to keep that money and buy cars and shoes with it. The real reason the money is important is because they can use it to leverage voters votes.

It's like this: Michael Dell wants to change the law or bend it. He gives money to Bush who spends it on ads and spreads it around where it will get him popularity and power. Then we (well, other people besides me) elect him and he let's Dell break the rules.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

No more suprising than how America could vote Bush in a second time.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

Point taken, I am still shocked myself that Bush could win a second term after it was obvious that he had lied to the American public to start a war so damaging to our interest.

I guess every nation is irrational in different ways. I understand the dynamics that created Bush, they don't make me proud - but I do understand them. I just don't understand what keeps the British royal family not only supported financially, but popular as well.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

Yes, I agree with you. The irrationality of the British, though, is (I would venture to suggest) considerably less damaging. The royal family are essentially harmless, after all. Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for a war in which God only knows how many innocent people have died. (The) America(n government)'s support for Israel, which isn't at all entirely down to Bush, I know, is nonetheless significant because America are in this case effectively supporting and/or endorsing the kind of suppression and persecution that the Iraq war was ostensibly begun over.

I don't think the average American has much of an idea about what's going on over the Atlantic, less still what those over the Atlantic think of America and the people in charge of America. They really should try listening.

Re:Money is bad

[Seumas]

What's that?

Corporate fat-cats and aristocrats get to hob-knob with government officials and politicians? And a of them have politicians in their pockets? And politicians give preferential treatment to aristocratic families and corporate leaders?

You mean that billionaires and people that come from families with names like "Rockafeller", "Bush" and "Kennedy" are treated differently than the rest of the population that enables those people to do what they do and be what they are?

No way! I call shennanigans! I just don't believe it! Next thing you're going to tell me is that this isn't news and that it's been going on for more than the past four years. And I suppose you're going to try and convince me that this sort of behavior has been going on for decades?!

How dare you!

Re: Money is bad

[Seumas]

Does it really matter? People act as if there is ever much of a choice in who we elect. The world would not be drastically different if we elected Kerry instead of Bush or Dole instead of Clinton or Dukakis instead of Bush.

They're more or less the same people, same parties, funded by the same corporations, imbued with the same corruption and hell-bent on jamming their ideologies on the entire country.

300,000,000 people and only two viable parties with little difference. But you see, in the same way that the current administration uses perpetual war and terrorism to control and bend the citizens toward their want, so are they distracting you from the real problems of the world/country/government by convincing you that the real difference is in whether you vote for a Republicrat or a Libservative.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected?

In a nutshell, his major opponent was an imbecile who couldn't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag - he lied when he should have told the truth, and told the truth when he should have lied.

Just how stupid is America?

Not quite stupid enough to let the Agriculture and Fishery Meeting adopt Software Patents for all of Europe without a vote, but beyond that, no brighter than anyone else.

It's always interesting to see people who assume that THEIR interests should be assumed by a foreign government. Hint: the EU government, nor any member nation has my best interests at heart (these days, I'm not even sure it has the European people's best interests at heart). The US government doesn't have the best interests of Europe or Europeans at heart (and it may not have the best interests of the American people at heart - at least not the hlaf that's out of power at any given time). And that (the non-parenthetical part) is the way it should be.

Re:Money is bad

[Seumas]

People who were responsible for bringing us Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Euro and find Jerry Lewis an David Hasselhoff brilliant have no place pointing fingers at Americans; accusing stupidity. There's enough idiocy to go around the globe.

Re:Money is bad

[SimianOverlord]

It isn't irrational of the Britons at all. Millions of Americans and others visit Britain just to catch a glimpse of a bunch of toffs in their palace, offsetting the horrendous expense of having them with tourist revenue. Really the whole thing is just a sham - everyone in Britain knows this. The real royal family died in 1943 during a bomb raid and a family of actors were employed to take their place. The actor who plays Charles is simply brilliant. We're all just waiting for the Aussies to finally work it out.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

If it is true that keeping the royal family in place makes good economic sense, it isn't the case that their bringing in tourist revenue would make them popular with the Brits themselves, which is the irrationality I was in fact referring to. You are right up to a point, though, and I'm sure they'll stay put so long as the Americans and Japanese keep coming.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

Not to flame, but the mess in Israel is as much the fault of Britain as it is the US. The establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine done when the area was under British administration, the initial immigrants and militants were British, the police forces that allowed Israeli terrorists to operate in Palestine were British, and so on.

The US has made the situation much worse by supporting Israel since the late 40s, but the UK cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for the mess by simply walking away. At this point the only thing I can think of that might be effective would be if the entire West were to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel, and the US and UK as the "parents" of Israel would be essential partners in making that happen.

Re:Money is bad

[Kick the Donkey]

I don't think the average American has much of an idea about what's going on over the Atlantic, less still what those over the Atlantic think of America and the people in charge of America. They really should try listening.

Unfortunatly, most of my countrymen, if they cared to listen, would either ignore or not believe what the heard. Failing those two, they just wouldn't care. I'm not saying that America's foremost interest should be what the rest of the world thinks, but, on the other hand, we can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we can operate in sometime of isolationist vaccuum.

Here's the question I'm trying to wrap my brain around: Is Bush simply mis-guided into thinking he's making things better, or is he truely devious in nature, intentionally misleading the American people with nefarious intent. The jury's still out on that one I believe. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that he could be so devious. However, that's his strategy: underestimation. We all spend so much time thinking he's a moron, that we he finishes a sentence, we want to give him a cookie for a job well done.

Domestically, I detest most of his policies (no child left behind, faith based inititives, tax cuts, deficit spending, gay marriage, etc). Its almost like we moved BACKWARDS...

Maybe the election would have turned out different if the Democrats would have run nobody. Then, Bush couldn't have said: "Yes, I am a boob. But he's (points at Kerry) an even bigger boob."

Re: Money is bad

[Kick the Donkey]

Fear and Terror are powerful motivating factors. As long as the Republican machine can convience us that the cause of such factors is 'over there', we'll continue to treat those problems as issue number 1, and NOT focus on the real problems here.

Its called slight of hand. Magician's do it all the time... "Here, watch my left hand, while my right hand does the really important stuff...."

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

No, Germany and Italy have no right at all. But I'm British.

Re: Money is bad

[Dachannien]

...and NOT focus on the real problems here.

Oh, you must mean like social security.

Re:Money is bad

[b-baggins]

I am still shocked myself that Bush could win a second term after it was obvious that he had lied to the American public to start a war so damaging to our interest.

Translation: I am shocked that the majority of Americans disagreed with me that Bush (insert moral rant).

Have you ever considered the possibility that the typical American is actually the smart one, and you are stupid?

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected? Just how stupid is America?

They aren't stupid. Drop that idea and you might be able to figure out what's really wrong with Americans. Think more along the lines of proud arrogant bigoted zealots. The same kind of people who support war mongers all over the world. The people I talk to who support the war don't care how many non-Americans die if it might save one American life.

Re: Money is bad

[Kick the Donkey]

SS is just another slight of hand. His proposal is not that different from the British system implemented under Margrett Thatcher. And look how well that turned out.

His plan is just an excuse to give more money to investment houses...

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the typical American is actually the smart one, and you are stupid?

Yep, considered the notion and discarded it.

It is not just my opinion, Bush lied to the nation and the world.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

I think it's pretty obvious who's the stupid one here. Quit your gun-toting hick bollocks and wake up.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

OK, point a little over-laboured I think, but in essence absolutely right. That is the nature of corporate politics & politics in general. If you don't like it, don't play. I don't.

Re: Money is bad

[will_die]

Interesting article however they are mixing pension plans with the American Social security and 401K plans.

Here is an older 1999 article from the Times which does a better job of explaining the British system.
Personnaly I could care less about what happens with the SS program, I retire in 30+ years and already am planning my retirement without factoring it in. I do miss the 14% salary that I am loosing because of it.

Re:Money is bad

[rogabean]

To change up what you said slightly...

Most people in America don't care what happens over the Atlantic... sounds bad, but it's just how it is right now.

Re:Money is bad

[KevinIsOwn]

While your post has been modded funny, I must respond to it because it runs with the general Slashdot mentality that corporations have a death grip on our government resulting in common day catastrophes thanks to big business malfeasance.

