posted on May 20, 2001 10:54:05 PM new
Washington D.C.
"Organizers of a multimillion-dollar
Republican dinner that will be President
Bush's debut as fund-raiser in chief include
dozens of corporate lobbyists and executives
who helped engineer his election and whose
industries stand to benefit from his energy
plan, his tax cuts and his other early moves in
the White House.
The black-tie dinner on Tuesday, the
Republican National Committee's Presidential
Gala, is expected to raise more than $15
million for the party and attract at least 2,000
people, including several cabinet members
and virtually all of the Republican leaders of
Congress. Ticket prices begin at $1,500 a
seat, $15,000 a table.
Because the dinner is the first major Washington fund-raising event that Mr. Bush
will preside over since his inauguration, it is being described as an early test of his
ability and willingness to use the presidency to help raise money for the Republican
Party.
President Bill Clinton, who was harshly criticized by Republicans for his aggressive fund-raising, used similar Washington dinners to raise tens of millions of dollars for the Democratic Party. For groups seeking changes in campaign law, the huge Democratic galas came to symbolize the excesses of so-called soft money donations, the unlimited contributions to political parties that would be outlawed under legislation now in Congress.
The dinner's sponsors include Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum
Institute; Richard Shelby, executive vice president of the American Gas Association;
Bud Albright, Washington lobbyist for Reliant Energy, and Robert S. Aiken, vice
president for federal affairs at Pinnacle West, the parent company of a major
electrical utility in Arizona.
Mr. Shelby pledged to raise $250,000 for the dinner; the others pledged $50,000.
Also pledging $250,000 was Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican
National Committee whose lobbying concern now represents Southern Energy, as
well as Microsoft, Lockheed Martin and Lorillard Tobacco".
Everybody denies going for any special favors, of course. They're just a bunch of people who believe in the republican party and who like to gather with their friends.
posted on May 21, 2001 12:00:35 AM new
It wasn't right when Clinton and Gore did it, and it isn't right when Bush does it. The only difference is which lobbyists are buying favors.
posted on May 21, 2001 12:51:07 AM new
Maybe the published ones are, but refer back to these bits of information:
The editorial said one possibility was that Bush and his father could persuade the Middle
East to hold production, increasing prices, and that if Bush was successful in increasing the price of
oil, "he could parlay his actions into substantial contributions." [World Oil, 2/99]
1999: Cheney Praised OPEC Production Cuts That Raised Oil Prices.
According to the Associated Press in March 1999, "OPEC members agreed today to cut crude oil
production by 2.1 million barrels a day and maintain lower levels of output for a full year starting April
1, oil ministers said. The group of 11 oil producing nations approved the cuts in an effort to strengthen
prices and end a global oil glut." Then-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney praised OPEC's decision. "I've
been struck by the extent OPEC seems to have gotten its act together," said Cheney. [Dow Jones,
4/12/99; Mickey Kaus, Slate, 7/28/00; AP Online, 3/23/99]
posted on May 21, 2001 06:27:19 AM new
And people, they will probably be eating frankenfoods that Americans have been unknowingly eating for years in some cases. Aventis is pushing to get Starlink allowed in corn since they can no longer control where it turns up. Guess this is advertising for them and Starlink too...by Cheney and Head Chef!!!
It reminds me of something former USDA head Dan Glickman said during a Washington Talk Show... something like, Americans don't care where their food comes from, just that it should taste good & look good! Somewhere I have the tape of the interview.
===============
White House to Serve Genetically Modified Foods!
Jennifer C. Berkshire, AlterNet
May 14, 2001
"The White House announced today that it plans to begin serving some genetically modified foods at official government functions. The move is intended to head off
criticism by environmental and consumer groups that the altered foods are unsafe."
'"You really can't tell the difference," said White House chef Daniel
Arreido, the former executive chef at Laylo in Austin, Texas, who recently replaced
long-time Clinton cook Walter Scheib III. "It may be genetically altered but it tastes just the same," said Arreido, noting that the first family already consumes milk containing bovine growth hormone."
<snip>According to Arreido, the menu for the
dinner [for French Prime Minister] will include such delicacies as pan-seared genetically altered super salmon and
Texas-style corn pudding made with Star Link corn.
<snip>
Not everyone in the Bush administration supports the new policy, which is said to have been the idea of Vice President Dick Cheney. Just last weekend, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman voiced concern about the safety of
the altered foods while appearing on the weekly political talk show Meet the Press.
<snip>
posted on May 21, 2001 07:03:13 AM new Everybody denies going for any special favors, of course. They're just a bunch of people who believe in the republican party and who like to gather with their friends.
Uh huh. And I was born yesterday.
They couldn't just have a Texas barbecue in the back yard with all the "friends" bringing a covered dish?
posted on May 21, 2001 12:12:00 PM new
What really bogges my mind is how many Republican voters are seeing all of this and simply dismissing it! Look, I'm not a genius or a rocket scientist, but I can see plainly enough with my own eyes what the truth is. How can anyone with a single shred of decency flowing in their viens even concider to continue being a Republican? I was sure that most Americans knew better, but look at the last election. Oh, sure! If ballot-box stuffing and rampant election cheating and fraud were not being used in elections, very few Republicans would even have been elected to office!
posted on May 21, 2001 01:19:07 PM new
labrat: Scary, isn't it? Here is a list of countries restricting/banning GMOs in food. France is on it. I wonder if they'll appreciate the super dinner? And here I am growing heirlooms! LOL
Here's an interesting page with a link to the Star Link deal.
