I was a republican leader for a day

[Ivan Seeking]

I was nominated to the esteemed position of honorary chairman of the national business something or other and I was also being given a national leadership award. My name would appear in the Wall Street Journal supporting the republican platform on small business; I would get a gavel AND a plaque "that would impress my clients", and all for only $500.00

I would also have the option to attend presidential dinners; probably to the tune of $1700 a plate.

Yeh, right! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[franznietzsche]

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

I must have missed it.

 

[Cyrus]

I was nominated to the esteemed position of honorary chairman of the national business something or other and I was also being given a national leadership award. My name would appear in the Wall Street Journal supporting the republican platform on small business; I would get a gavel AND a plaque "that would impress my clients", and all for only $500.00

I would also have the option to attend presidential dinners; probably to the tune of $1700 a plate.

Yeh, right! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: I can no longer associate myself with you...:tongue2:

 

[Rach3]

You're a lot like me. I never accept awards with negative prize money. Politely decline and hang up.

 

[Rach3]

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

I must have missed it.

Better to miss the point entirely than to step on it and risk tetanus.

 

[chroot]

Ivan,

If you send me $1000, I will send you a handsome hand trowel and a plaque that eloquently proclaims you as the Esteemed Leader of the Universe. Trust me, it will impress your clients far more than the silly Republican plaque.

- Warren

 

[Physics_wiz]

Ivan,

If you send me $1000, I will send you a handsome hand trowel and a plaque that eloquently proclaims you as the Esteemed Leader of the Universe. Trust me, it will impress your clients far more than the silly Republican plaque.

- Warren

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

I must have missed it.

Doesn't it strike you as being slightly underhanded and cheesy; perhaps to the point of being pathetic? When Tsu called and said that I was supposed to have some kind of national award from the Republicans, I knew it had to be something silly, but this was surprisingly absurd. And it even came with a voice recording from a Congressman.

Don't know Chroot, a hand trowel compared to a paid for award? Hmmm, tough choice; though the leader of the universe bit sounds tempting...

You know, Democrats weren't even allowed to attend the Bush dinner in Portland. I wonder when they would have figured out that I'm not a Republican; about the time I walk in with my Al Gore shirt?

 

[Mk]

I wouldn't care who the president was, I would pay the money for that dinner man.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At this point you couldn't pay me to go.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They have been calling again and this morning I was here for the call.

Rep: "Mr. [Seeking], we are happy to inform you that you have been awarded a national leadership award from Sen. X..."

Me: "Why?"

Rep: "Um...because we want you to join us for a presidential dinnner..."

Me: "You won't find anyone more anti-Bush than me"

Rep: "...[silence]..."

Me: [click]

I sure enjoyed that!

 

[Cyrus]

Ahahahhaahah Zinnggggggg!

 

[turbo]

Me: "You won't find anyone more anti-Bush than me"

Good for you, but you won't wrest my title away without a fight. I accused him in a letter to the editor of our regional paper (August 2002 - well in advance of the aggression against the Iraqis) of committing to an invasion. He followed the oil companies' script to the letter.

August 27, 2002
A View From an Independent

The Bush administration is anxious to rush into a war against Saddam Hussein, and is using Dick Cheney and others to spread the word that Saddam is evil and intends to use weapons of mass destruction, and that war is inevitable and necessary for the protection of American security. The Bush team has not supplied a single shred of evidence that Saddam is about to unleash chemical or biological weapons, nor have they tendered any proof that he even possesses such weapons. Since we are "at war with terrorism," a simple assertion by the President is evidently sufficient cause for action and no debate is required. Lots of reasonable people, including some very senior Republicans, are asking for corroboration, but that's now a moot point, because just yesterday Bush's own lawyers asserted that he has the right to declare war against Saddam without consulting with Congress or anyone else. Isn't that handy?

What will Bush and his friends gain if he declares war on Saddam this fall?

1) A strong spike in oil prices heading into the winter heating season - a huge plus for his biggest backers. The big oil companies and the companies that supply them, including Halliburton (from whence Cheney crept back into public office) will suck billions of dollars out of the American people in windfall profits if war is declared. Just the threat of war is already driving up prices, which of course result in immediate consumer oil and gas price hikes, even though the crude oil was bought months ago. Don't worry, investors! - gouging and price-fixing in the gasoline and heating oil markets is widely accepted and even expected, so buy some oil company stocks now - they'll just go up.

2) Bush will enjoy the temporary but sadly inevitable boost in opinion polls that occurs when a large sector of the electorate chooses to wave flags instead of engaging in productive debate about foreign policy. This same herd mentality allowed the Reagan/Bush administration to wage an unauthorized and illegal war in Nicaragua and to finance it by committing treason (the theft of weapons from the US arsenal, and the sale of those weapons to Iran - a terrorist country that was an avowed enemy of the US). Until I did some research, I did not know this, but apparently the penalty for treason is hanging ONLY if you are a regular citizen. If you are the President, the penalty for treason is having a national airport named after you. Of course, adultery by a sitting President carries the risk of impeachment, at least if the perp is a Democrat.