What you have stated in your post is referred to as a false dichtotomy. There are many options available to us, not just the two (quite poor) options you have given us to combat the problem of corporate influence on the government.

I would counter, however, that first of all corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing (although there are many cases in which it can be) and that corporations do not have the grip on government you and many others on Slashdot propose.

To go into my first point, that corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing, we must look at the way capitalism in a democracy operates. Sure, many on slashdot will merely say "Aha! Then it is capitalism that is the problem!" But read on, for it will show you why corporations have the influence that they have. A democracy is founded on the ideal that everyone has the right to influence the governing of their land. It does this, in America, mainly through voting and constitutional protections of freedoms. A business is an entity that deserves a right to speak as well. They ensure people have jobs and keep America a world economic leader. But wait, you say, corporations can donate much more than the average person can. Indeed they can, however the extra money really is not a problem because they do not get an actual vote. Ultimately it is the people who allow a politician to be influenced by a corporation by not voting that person out of office. Corporations often lobby politicians for causes that will benefit consumers by lowering the price of their goods. While there are often drawbacks, (mainly environmental or safety concerns) the government looks to the people to see whether or not it will take the pros with the cons in any particular piece of legislation.

And for my second point, government is not being bought by corporations. As I stated in my first point, politicians are elected by the people, not corporations. This allows the people to be the ultimate check on a politician. Any politician that is easily swayed by corporate "sponsorship" should be identified by the public and voted out of office. It isn't exactly hard to find such instances, as the politician does not need to be illegally bribed to be influenced by a corporation. All donations must be made public and the voting record of politicians is public as well. This allows for easy cross referencing to see which politicians actually represent the people. The common Slashdot answer is "But everyone who is running is a corporate pawn!" Incorrect! Sure they accept donations from companies, but that does not mean they will automatically vote for a bill the corporation sponsors. Anyone who believes all politicians are inclined to give a recipricol pat on the back is probably just thinking about how they would be in such a situation (in other words, highly unethical) Thus, the very people who call all politicians into question must be called into question themselves. But I will leave that for another post at another time.

Re: Money is bad

[dpilot]

I won't argue with most of what you said, but I do believe Bush is DIFFERENT.

* I can't say for sure that 9/11 wouldn't have happened with Gore, but IMHO it is much less likely. The Clinton administration had its eye set squarely on the Middle East and the terrorism bred there, and I believe a Gore administration would have, also. As soon as they came in, the Bush administration turned toward missile defense as its first task of Statecraft, and completely dropped the Middle East. Remember the Richard Clarke interviews?

* I don't think Gore would have gone unilaterally into Iraq. For that matter, even had he wanted to I don't think a Republican Congress would have let him.

* As for 2004, there are things Kerry could do to clear up Iraq that Bush simply cannot. Kerry could ask for help from other nations, and it would be received differently than if Bush were to ask, for instance. To get help, Bush would have to eat quantities of crow and humble pie that I don't think ANY president should have to. Even him.

* ANWR would be safe under Gore or Kerry. I don't know why Bush has such a hard-on to get it drilled, since there just isn't that much oil there.

My favorite gambit on Iraq is to call the Arab League to the table and say, "We realize we've made a mistake in Iraq, and we're pulling out on Feb 14. (or pick other date) Are you ready?" I suspect they enjoy hating us almost as much as they enjoy taking our money for oil, but they're no fools. They know that if we left Iraq with no stable government the whole Middle East would be in turmoil and civil war within a month. To begin, the Sunni Triangle would descend into chaos as marriages of convenience against the US fell apart. Next the Northern regions would break away and declare Kurdistan, prompting internal strife in Turkey and Syria as their Kurds wanted to take their territory and join the new nation. After that, the Sunnis having won the struggles would drive out the foreign insurgents, who would then go to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and make trouble there. I would expect at least one to fall, and Saudi Arabia may well be the least stable. As for the South, with the Shiites, that's a wild card. I don't think they would simply take the South and join Iran. Nor do I think the Sunnis would leave them and the Southern oil fields alone. It would be a mess.

Re:Money is bad

[Seumas]

You gave us "Waiting for god" and other crappy shows, you bastards.

Of course, you also gave us Eddie Izzard so . . . You break even. ;)

Re:Money is bad

[solafide]

Exactly!!! However, involuntary funding of candidates, by appropriating tax dollars, is terrable, but you did not mention that.

Re:Money is bad

[aminorex]

"Buy a Dell, go to hell"

Looks like I'll be spec'ing HP boxen going forward.

Re: Money is bad

[Dachannien]

Your assertion was that Bush is paying no attention to domestic issues, not that you disagreed with his stance on domestic issues. But anyway....

His plan is just an excuse to give more money to investment houses...

I don't see a problem with encouraging investment. In particular, I'm hoping that the administration picks up on the idea of replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax.

Additionally, I'm personally in favor of a plan that eliminates the Ponzi-esque "pay-as-you-go" feature of Social Security. Doesn't have to be Bush's plan, either, as long as the solvency of SS doesn't depend on population trends.

Re:Money is bad

[GreyWolf3000]

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected? Just how stupid is America?

I'm no Republican, but I really think that if the Dems would have focused more both on what they wanted to do with this country and what grievances they had with the previous administration, instead of calling Bush and Republicans alike silly names, they may have had a chance.

I'll be the first to admit that many Republicans sunk to name-calling as well, but I'll bet quite a few swing voters got really sick of liberal elitism and Bush-bashing.

Re: Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"They know that if we left Iraq ...It would be a mess."

As opposed to the non-mess it is now?

Besides, the Arab League is not exactly a democratic institution with the best interests of the people at heart. I have a better idea.
Hold a national referendum in Iraq. The question will be: should ALL US and "coalition" forces withdraw, effective immediatly? If "no" is chosen, the referendum will be repeated anually (this will prevent "yes" votes based on a fear that the US is planning to stay forever despite a desire for a continued short-term presence).
This plan has many advantages, the most practical being -

It shows the world the the US respects the wishes of the people, and gives legitimacy to our claims of bringing democracy

We would no longer be seen as occupiers*

It provides an exit strategy that does not have the appearence of "cutting an running"

*for the record I believe this is not just a perception, we ARE occupiers, but I'm trying to narrow the focus here to realpolitik.

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

milohanrahan:"No, Germany and Italy have no right at all. But I'm British."

Let's see... Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Iraq... many of the problems in these areas have roots in British imperialism.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
-John 8:7

"With great power comes great responsibility".
-Stan Lee

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

KevinIsOwn:"A business is an entity that deserves a right to speak as well."

Why, because you say so? Certainly the individual who owns the business has a right to speak, but please point me to the part of the constitution that says corporate funded PACs are kosher.

There's a reason that corporations aren't given the power to vote. This is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people, and if we decide that corporations have to much influence and take measures against them, that's democracy. Corporations have no "rights", they're artificial constructs.

KevinIsOwn:"While there are often drawbacks, (mainly environmental or safety concerns) the government looks to the people to see whether or not it will take the pros with the cons in any particular piece of legislation."

Yeah, right. What do you think the results of public opinion polls on FCC deregulation, corporate subsidies, or neoliberal trade policies would be? These issues are not part of the mainstream political discussion. Politicians and their corporate backers know that if the election issues can be narrowed down to "security" and "values", they are free to screw the people over without any serious consequences.

Re:Money is bad

[Ironsides]

No, Germany and Italy have no right at all. But I'm British.

Now who's the one who agreed to give Hitler the Rhineland, the Sudetenland and waited months after he invaded Poland to declare war?

Re:Money is bad

[HungWeiLo]

That's funny.

But seriously, considering the Euro shot up from 45/$1USD to 0.9/$1USD, I'm kicking myself for not buying any.

Re:Money is bad

[An Onerous Coward]

Your entire argument is bogus for one simple reason: We cannot expect rational behavior from a busy, harried electorate when the politicians use corporate money to advertise themselves as something they're not.

For every voter who actually takes the time to figure out the problems arising from corporate influence, there are probably five who can be suckered in by simplistic sales pitches, fraudulent attack ads, and promises the politician has no intention of keeping.

So, if I'm a politician, do I take the high road? Do I work hard, study issues in depth, write rational legislation that fixes serious problems, and make realistic campaign promises? That's what I'd do. But then I'd lose in a landslide to some pompous, self-aggrandizing bastard who tells people what they want to hear, while whoring the political process out to whoever will give him the money he needs to amplify his voice.

Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

Take, for example, the post-9/11 bailout of the airline industry. The taxpayers gave the airlines, what? Fifteen billion dollars? Why? Not to protect jobs, obviously. All the airlines cut tens of thousands of jobs despite the bailout. Not to protect against an interruption of transportation, either. In the end, we taxpayers basically handed a crapload of money to the people who invested in the airline industry. Corporate welfare at its finest. But politicians lied to us, telling us that if we didn't do this the planes would be grounded.

Collectively, we accepted this because the corporations fund the means of communication that matter to most voters. Had there been a real debate over the issues arising from the bailout, said bailout never would have happened.

You seem to believe that the system, as it stands now, is behaving in a basically fair and rational manner. Either you're making serious cash off the status quo, or you're seriously deluded.

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

what is absolutely hilarious is that he has a masters degree and im willing to bet, a higher IQ than you (and most people for that matter).

oh and he is the most powerful person on earth. what are you doing again, oh yea, get back to stockign shelves and leave politics to those who will take the time to understand it.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

Now who's the one who agreed to give Hitler the Rhineland, the Sudetenland and waited months after he invaded Poland to declare war?

The British declared war on Germany on 3 September, 1939, just two days after the invasion of Poland began.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

One of the newer fund-raising techniques being used is to:
1) Pick a victim,
2) Write a piece of Legislation that would seriously damage the victim,
3) Start the legislation through the process of becoming law,
4) Visit the victim, making sure that he knows you could be convinced to abandon said legislation for a suitable bribe...er, campaign donation,
5) Wait while victim writes the check,
6) Go back and pull the Bill from the docket,
7) Repeat the following year.

Often as not, it's not the businesses controlling the policitians, but the politicians blackmailing the businesses. Yes, blackmail is such an ugly word, but it frequently fits very well in describing how politicians ask for campaign contributions from businesses.

Re:Money is bad

[HMA2000]

:) Now you know you're in trouble.

Expect a flurry of comments all saying the same thing "You've been brainwashed."

The best part is I think a lot of the people on the left don't realize they have been exploited by individuals like Michael Moore, Franken, Stewart, Richard Clarke, etc so that they can sell their books. I really think they believe the saw only cuts one way.

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Bush campaign spent 3 times more on negative ads, so I'm not sure that the other side having too much of that was really the problem...

Re:Money is bad

[SteelFist]

I believe that the reason Bush won this election had more to do with Bush's campaign than Kerry's campaign. While Kerry ran an inadequite campaign, failing to connect with the voters, Bush ran a low and dirty campaign. It is very true that Bush lied to the entire country about a war, where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and he is destroying the economy, etc. However, he forced this Vietnam issue to the frontpages and made this the forefront of the campaign, i.e.- he made an irrelevent issue that had nothing to do with the presidency the main issue. It was no longer about who had the best credentials for the job, but instead became about who could lie about more issues with Vietnam, and who could duck more bullets. Kerry lost this battle, and lost the election even though Vietname has NOTHING to do with the job of the presidency. Bush's dirty and low campaigns is nothing new, either. In the 2000 primary, he and his supporters labeled McCain "The Fag Candidate." (proof here), as well as spreading racist rumors about his daughters. In short, Bush has won all of his campaigns, including the 2004 election, by running them as low and dirty as possible.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

The left is not that simple. I'm more on the liberal side of things in the sense that I believe that human rights need to be protected from business, but I'm anti-abortion after the first month, pro-gun, anti-Israel, pro-separation of church and state, pro-gay marriage/civil-union, and think Moore/Franken/Coulter/Limbaugh and Hollywood liberals are all pompous fools who oversimplify complex subjects for credulous fools.

I said that right continuing to believe that Bush is a good president is an irrational act, it doesn't prevent my seeing that sort of irrationality in the left.

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is not just my opinion, Bush lied to the nation and the world.

Well I'll just take your word for it, then. Or perhaps somebody else's word.

Forget about hard evidence.

Re:Money is bad

[Doc Ruby]

So, because corruption is default, we should just accept it? We need to believe that this corruption is new to remark on it, to reject it? Who's naive?

Re:Money is bad

[Doc Ruby]

How about an example? I don't doubt that this is the kind of thing that goes on - politicians are generally as corrupt as the power they wield - but it is still outrageous. And outrageous claims require evidence, even more than regular claims. Meanwhile, politicians are *supposed* to control business. And if a politician tried this kind of blackmail, what's to stop the corporation from exposing them? Unless the politician also has some *real* goods on the corporation, which could damage it even if the politician were personally discredited. Or if the corporation needed the politician to do its own dirty work, though the politician also does dirty work against it. These power brokers live in a dirty little backbiting world. But if you're going to claim that corporations have it worse in the power game than do individuals, you're going to have to back that up.

Re:Money is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

British monarchs serve no real purpose. Interestingly, the British still seem to love them.

I think the British love their royal family because they don't exercise political power.

Re:Money is bad

[commodoresloat]

Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession.

We already have this kind of system in place for teachers.

Re:Money is bad

[Shakrai]

The British declared war on Germany on 3 September, 1939, just two days after the invasion of Poland began.

And just two days later while facing a mere fraction of the German army (the bulk of which was fighting in Poland) the British and French military masterminds launched the hugely successful Operation Sitzkrieg in an all out assault on Hilter's regime in an attempt to save Poland.

Seven years later Poland was abandoned to "Uncle Joe" and left to rot on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain for 40+ years. Ever wonder how history would have turned out if the French and British had been content to try something more innovative then watching Poland get raped while waiting for the Germans to attack?

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

And just two days later while facing a mere fraction of the German army (the bulk of which was fighting in Poland) the British and French military masterminds launched the hugely successful Operation Sitzkrieg in an all out assault on Hilter's regime in an attempt to save Poland.

One must keep in mind that Britain only began mobilization for war the day after the invasion of Poland. Shifting from a peacetime stance to wartime mode is not done overnight - the British didn't even get conscription going for another month, much less have any ability to fight a war, in western Europe or anywhere else so quickly.

In fact, the French invaded western Germany only a week after the declaration of war, though, as far as I recall, they didn't push very hard, and were ultimately wasting their time - WW1 was still too much on everyone's mind at that point in the game.

It took a month and a half or two months for the BEF to even reach France, much less be in condition for offensive operations. Note also the existance of the Siegfried Line, and the refusal of Belgium to allow Anglo/French access to Germany through Belgium.

Note that by the time the BEF was in France, the German Army was back in Germany, Poland having surrendered.

Note further the German-Soviet Pact signed just the week before the invasion of Poland. Which leaves a great deal of room for doubt on the part of the Anglo-French General Staffs, since they now have to take into account the possibility (remote, but uncertain then and there) of Soviet intervention on behalf of the Germans.

I've never been terribly impressed with either British or French early actions in WW2, or in their decisions leading up to the War. But they didn't have a whole lot of options in late '39 and early '40.

It really wasn't until it became clear that they USA would violate its stated neutrality to aid the British that it became obvious that the British had the wherewithal to actually carry on a serious fight against the Germans. Note that pretty much all US support for Britain before 8 Dec 1941 was technically a violation of both international law and US law - being neutral means that you can't supply one combatant with warships, planes, tanks, guns, oil, steel, food, etc. Which we did almost from the beginning of the War in Europe.

Re:Money is bad

[LucidBeast]

I think parent post sounds a bit far fetched. Politicians don't have to go looking for corporate chums. When there is money to be made business will find the purse string holders. Usually the story is this: Politician with ties to industry is told what would be helpfull. Good reasons for legislation is given bad reasons are left for public to figure out. Politicians integrity will be held together with little bit of cash in various direct or nondirect ways - be it cup of coffee, trip to Bahamas or contribution to "concerned citizens" group mudslinging the opponent.

When government wants money from corporations it should take it through legislations. When companies contribute to parties of public officials they expect a return with interest.

Contributing to inauguration of President is just a way of buying access to both President and rest of the politicians. I'm sure you get a nice front row seat with big enough check and next time you call the secretary at the other end will connect your call and leave others on hold.

Corporate lobbying of politicians should be watched with vigour. Being a corrupt civil servant/politician is propably second oldest profession and always serves general public badly.