Femme, Ann Richards already did that to celebrate her gubenatorial election. Well, no covered dish, but it was fun.
posted on May 21, 2001 01:53:01 PM new
Borillar-I must be indecent then.
No conscience and can't sleep at night either.
I do not agree with everythihg some GOP party members do, as the same with Democrat
members. And there has been some good Democrat politicians and members, just as there has been some good GOP politicians and members.
posted on May 21, 2001 02:10:21 PM newNearTheSea, it's a matter of rooting for The Party That Has No Sense Of Shame or not. I'll admit that McCain is a GOP Partyline defector and is trying to turn the GOP back to the way it was before Bush, Sr. announced The New World Order. I doubt that he'll succeed, as all of his would-be supporters in the GOP have long-since washed their hands of the entire affair out of pride and decency and took early retirement from politics. McCain is flogging a dead horse and the hopes of Republican voters are all in vain, as the GOP has 1,000% incentive to keep going the way that it has been and -1,000% to go back to the old ways and ideals. And if you continue to be a Republican despite all this, whatever conclusions can be reached as to your grasp of common sense and decency is not for me to take pot-shots at. I'd much rather sit with the Democrats if given a choice between the two, simply because they have not choosen to sign on with Satan and to sink below the radar of decency. And what can be said about people who continue to vote for a party that has sworn to be their enemy, to destroy them whenever possible, to humilliate them for the simple act of voting for them -- what can be said about that?
posted on May 21, 2001 03:00:59 PM new
I meant to mention McCain, as he is going in with Lieberman on another gun control bill
(One I am not sure is going to fly with legitimate gun owners-but who knows?)
What can be said to people who vote for people who 'have signed on with Satan'?
I don't know, that remark/question was a little extreme.
posted on May 21, 2001 03:10:47 PM new
Hate and love can be intimate bedfellows....
Whole cultures have died over religion and politics elswhere in the world...is American politics next?
Are we?
I submit no one man or party can change people's thinking without their co-operation. We all need to look in the mirror beyond judging where next to stick the razor...or lipstick tube...
posted on May 21, 2001 03:36:58 PM new
Thanks, Pat. To me, it is a question of Guilt By Association. Have you ever watched any of those documentaries on television about criminal gangs in Los Angeles and such? You know, the ones that show how the kids live, love, hate, and fear? In those documentaries, it never fails to surprise me as to how many kids are around because it is either popular to do so, or they have some fantasy about "right and wrong" and that's why they're there. How many times you see the girlfriends of vicious young men who kill for "business" defend the actions of the killers? See how they blame the world for their boyfriend's actions?
Now we have a parallel about Republican politicians and Republican voters.
FACT: if you do not make $900,000 or more a year, the GOP does not represent you. The GOP, in fact, will pass every bit of legislation that they can for those who make the minimum to the complete detriment of those who do not.
CONCLUSION: if you make less than $900,000 a year and you vote FOR the Republican party, serious questions as to your maturity, common sense, and intelligence come into question.
FACT: every Republican Administration since Eisenhower has a) raised taxes higher than Democrats have; b) created more and bigger government than Democrats have; and c) have increased government spending much more than Democrats ever have. Yet, they twist this around and charge the Democrats with this, despite the facts.
CONCLUSION: if you believe the outright lies of the Republican Party and you vote for them, serious questions as to your maturity, common sense, and intelligence come into question.
FACT: since the New Republican (New World Order) Revolution in 1994, the Republican Party has adopted a "Holier Than Thou" moralistic approach. This is to cater to million of registered fundamentalist Christians. Yet, time after time, when Republican Politicians wag their fingers at the Democrats about their moral standing, the same Republicans turn out to be just as nasty and often much nastier than the people that they point their fingers at. That makes them the Party of Hypocrites.
CONCLUSION: if you voted for the Republican Party based upon some imaginary "Moral Compass" which they have completely demonstrated does not exist or belong to them, serious questions as to your maturity, common sense, and intelligence come into question.
FACT: this Republican Administration is so tainted and so sure of themselves that they no longer bother to hide their affiliation with parties that pay them to pass legislation against the life, health, and welfare of the American citizens. The Republican Politicians actually qualify for the legal definition of Treason as outlined by the US Constitution:
The crime of levying war against the U.S. easily means the crime of waging legislative warfare against the citizens of the United States of America; for if the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS of this country does not constitute what America is, then what does?
CONCLUSION: if you vote for and support a political party engaged in waging warfare against United States citizens, serious questions as to your maturity, common sense, and intelligence come into question.
posted on May 21, 2001 07:10:56 PM new
Yes. Spoken like a true demagogue.
Your 'Facts' smack of opinion with no solid base to justify quoting them on.