Re:Money is bad

[Xybot]

Interesting Article that seems fairly relevant, it apparently appears only in the international, and not the domestic, edition of Newsweek magazine:
Dream on America

" Did you know?: The entire population of New Zealand was employed in making the Lord of the Rings films" - Where's My Cheque then?

Re:Money is bad

[Celvin]

I just don't understand what keeps the British royal family not only supported financially, but popular as well.

That is a good question. Here in Norway our own Royal Family is quite popular as well, even though the Crown Prince (the heir to the crown) is married to a former cocain addict (who has a son with a former drug-dealer), the Queen has an affair with a Navy officer and the Princess gets people to bend laws for her so she can build an even bigger palace where noone else is allowed.

I just don't get it either... -C

Re:Money is bad

[laughingcoyote]

Well, I don't know.

I was the one saying "There's likely no WMD's over there, but let the inspectors finish their work. Saddam likely wasn't dumb enough to keep 'em."

I was NOT the one saying "I know where they are."

I can factually support that Bush and his Cabinet said such things, and I can factually support that his supporters did so as well. I can also factually support that Bush and his supporters were WRONG, and those against the war were RIGHT.

Now spin that. I'm sure you'll try. But that's the FACT of the matter.

Not surprising really..

[phaze3000]

This is, after all, the same Dell that expects to pay no state tax.

Re:Not surprising really..

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is, after all, the same Dell that expects to pay no state tax.

Wow, so if you work for Dell, no state tax is taken out of your salary? And the item purchases Dell makes aren't taxed?

That's sick. We should raise taxes on our businesses in order to make them more competitive with foreign competition.

big money... big money...

[evilmousse]

...no whammies!!

idunno, wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that could have an inaguration where of their own desire, fireworks artists would want to donate a performance, the police would want to volunteer extra unpaid time, caterers would donate food, singers would donate performances, etcetcetc.

large corporate monetary donations, fundraiser dinners, et all seem so cold to me.. inagural day comes off more as a stockholder's holiday weekend to me.

Re:big money... big money...

[Jacked]

Come on, think it through. The artists, caterers, and many others are precisely the ones that can't afford to give stuff away. Their suppliers won't just say "Oh, it's for a party, don't worry about paying us back. It's on us!"

These millions that are being spent on the inaugeration are being pumped right into the economy. Since when did we become a nation whiners that are always trying to dictate how other people spend their money. If it was public money, yeah, I'd have an issue with it, since it's partly my money.

And, not that I really care, but Clinton's second-term inaugeration cost more than Bushes and I don't remember a big deal being made out that one.

And, finally, for those that are saying things like "Think of how many HumVees and sets of body armor for our troops that money could have purchased," I say, "Easy: zero," because it wasn't taxpayer dollars. The private sector donate money to the military (beyond taxation).

Re:big money... big money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jacked: If it was public money, yeah, I'd have an issue with it, since it's partly my money.

The District of Columbia, which voted 9 to 1 against Bush, is footing the $17M security bill.

Re:big money... big money...

[evilmousse]

No, I agree, my first post was a total pipe-dream, and the criticism was not just directed at Bush but all of 'em. I was exaggerating to allude to an ethos that I don't see us having.

It definetly wouldn't be as haute coture, but I'd rather see a ragtag heartfelt inagural ceremony than a spitnpolish blacktie theatrical event, just like i'd rather a maccaroni xmas card from someone who can't afford much than something glitzy from someone who can afford anything. ..i understand that's me being a typical youngperson, and accept that old ppl like their black suits, so they can go ahead and enjoy it..

Re:big money... big money...

[Jacked]

No, I agree, my first post was a total pipe-dream, and the criticism was not just directed at Bush but all of 'em. I was exaggerating to allude to an ethos that I don't see us having.

I kinda got that feeling, and the word "Utopia" did come to mind when I read your post. You're right, in that Utopia things would be as you described. And would be very cool.

It definetly wouldn't be as haute coture, but I'd rather see a ragtag heartfelt inagural ceremony than a spitnpolish blacktie theatrical event, just like i'd rather a maccaroni xmas card from someone who can't afford much than something glitzy from someone who can afford anything. ..i understand that's me being a typical youngperson, and accept that old ppl like their black suits, so they can go ahead and enjoy it..

I agree, whole-heartedly. If I were President (God help us all if that were true), I would probably do something like a lottery. People who wanted to attend could put in request, and then I would randomly draw five or ten thousand, whatever the number would be, and that would be my guest list.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, rich people giving money to politicians. Amazing.

Symbolism

[BandwidthHog]

I would just like to remind you that the one recurring symbol of the inauguration was the boot.

What's the point?

[superyooser]

There is an inauguration every four years, no matter whom the president is. Inaugurations are always expensive. They always have big corporate donors. It's not surprising that some donors are in high tech. I see Qualcomm on the list, too.

Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

Re:What's the point?

[tdemark]

Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring?

According to most TV reports and newspapers, any of the following should be fine:

• Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the tsunami victims
• Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war
• Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.
• Bush stole the election

- Tony

Re:What's the point?

[BlueCup]

good job sir. While I'm left of center, I find the criticism of this annoying. Another thing I think should be mentioned about the donations, is that the incumbent always recieves a good deal more in donations from companies... not a conspiracy.

Re:What's the point?

[TykeClone]

And it doesn't matter which of them won - a great deal of money would have been spent either way. The only difference is who is bitching about it.

Re:What's the point?

[Seumas]

That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.

Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. But in retrospect, Clinton is looking damn good and Bush is just a mess. Christ, the guy has conversations with God in his head. And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate". Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic. (Okay, so his father actually said that in the early 1990s and then again in late 2004, but one may presume that since all of the other beliefs between the bushes are similar, this might be too).

Oh, wait - I thought of other reasons that Bush is a bad president.

* John Ashcroft
* Michael Powell

I'm not saying that the Democrat's feces doesn't stink. But it's a conservative turd that's sitting at the desk in the Oval Office at the moment. I can't wait to get the next four years over with and, while I find it incredibly unlikely, hope that the next administration (whatever party they may be) have more respect for civil liberties and the wellfare of someone other than his fat-cat corporate buddies.

Re:What's the point?

[Darth_Burrito]

I see Qualcomm on the list, too. Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

Are you kidding????? This is quite possibly the best news I've ever gotten from slashdot. Perhaps now I can finally convince my fairly liberal sole Eudora user to let the program die. Die Eudora Die!! Even better, Michael Dell was a big contributor. Perhaps this is just what I need to convince the fairly liberal management to let me go with a local vendor using standard parts. Thank You Slashdot. Best news ever.

Re:What's the point?

[wizarddc]

I would say the something special is the lavishness and extremism of the celebration, with gala's and ball's and the like. ALl this glorification during a time when, I don't know if you knew this or not, when we are at war. It seems crass to celebrate an electoral vistory when our men and women are dying overseas.

Did you know FDR skipped out on any big celebration during his relection during WWII? That's class, my man. Class.

Re:What's the point?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war.

Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

If Kerry, or even Dean had won and were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.

Re:What's the point?

[joeljkp]

Did you know FDR skipped out on any big celebration during his relection during WWII?

If that is true, then I'd like to see some more of that kind of frugality in the future.

Is it true? Reference?

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it true?

Yep, it's true. They couldn't spare the metal from the war effort to make the wheelchair ramps.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Kerry, or even Dean had won and were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.

You left a word out, here is the "corrected" version (I left the other grammatical errors in):

If Kerry, or even Dean had won and when were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.

Re:What's the point?

[stinerman]

Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic.

His personal rhetoric doesn't back up that claim (of course, he may just be being PC for a photo-op):

"Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."

Check out Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding. Give the man a kewpie doll.

Radio (News & Talk) = Right
TV, Newspapers, Hollywood = Left

Re:What's the point?

[HaloZero]

I don't think he was 'skipping', per se.... what with the chair...

Re:What's the point?

[tdemark]

...all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war...

Do me a favor and call me when ANY ONE of the following ceremonies are cancelled:

- Golden Globes
- Acadamy Awards
- Grammys

Taking the costs associated with the events related any one ceremony above dwarfs the amount of money spent on the inauguration. At least the inauguration serves a real purpose.

Re:What's the point?

[Seumas]

While I'd give a heartfelt hand-clap if all three of the above (and more) were canceled forever, you can't compare corporations funding award shows for their employees (who are private citizens) with corporations footing the bill for a massaive gala for the public-official.

Re:What's the point?

[Ironsides]

I can think of a lot of people that have conversations with god "in their heads". Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, the Pope, everyone I see at mass.... So what is your point exactly here?

Re:What's the point?

[learn fast]

Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

Don't worry: you can just force the city of Washington, DC to pay for it

Re:What's the point?

[deanj]

One thing..It sure stirs up all the people that are bigots against religion. So much for "tolerance".

Re:What's the point?

[CrimsonAvenger]

And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate"

On the other hand, Clinton thought that 49% of the votes, and 17% of the country was a "mandate", after his second election.

And after his first, he thought that 43% of the votes, and 17% of the country was a "mandate".

Incidently, Bush got 62,000,000+ votes, which is a lot closer to 22% of the country than to 16%.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be inferring the fact that you are a fru-fru nutcase whose brain is completely rotten.

Re:What's the point?

[Rayonic]

Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

And at the center of it all... Kevin Bacon!

Don't get carried away with that conspiracy theory bullshit, dude. So the Saudis bought and sold shares in a company that had previously been owned by a corporation that Bush Sr. was a big stockholder in? Big farking deal.

Re:What's the point?

[parrillada]

I don't recall Clinton calling it a 'mandate.'

The point is that while Bush received 62,028,194 votes (the most in history), Kerry received 59,027,612 votes (the second most in history). In other words, while Bush got around 22% of the country, Kerry got around 21% of the country (also more than Clinton).

As far as I can tell, this was the closest presidential race in history, and obviously not a 'mandate.'

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, this was the closest presidential race in history,

No, it wasn't. The 1960 election had the closest popular vote, and the 1876 election had the closest electoral vote (except for 1800, which was a tie, but under a different election method).

Re:What's the point?

[parrillada]

Ok so if you take an 'average' between electoral votes and popular votes, it is arguable that 2004 was the closest. Either way my point stands that this was not a 'mandate'.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not terribly surprising that FDR should have avoided any big inauguration celebration; after all, he was inaugurated January 20th, and he died on April 12th. Although it may well be that he considered any large celebration unseemly, it is equally likely that he was simply not physically capable of withstanding the rigors of a traditional inauguration.

Re:What's the point?

[Rew190]

Then again, none of those that you mentioned have anything to do with why there are Americans dying overseas, now do they? Please.

Re:What's the point?

[The-Bus]

Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.

Mind you, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, they're about the same. I don't have the exact figure for both, but Clinton's 1993 expenditure is about $42m in today's dollars.

To put it into perspective, that's about 18.1 cents for every U.S. adult.

Re:What's the point?

[gobbo]

Celebrate when the killing is over.

When will that be? USA has been in continuous active military engagement (public or covert) for over 60 years. Taxpayers support over 700 military bases outside of the USA. Land mines are still exported. Other nations cannot have WMD, but the USA hoards and develops them, with an eye to monopoly and impunity, and a demonstrated willingness to use them. The 'war on terror' is designed to be endless, since it self-generates enemies (a perfect military ecology)--and the Administration has publicly described it as without foreseeable end. The PNAC has stated its support for global hegemony, as have the neo-Straussians and the followers of Rushdoony. It isn't just killing either: 'patriotic' policy makes it impossible for an American to be tried internationally for war crimes, and accusations of torture are shrugged off.

So, remind me: when will the celebrations start? I'll be there.

Now you've done it! You've offended Ronald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig: "Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food."

Now you've done it! You've offended Ronald.

Anyhow, Ronald McDonald is not responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, so the comparison, while it does make some sense, does not go very far.

Re:Now you've done it! You've offended Ronald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhow, Ronald McDonald is not responsible for tens of thousands of deaths

Obesity is listed as the cause of around 50,000 deaths per year in America - you want to wager on how many of those people have eaten at Mickey D's within the last year?

Re:Now you've done it! You've offended Ronald.

[Kick the Donkey]

Obesity is listed as the cause of around 50,000 deaths per year in America - you want to wager on how many of those people have eaten at Mickey D's within the last year?

Yes, but they ate there of their own valition... I was never given a vote for the Iraq war.... And the people I voted didn't win their election... Where's my representation?

Love the U.S.? Educate yourself about the U.S. gov

[Futurepower(R)]

If you love the U.S., you will educate yourself about what the U.S. government is doing:

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories

New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.

U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party

Surprised?

[mkop]

Why would I be. Is this not the norm for things like this?

funding Bush's party? rather...

[whathappenedtomonday]

funding a lunatic.

"We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause."

I once worked at a mental home; there, you could pick up sentences like that all the time. You know, people hearing voices, callings from the Great Beyond and stuff. Scary.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote may sound lunatic because of lack of context, and actually just express a reverence for the christian god in terms of the somewhat old fashioned belief that God has a location within the physical universe It might be poetic language with no supernatural subject at all, merely casting reverence for an ideal into the terms of religious worship.

Who am I kidding, the spoiled frat boy is just spouting his usual shit. Probably not insane, just vapid.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Atrax]

If you want to run with the "Bush is insane" ball, here's some linkage for you.

I'm naturally inclined to agree, but that's because I think most religious people are at least a little insane.

Don't get me wrong, some religious people are really nice. But nutty.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even more scary that the man you consider a lunatic beat your nuanced, thinking man, Kerry.

Keep looking down on Bush like that, you guys will lose more elections and become further irrelevant in this new world.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Seumas]

"Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)

I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.

(By the way, I'm actually agnostic; not atheist.)

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, throwing quotes around are we? Let me throw some around too:

"But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion." -- Abraham Lincoln

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." - Abraham Lincoln

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. -- Abraham Lincoln

.. -- Abraham Lincoln

.. - Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln: 1809-1865

so, what you're saying is that we're going back to the good old days?

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Tht doesn't have anything to do with anything.

In none of those statements is Lincoln saying "If you don't believe in god, you're a lesser American". Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[GreyWolf3000]

I'm naturally inclined to agree, but that's because I think most religious people are at least a little insane.

Don't get me wrong, some religious people are really nice. But nutty.

You should make a distinction as to which religion(s) you're talking about. There are a great many religions, and many of them share more in common with Atheism than they do with eachother.

Lumping all "religions" into one category draws a lot of conclusions about the value structures of the participants.

Even within a religion, you get varying degress of sanity. I don't have to remind you that there have been insane Atheists as well as perfectly sane, say, Mormons.

I suspect your definition of sanity involves the disbelief in the "supernatural." It's no wonder that you think most religious people are a bit nutty.

Even your definition of "religious persons" might have problems. Someone might fit the description to me if he believes in the existence of a single, omniscient entity, but not to you if his idea does not resemble some established norm.

Someone who disbelieves in God simply because he doesn't "feel" like it's true might be said to be religious because his cause for disbelief is not mere logical positivism. Someone who embraces evolution dogmatically because his teacher taught him that way could be said to religious in a rather loose sense (the alternative is to have studied other scientists' research on the matter).

I can't help but to think your opinion of religous people has more to do with your feelings on whatever religion is most prevalent in your area. To me, "religious" is a term used to describe someone who's outward appearance would lead me to believe that they're concerned with "blending in" with the other followers in his partictular "religious group."

Anyway, I probably sound like I'm totally nitpicking now. If so, I apologize. I simply found your post a bit presumtuous.

Now if we had a Constitution or Libertarian prez..

[genrader]

If Peroutka or Badnarik had won, we'd see companies donating to the inaugeral balls and such but we wouldn't be seeing these corporations getting benefits from the government.

Inauguration Speech

[milohanrahan]

Bush has some front quoting Abraham Lincoln. And the only reason his utterances even made sense is because whoever wrote that speech was probably coaching him for months so he could read the words.

Here's a question...

[Atrax]

.. did Michael Dell hedge his bets and also donate a substantial pre-election sum to the democrats? It's certainly known to happen - hedge your bets, butter up both candidates, win either way..?

not that I believe it for a minute, but it would add a depth to the story...

Aw crap...

[Atrax]

... gues who just noticed the 'to dems' column.

teach me to post on a friday night after a few small ales.

Re:Aw crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

teach me to post on a friday night after a few small ales.

Lucking you, it's still Friday morning here.

No more michael powell!