This makes any 'Conclusion' drawn from them automatically invalid.
In this particular case, what is ludicrous, is that each 'Conclusion' has nothing to do with the previous 'Fact'
This is the type of illogic you will find in pre Third Reich speeches by Hitler and Mussolini.
I could suggest several good books on logic and argument if you like.
edited to make sure you understand what I mean about the pre 3rd Reich and demagoge.
Your conclusions are repeated with the same
thing. Like trying to drill it into heads that 'your common sense and intelligence is in question if you are listen to the Republican' etc etc
posted on May 21, 2001 08:49:57 PM newYour 'Facts' smack of opinion with no solid base to justify quoting them on.
This makes any 'Conclusion' drawn from them automatically invalid
These statements are incorrect. The entirety of the republican party legislative voting record supports the facts listed by borillar, and unless a person disproves them they have the force of a generalized knowledge.
Therefore all conclusions drawn from the statements of fact have weight in that there is an apparent folly in voting for persons or parties which do not represent the interests of the voter.
That being the case, another reason for such voting practices may be found, one other than a simple wish to be represented by persons elected. Such reasons can only be found in the somewhat mystical and wholly ambiguous phenomenon of persons following a leader only because others do or because they have been bamboozled into a belief that what they vote for is something other than that which should be apparent to them by the record.
Without delving into the areas of comparison to the Nazi Third Reich innappropriately posted above, the practices which the poster has charged Borillar with attempting are exactly the practices of the republican party in concert with the various moral movements in this country.
Granted a person cannot accept both. The conclusion which must be made is that a person objecting to the ideas brought forth by borillar must have previously subscribed to the alternate position and posts in resentment of the conflict between the two.
posted on May 21, 2001 09:02:35 PM new
Nice try, won't wash.
Those 'FACTS' are not supported, they are Opinions
Good double talk though
I said 'PRE Third Riech' did I not?
I am done. Borillar, you have a little hypocrisy going on there, wouldn't you say?
You keep saying the GOP wagging their finger at the Democrats, what are you doing?
I'll stick to fluff.
I would suggest, if you feel so strongly on all that you post, to join, if you have not already, the party of your choice, and volunteer, work for them, and get what you believe is right for this country. After all thats what its all about.
posted on May 21, 2001 09:13:00 PM new
A one post ringer.
Those facts are supported by the record. The tax cut proposals are only one example of a party wide support for those in the higher reaches of personal income, and the oil exploration and deregulation proposals are another which can aid only those corporate producers most likely to benefit from them. On with the list goes the liability limits in cases involving the large corporate HMOs, the removal proposals of OSHA personal safety requirements freeing the ability to reap heavy rewards by still other corporate interests. On and on.
The corporations in and of themselves do not vote; the rich represent a very small percentile of voting populace. The only conclusion that can be made is that the body of republican voters voted for candidates within that party who do not benefit that voter in the least. All of that supports borillar's premise.
posted on May 21, 2001 11:41:10 PM new
It's been a very long time since I researched Germany History of the 2oth century. I'm sorry, NearTheSea, that I've never heard of any samples of propaganda put out by the previous (to Hitler) German government -- perhaps you could make a few quotes for us here -- for our edification?
Thanks, KRS, for making those replies. I was only trying to explain why I stated earlier that it was incomprehensible to me why so many people vote for a political party that does nothing for them, but in fact does everything against them. It's like running into a tree repeatedly, ignoring the fact that hitting the tree with your head is hurting you, all because you refuse to acknowledge that the tree exists. All I can do is to stand back and try to understand why anyone would want to do that.
posted on May 21, 2001 11:41:56 PM newSupraMKIV"Borillar-I would hope you do not become elected in Congress, your post is scary."
Sir, I am an American Patriot. I am concerned by this deliberate attack upon the American people by our elected and "unelected" officials. I am appalled that so many Americans wish to simply sweep it under the rug and to try to "cope" with it as best they can -- alone. I refuse to be silenced. I will continue to infuse patriotic anger into as many citizens as possible in order that we may fight this battle, for War was declared when the US Supreme Court overthrew the US Constitution last December. It was the opening shot of the War and those who have been paying attention heard it for what it was. Therefore, you are welcome to join in, chime in, and to debate the issues -- all comers welcome!
As far as running for office, only certain personality types look for the limelight of political office, for the want of being famous or because they are fortune-seekers looking to get rich quick these days. I, Sir, am neither! I prefer to rally the troops, educate the ignorant, and prepare to fight a war that will eventually have to be fought -- hopefully without violence.
We have lost the ability to create our own third party, as the dominant two parties have made all of the laws and the rules to suit themselves and to keep themselves in power -- against our (the People) wishes.
We have also lost the ability to have effective elections. The system that we had in this country worked great against any attempt to overthrow it, until this last election. In this last election, a rouge supreme court completely invalidated our Presidential Election! Therefore, our system of elections has been compromised and can be invalidated in the future anytime that a strong enough political party so chooses. Can't win by fair voting? Simple: stuff ballot boxes and if that doesn't work, have a high court violate the US Constitution.
Now, are you prepared to do more than to sit back and freak out at the facts? What is your position?