[Seumas]

Wow! What great timing!

Michael Powell Stepping Down Today

Re:No more michael powell!

[Dachannien]

Holy crap, well, let's hope he takes some of his policies with him.

Points about the money

[ghereheade]

For those that think companies are buying access to the White House or special treatment, one might compare some of the donation levels to see which party the company favors (thus implying which party would best serve the company's special interests)

BIGGEST DONOR LISTED:
Ameriquest Capitol (4 divisions worth)
$1M to inaugural, $2.25M to the republicans, $470k to the democrats, $1M to Bush

OIL (for the Iraq invasion fans):
T. Boone Pickens $250k for inaugural, $125k to Reps, $1k to Dems, $4k to Bush

Chevron $250k to inaugural, $416k to Rep, $81k to Dems, $23.7k to Bush

Exxon Mobile $250k, $726k, $85k, $72k

Occidental Pertroleum $250k, $296k, $61k, $15k

and so on......

There can definately be a case made for certain companies and industries trying the old "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine." And this is all occuring while the republicans are weakening ethics legislation because their own people (e.g., Tom Delay) are being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Re:Points about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Republicans in congress backed away from that specific rule change. (The rule that says no Republican currently under indictment can serve as a committee chair.) Although only when it because a political black eye.

Cancel the Academy Awards

[Picass0]

If we are supposed to be offended at the expense of throwing an event of this nature in light of the tsunami, where are the voices calling for the MPAA to cancel the Academy Awards? The inaguration costs a fraction of what is spent on the Oscars. Take all of that money and send it to Asia, and I'll be impressed.

Re:Cancel the Academy Awards

[Anonymous Coward]

Actors aren't public servants. The money for the Oscars isn't effectively a bribe to elected officials from major corporations.

While I think it would be a very nice gesture to cancel the Oscars (or scale them back, anyway) and donate money to the relief efforts, there is a big difference between Hollywood using some of its billions to throw itself a party and the President taking millions from donors to throw himself a party.

Re:Cancel the Academy Awards

[learn fast]

First off, the MPAA does not run the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is made up mostly of actors and writers.

Second, call me when the Academy is able to force the city of Los Angeles to pay for the award ceremony. Since the city of DC -- not the fed. gov't or republican party -- has to pony up for this. Who do you think is more deserving? DC schools or cops, or parties for the wealthy? Justice is a timeless ideal.

Re:Cancel the Academy Awards

[Ironsides]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/ledgerenquire r/news/10630192.htm

Less than 6 million will be on DCs plate after they are re-imbursed. As for deserving? The DC Council is a bunch of idiots that have driven the city into the ground and severly missmanaged their finances. And it also appears you forgot about the Commander and Chiefs ball that is free to all military when you say "parties for the wealthy".

DC cops? Their gettin OT pay for this. The schools suck but that isn't due to lack of funding by the council. I live and work within spitting distance of DC. Thats how I know this.

Re:Cancel the Academy Awards

[jasonmicron]

The last time I checked, none of the money for the inauguration was "ponied up" from the city of DC. Or did you miss the entire article at the top of this story?

Money is bad, America is bad too

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a deeply distressing and highly upsetting thought.

Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[DesScorp]

Can we go ahead and just stick a big "L" on the collective Slashdot forehead now? You guys are redefining the words "sore losers".

"Bush's inauguration costs too much! Rich people are paying for it! The money should go to Tsunami relief! The money should go to the poor! There shouldn't be an inauguration!!!"

Fuckin' Waaaaaahhhhhh...

Let's see...when Clinton was inaugurated, half of hollywood was there pouring in millions of dollars, and the party lasted a whole week. And yet a civil war was going on in Angola that killed thousands of people, with bodies literally piling up in the streets, with numerous recent natural disasters still plaguing the third world.

Funny how no one wanted to cancel the inauguration then, eh? I recall ThunderCunt Numero Uno Maureen Dowd saying that it was so much fun that she wished it could've lasted forever.

So take the hypocrisy over the inauguration and shove it straight up your assholes. So Michael Dell is shelling out big bucks...so fucking what? If Kerry had won, Larry Ellison or a host of other people would be doing the same thing.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[Seumas]

This is why the politicians as they currently are will continue to remain. People like you are so per-occupied in hating blue-staters; they with red-staters. Rather than using foul language and insulting reporters that you dislike or taking issue with major problems in government (even with your oh so exhalted Bush), you'd rather act like some chest-thumping "Da-Bulls!" fanatic. You don't care what the score is, as long as someone is wearing the jersey sporting your favorite logo and colors.

At some point, you might wake up and realize that your party and politicians are just as full of shit, useless and evil as those of the blue fanatics. As long as your two groups continue to squabble, the corporations and aristocrats who pay BOTH parties off to do their bidding will continue to operate freely. You play right into their hands this way. Be a mouth-breathing rah-rah boy. And that actually goes for the liberals falling head over ass to bash Bush in a selfish attempt to pump-up their own parties. Neither of you are doing the country any good. Just grinding us further and further into a divided pit.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[delus10n0]

I love you, man!

I want you to have my babies.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[Lovedumplingx]

I get him when you're done.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[09za]

hehehe couldn't have said it better. Maybe all the infidels going to see Hoffman and Striesand at "Meet the Fockers" should be donating that money to tsunami victims.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[sfjoe]

Can we go ahead and just stick a big "L" on the collective Slashdot forehead now? You guys are redefining the words "sore losers".

Get one thing clear, pal. We are pissed! Every patriotic American ought to be mad as hell about the damage to this great country being inflicted by W and his cohorts. From the raping of our natural wonders to the rampaging federal deficit to the immoral war and support for torture, this President is as opposed to American values as any we've ever had. Sore losers? Hell yes, we're sore losers. We're losing something that really matters - a great country.

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[demachina]

""Bush's inauguration costs too much! Rich people are paying for it! The money should go to Tsunami relief! The money should go to the poor! There shouldn't be an inauguration!!!""

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Ranting about the cost and extravagance of the inauguration is silly. About the only criticism I can make of it is:

- Some of those singers they were unbelievable. Kind of proves Republicans are some combination of tone deaf or don't know how to throw a party. The fact they are going after Sponge Bob now confirms a few screws are loose someplace.
- That speech Bush gave was silly. All that never ending repetition of freedom, democracy and liberty. Everyone knows he his only going to liberate countries that are:

o Anti American
o Have oil
o Are a threat to Israel

Amazingly Iran pops to the top of the list on all counts. Venezuela is right up there too though they happen to have a democraticly elected government, it wasn't a perfect election but it was better than all the countries below. Meanwhile he ain't gonna lift a finger about the dicatorships in:

o Saudi Arabia
o Kuwait
o Egypt
o Pakistan
o Russia
o China
o Tajikistan, etc.

I love it how right wingers used to rant about Communist dictatorships but now that they are all making a killing in China they love the place and its government, though it hasn't really changed other than they threw open the door to the running dogs to make a fortune on their cheap labor, and transfered the world's economy to China's control. The Chinese are genius, they beat capitalism at its own game and destroyed it without firing a shot.

So all in all I'd agree ranting about the inauguration shows a lack of focus on the part of the media and the left. Lets:

- Focus on the quagmire of a war in Iraq. Here is an interview with an Army medic back from Iraq. Right wingers rant Iraq is going great and its the "liberal media" thats just making it look bad. Well this is grunt that was there and his main complaint is nobody in Iraq wants the U.S. there anymore and he had no clue what the point of the war is other than control of oil and he apparently isn't alone among the enlisted men. Don't listen to officers on Iraq, they are gonna spew the company line, the grunts will tell the truth.

- Focus on the fact Bush has increased government spending over 25% in three years at the same time he slashed taxes for the wealthy and is pushing U.S. debt to unsustainable levels. The U.S. government is becoming so in debt to China and Japan they can start dictating policy to the U.S. There is an old axiom the Bush administration has forgotten, "Neither a borrower or a lender be", well at least the borrower part is true. The U.S. is by a huge margin the world's largest debtor nation now and that debt is going to come home to roost. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont especially when its hitting these extravagant levels.

- Focus on the staggering trade deficits the U.S. is running with the world especially with China. It is crossing the 5% of GDP market and deficits of those levels violate every tenent of sound fiscal policy and again are not sustainable. The U.S. will be come so mired in debt it will again be vulnerable to foreign blackmail or foreign induced economic collapse

- Look at the state of the U.S. dollar especially compared to the Euro. It makes U.S. exports cheap but otherwise its a disaster waiting to happen and its cratering because of fundementally unsound fiscal policy coming out of the Bush administration. Foreign investors, especially OPEC states are getting tired of taking a bath on their dollars and are dumping them for Euros. There is also a real risk now they will start selling their oil in Euros and the dollar will stop being the worlds main currency. That will be another devastating blow to the U.S. economy and the dollar's value.

- Foc

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[DigiShaman]

If your going to promote freedom and liberation to those who are opressed, do NOT bite off more then you can chew. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan were worthy causes IMHO. As for China though, we can't take them on nor would we. Dealing with China is going to take a different stratagy.

1. China breaks out into civil war and start a revolution.

2. Through liberation, we gain more allies needed to put the pressure on China in this grand tug-of-war on freedom vs totalitarianism.

3.Fuck it: Lets just lob nukes and have God sort it out.

I really REALLY don't want to see #3 happen.

It's time to bury this lie

[DesScorp]

I see this quote thrown around quite a bit, so I looked it up on Snopes. Guess what? They've talked about it quite a bit, and no one can substantiate it. The only source for the quote comes from an atheist website. Boy, that's a shock, eh? Bush denies he said it, and the only semi-credible website that referenced it (MSN Encarta) has now removed it. If you've got REAL proof Bush 41 said this, post it.

Re:It's time to bury this lie

[Seumas]

If you've got REAL proof Bush 41 said this, post it.

Okay. How about this. Though I'm sure you'll nit-pick and say that he doesn't explicitely say the same phrase here. But he does elude to his initial comment over a decade ago and re-affirms it, in the context of being president rather than being a patriot. When he first made the statement (I remember it, I was about twelve years old when it happened), he had continued by saying something to the effect that an atheist could not be president, because an atheist can not be a patriot.

Here is the MSNBC transcript of George Herbert Walker Bush being interviewed by Don Imus on his radio program on September 1st, 2004. He does not make the same statement word for word, but eludes to having made the statement about atheists not being able to be patriots. He actually says an atheist can not be president, but he is clearly nodding toward his original statement a decade and a half ago in which he had said explicitely that atheists can not possibly be patriots.

Not only is the entire transcript right there, but so is a video of the interview.

Now, you could quibble and say "but he doesn't say atheists can't be patriots - just that they can't be president", but it's clear from his comment what he is asserting. I certainly don't see how this specific statement is any less offensive. Hell, just imagine if he made this statement about any other race, sex or religion? He'd be in incredibly hot water.


"Lincoln said you cannot be President without spending some item on your knees. I have repeated that and a bunch of Atheists got all over me. Wait a minute. Does that mean that you cannot be President if you are an Atheist? I say yea that does mean that." -- George Herbert Walker Bush, 2004

Re:It's time to bury this lie

[Anonymous Coward]

He actually says an atheist can not be president

Well, considering that to be President you have swear to God on the bible, I don't see how an atheist could become President.

One could get elected, but could never be "sworn in", thus, never be anything more than a President-elect.

Re:It's time to bury this lie

[ZackSchil]

It's in the constitution: "swear or affirm". Atheists may not be able to technically swear but they certainly can affirm.

COMPLETELY OFFTOPIC!!! MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this jerk down. He posts the same links to his own website in every political article, it's offtopic and has nothing to do with the story at hand.

what does the iraqi war or the federal deficit have to do with inauguration? Absolutely nothing.

Re:COMPLETELY OFFTOPIC!!! MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Bush supporter showing their typical regard for the opinions of other people.

Is the fact that the U.S. government is corrupt in many ways offtopic to a story about corruption in the U.S. government?

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

And the whole time I was expecting the homeless to all band together and help fund the inaguration just like they did with Clinton

Soft bribery

[booch]

Generally such contributions that are not directly for candidate election purposes are called "soft money". (Although that generally refers to contributions to the general political party funds, so I'm not sure if this technically would count as "soft money".) Contributions directly to candidates are limited to $2000 per donor, to limit bribery, or at least the appearance of quid pro quo. So effectively, we're limiting direct bribes to $2000 per person, which doesn't get you too far in Washington these days. So instead, the big donors hold dinners and such, or donate to 527s or the political party itself, which are "soft money" contributions with no limits.

So I was thinking about this yesterday. There's an argument that 1st Amendment free speech requires that spending on political speech not be limited. But is that what's going on here? If I give money to the Democratic Party, is that me expressing my opinion? Or is it me trying to buy influence? And if I'm free to spend my money any way I please, doesn't that mean bribery should be legal? So obviously, there must be limits to what we're allowed to spend our money on.

Language matters. The labels we put on things effect the ways we think about those things. So let's change the language here to call a spade a spade, just like RMS suggests we call DRM "digital restrictions management". So I propose that we call these "soft money" contributions "soft bribes". Because that's what they are.

Re:Love the U.S.? Educate yourself about the U.S.

[Ironsides]

Interesting but a couple things that should be noted. Please have deficit spending inflation adjusted. Carter gave us inflation rates of 15%. His money makes up a lot more than shown there. Also please go back to before carter.

Re:Now if we had a Constitution or Libertarian pre

[Anonymous Coward]

are you stupid or just too trusting? It may start that way but power corupts sorry bud.

Re:Love the U.S.? Educate yourself about the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude.

Please stop posting. You're bringing down the collective IQ of SlashDot, and it's not very high to begin with.

Do us all a favor, and walk in front of a speeding bus.

The dead in hell...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Are counted on a Dell.

What about Satan and Jeanna?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

From These photos, it's quite clear that the most largest contributor to the Presidential Inauguration was Satan, the Dark Lord!

Re:What about Satan and Jeanna?

[jasonmicron]

Or perhaps the "Hook 'Em Horns" symbol from the University of Texas.

Man, Satan sure took over fast!

Can a tax accountant/attorney answer this one?

[HungWeiLo]

Can the corporate contributions to this event be tax-deductable? Are menial wage earners like myself paying for any of this?

Or am I asking something I already know the answer to?

Re:Can a tax accountant/attorney answer this one?

[Ironsides]

The contributions are tax-deductible up to 10% of their taxable income. So say if a corp make $1 million in taxable income, they can donate $100 thousand as tax deductible. Any more and they still pay taxes on the amount beyond that.

As for you paying for it? If you don't live in DC, you are not paying for any of it directly, but might be paying part of the re-imbursement that the city spent. (~11 million re-imbursement.

If you live in DC, the remaining 6 million that is not getting re-imbursed has probably been made up by the taxes and revinue generated by having a big ass party with people buying food, housing and snacks that day.

As for your personal contribution to the re-imbursement if you live outside of DC? The top 50% wage earners in the country pay 95% of the taxes (aint progressive taxes grand). So if you were in the lower half of the wage earners, your contribution to this came out to under $1. based on 20mill*5%=1mill, more than 1 mill workers in the lower half, so not even gonna bother getting more accurate than that.

mess

[dpilot]

Oh, it's a mess now, but it's OUR mess. If we left, it would become THEIR mess. As it is, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that in the highest circles of the governments I mentioned, they're *glad* we're in Iraq, because we've focused the hate'n'discontent in the region on ourselves and drawn it away from them.

I like your election idea. I have no doubt that even if we offered such an election, the insurgents would fight it like they're fighting the current election.

Re:mess

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, it's a mess now, but it's OUR mess. If we left, it would become THEIR mess"

Actually that's the idea - if they want their mess back, we should give it to them.

"I have no doubt that even if we offered such an election, the insurgents would fight it like they're fighting the current election."

I think you have to distinguish between different insurgent groups though. People like al-Sadr would probably embrace this, since his goal is to get us out of his country.
Terrorists like Zarqawi, on the other hand, would probably fight this with everything they have. They are fanatics whose only concern is that they appear to spill the blood of the evil US. They need us to stay there to fuel their delusions of grandeur.
One consequence of that likley violence - this would make it clear to the average Iraqi that the al-Qaeda types are not fighting for them or their freedom.

What about the American troops in Iraq?

[reporter]

What happened to consideration for our troops in Iraq? The money being wasted on a lavish inauguration could have been spent on buying more armor plating for the transport vehicles used by our troops.

Further, at a time when our soldiers are dying on the battlefield, is a pompous, lavish inauguration in bad taste? How can people officially be smiling and laughing when our soldiers are dying in Iraq?

In my opinion, the inauguration should be solemn and inexpensive. During the inauguration, we should spend 1 minute in silence to pay respect to our troops in Iraq.

What is happening to our country? Why does no one , besides the soldiers, make any sacrifices for our nation? In my neighbor, many folks drive huge SUVs that consume the oil which fuels the terrorists entering Iraq. Is there no shame?

Cancel the oscars, grammys, and parties as well

[jgardn]

Well, with your logic then we should just shut down the Oscars and the Grammys as well. After all, we're at WAR!

We might as well shut down all the night clubs and party spots while we're at it. What do these people thing we are doing? I mean, we're at WAR!

We should go through and just shut down entire cities. Las Vegas, Atlantic City. Heck, we should probably shut down the entire state of Hawaii! Why would anyone want to go there? We're at WAR!

Re:Cancel the oscars, grammys, and parties as well

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well, with your logic then we should just shut down the Oscars and the Grammys as well. After all, we're at WAR!

You will actually have a point just as soon as hollywood declares war and sends a thousand American troops to their deaths.

And no, I don't expect the MPAA to get American troops sent in to "liberate" Hong Kong from DVD pirates.

Difference between president and employees

[jgardn]

Yeah, heaven forbid we ever consider the president the employee of the people. I mean, we don't even pay the guy! (Oh, wait a minute...)

Perfectly Rational

[Shihar]

It isn't irrational, it is just a value judgment. Pretend for a moment that you are a conservative American. Your agenda might look something like lower taxes, inclusion of faith based charity, reduce abortions, reduce government spending, reduce nationalized industries, and general government reduction. This isn't some evil guy out to eat your children, he just believes that the world runs smoother when bureaucrats have less say and less money. None of these views need to be an extreme, they just have to be right of center.

Now, the elections come up. It is pretty clear the Bush is a douche bag in that he charged into Iraq made a mess, and now is struggling to pick up the pieces. You might even agree that invading Iraq was an okay thing to do, but you can't help but agree that Bush did it poorly. Who do you vote for? Yes, you don't like Bush. He spends money and fucks up wars, but what is the alternative? You could pick Kerry, and you might think he is a smart guy, but being the better guy doesn't make his policies any more tolerable. He IS a democrat and likely has a pile of social spending programs that he wants to kick out the door. You also don't want a guy who is going to bow to the UN, an organization that some how elects nations like Libya and Syria onto the human rights committee. Further, Iraq is a mess already and it isn't like a change of command is going to make things better. As far as world opinion? Who cares about world opinion? Eh, heroes one day villains the next. If the world changes its mind about the US as fast as it did once the cold war was over and the USSR wasn't there to scare people, you can safely ignore fickle world opinion.

How does this all add up in the mind of a conservative? It adds up that Bush is no conservative hero, but he certainly is better then a democrat. If this is such a hard exercise, then just think of the inverse. Imagine it was Clinton Vs Dole and Clinton had just gotten, dismantling welfare, decided not to pursue universal health care, signing the largest free trade deal in history, and was accused of being a rapist. Would you still vote for him over Dole? Hell yeah! He might not have been the embodiment of all that is liberal, but he sure as hell beats a Republican if you hold liberal values.

The point is that people pretend to be shocked when they learn that even when the other side has a jackass for a leader they still vote for them. It isn't because they want a jackass to lead, they just don't want the other guy. Better to have an idiot making an attempt to implement your policies then a smart guy in the office dead set against your policies. Keep this in mind and it isn't surprising that Bush managed to get over 50% of the vote. It isn't a ringing endorsement of Bush, it is an endorsement of conservative values (which for the record I disagree with) despite Bush.

Re:Perfectly Rational

[miu]

That's true, but the scale of the damage Bush has caused is beyond "jackass" - more like criminal. I understand that people voted for values rather than Bush, but how can they trust him? Sure he might make noises about fiscal responsibility and values, but his actions have been ineffective and ridiculous posturing on almost every activity but dragging the US into war.

Also, his image of a "just folks" honorable man still seems to play well with the religious right. To believe that Bush is a good man is to ignore reality.

Re:Perfectly Rational

[Shihar]

Again, you are missing the point. What damage has he done that would really set off a conservative enough to vote for Kerry? World opinion? Who cares? The US was hero and savior to the world 15 years ago. 60 years ago Germany and Japan was all that was evil. 10 years latter and world opinion had shifted such that the USA was suddenly evil imperialist and Germany and Japan were pretty decent nations. Bush isn't doing any long term damage in a world where opinions hold for less then 10 years.

As to the war, the complaint conservatives had about the war was less that it happened, and more that it was done in a messy manner. A change in leadership wouldn't fix anything now. Conservatives like the idea of liberating a nation, they just don't like when it doesn't work. Kerry never offered up way to win. The best he could articulate was "I have a plan."

As to fiscal responsibility, try convincing a Republican that a Democrat will spend less. It isn't going to happen.

Look, the Democratic party is being killed by conservatives because they simply don't understand them. It is like they are being willfully ignorant and refusing to see the other side of the picture.

I drove around some people canvassing for the Democrats before the election in NH. I cringed every time they ran into someone who was just right of center. There are people that didn't like Bush and probably could have been convinced to vote for Kerry with the slightest of nudges. Alls they needed to do was pick the key topics that the slightly conservative person wanted to hear, and they would have been convinced. Instead, every time they ran into a slight conservative they ended up lambasting GW as a Nazi and finding themselves utterly unable to even see where the conservative was coming from.

If what I saw was anything like the grassroots movements in other places, I think the wildly successful grassroots campaign was the downfall of the Democrats. Sending out wildly fanatical democrats (mostly college students and government employees) to convince a guy who is in the middle of the road not to vote for Bush by being rapidly anti-Bush was a horrible idea. They might have reached a lot of people, but I would be willing to bet a lot of the people they reached walked away disgusted at the other sides inability to articulate a different position and not understand there's.

I personally think it is a massive problem with the democrats. Screaming "no blood for oil" doesn't win anyone. It tends to just piss off commuters. It might energize the base, but it turns everyone else off. If the Democrats could do anything next election, I think it would be to reign in their more radical people truly try to articulate an argument that is in understanding of the opposing sides point of view.

Re:Perfectly Rational

[miu]

I agree that world opinion is fickle enough to not be worth courting, although I do not hold it in the contempt that seems to be conservative fashion. Waging an unjustified war goes beyond ignoring world opinion to the point of antagonizing world opinion. The useless death of 1000+ American soldiers, the Billions of dollars this war will cost us, the loss of the goodwill of allies, the creation of a vast terrorist training ground, and the death of an unknown number of Iraqi civilians should all count for something against Bush.

I agree that dem activists screaming at passers-by is no way to sway moderates and likely alienates them. I even understand that some people voted for Bush just for nominations to the supreme court. What I don't understand is how Bush's actions can be viewed as anything other than reckless by a moderate.

Bulllll Shit

[Shihar]

Let me just go ahead and call bull shit on that one. That was never said. Some idiot posted that on the internet and you dutifully quoted it back. For fucks sake people. If it sounds too stupid to be true, it probably is. Take a moment and actually check your sources if you are going to post something that is obviously stupid and untrue.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Bush this November, and you've pretty much explained why. Bush was far from my ideal candidate, but Kerry was almost my ideological opposite.

Atheists Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason he gets away with all these things is because there is no single spokesperson to stand for all atheists. Let all stand behind Hephaestus, god of the working of materials within the earth! And Steven Hawking can speak up for you! Think of the sympathy value from the tree huggers!

Wha?

[Mike Hawk]

Bush pushed Vietnam into the campaign? I salute your skills at revisionism, comrade. All who disagree with be sent to the gulag for reeducation by skilled ministers with torture devices. John Kerry the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, NEVER looked to make his work in and around the Vietnam War a campaign issue or even involved it in any way in any political race or issue he ever participated in. You can believe no less!

Re:Wha?

[Johnny5000]

John Kerry the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam,

This sounds like something taken word-for-word from the Queen of Trolls herself, Ann Coulter.

She'd be proud of you for your troll!
Nice work.