3) If the timing is right, an invasion of Iraq could lead to the strengthening of Republican candidates on Election Day, and a possible swing to Republican control of the Senate. This would inevitably pack the Judicial Branch with even more conservative judges, since there is a very large backlog of judicial appointments. This backlog was created by the Republicans who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration and who refused to schedule hearings to consider his appointees to the bench. Today, the Republican minority loudly proclaims that this eight-year backlog was created by the Democrats, who only recently gained control of the Senate. That's pathetic, and it's insulting to the intelligence of any voter who was not in a coma during the Clinton administration, even if you happened to agree with the ideology and tactics used by either side.

4) The American public's attention will be diverted away from corporate scandals and the Department of Justice's prosecution of (or failure to prosecute) the case against Enron's top executives. Kenneth Lay has not yet even been publicly mentioned by the DOJ, which seems to be selectively focused on only the financial division of Enron. Why is that? Surely, Lay's lavish donations to George W. Bush cannot have bought him immunity from prosecution...this isn't a country where bribing public officials is condoned, is it?

What do the American people stand to gain if Bush orders our armed forces to invade Iraq?

1) We will lose the already-tenuous support of our few Middle East allies. We will also lose the support of the UN and our NATO allies. Publicly, only Tony Blair has made positive noises about the invasion, and recent polls find that the majority of the British do not share his views. Other NATO countries are adamantly opposed to a new war in Iraq.

2) We Americans will be called upon to sacrifice to support the war effort. The war will cost us many billions in taxes and in higher fuel prices, and it will cost us any hope of a timely economic recovery. W’s war will place the lives of thousands of our young people in jeopardy and the loss of life will certainly be higher than during the incursion of Bush the Elder. Saddam will not fight in the desert this time, but will hunker down in cities, hoping that a large number of civilian casualties will gain him sympathy in the court of world opinion. He also hopes that a large volume of returning body bags will dim America's enthusiasm for adventure in Iraq.

3) Saddam's missiles are not capable of reaching US soil, so if he truly has weapons of mass destruction, and if he becomes desperate, he will lash out at Israel, which he regards as the US's surrogate. Israel has already stated that it will not forgo retaliation in the face of an attack. Iraq may not have nuclear weapons, but Israel does, and Sharon is just the man to employ them in a "just cause". The Muslim/Arab backlash from such a strike may not totally destroy Israel, but it will likely lead to a widespread and brutal conflict in the entire region, including Northern Africa, the Middle East, and perhaps Indo-China. When you factor in Iran's close relationship with China and Iraq's close relationships with Russia and France, you easily have the makings of a complex and unpredictable situation that could quickly turn into a world-wide conflagration. Targets of opportunity will likely be struck during such uncertain times, perhaps including Taiwan, Kashmir, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and North and South Korea, to name a few. Russia may also choose to reassert itself in Eastern Europe or the oil-rich Southern provinces. Bush's people must have advised him of these, and similar scenarios, but you'd never know it to hear him talk about his Iraq war.

W, you should come back to Maine and have a long talk with your father. You are about to screw up "big-time" to quote your VP, and you need to listen to somebody other than your handlers. This is no simple zero-sum "payback" situation, by which you can enrich your friends at the expense of the poor, the elderly, or the environment with no personal repercussions. This is the real deal, and many millions of people may die or suffer because of your lack of understanding of world affairs. It's too late to cram for this test - get some expert advice or we will all pay for your ignorance.

Some advice for the savvy investor: if you believe that King George will invade Iraq, you should call your broker right now, and invest in oil companies, defense companies, and producers of American flags and yellow ribbons. You'll make a killing - really.

 

[franznietzsche]

Doesn't it strike you as being slightly underhanded and cheesy; perhaps to the point of being pathetic?

Completely.

When Tsu called and said that I was supposed to have some kind of national award from the Republicans, I knew it had to be something silly, but this was surprisingly absurd. And it even came with a voice recording from a Congressman.

No disagreement on the silliness.

But I fail to see how any of it should be a surprise in anyway shape or form. Its not like the business of politics has changed much in this country in the last 200 years.

 

[Tsu]

Better to miss the point entirely than to step on it and risk tetanus.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No disagreement on the silliness.

But I fail to see how any of it should be a surprise in anyway shape or form. Its not like the business of politics has changed much in this country in the last 200 years.

I would hope that contributions to political parties depend on more than a gavel and a plaque.

 

[franznietzsche]

I would hope that contributions to political parties depend on more than a gavel and a plaque.

Sorry to disapoint you.

Better to miss the point entirely than to step on it and risk tetanus.

You know, that's distinctly less funny when I remember getting a nail stuck through my foot. Its not as much fun as it sounds (Actually the tetanus shot hurt worse, or at least longer). Kinda glad I don't work that job anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry to disapoint you.

Well, presumably they wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

I got my gavel, I got my plaque, now let's go kick some arse! :rofl:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find myself wondering if I'm now on some terrorist watch list...

 

[ksle82]

Me: "You won't find anyone more anti-Bush than me"

I sure enjoyed that!

You need to get out more my friend. I'll give you a run for your money in bush hating.

 

[franznietzsche]

You need to get out more my friend. I'll give you a run for your money in bush hating.

Well this is certainly a new kind of anatomy swinging contest.

Reminds me of rednecks and their trucks...or belt buckles...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's okay. As long as we all agree.

Recently, two people [old guys ] commented that socially speaking, these are the worst times they have ever seen here. Although I agree, I must admit that a number of people have come around. As a die hard Republican, my oldest friend was once a Bush lover, but now he suspects that Bush is mentally unstable. It was like music to my ears.

 

[franznietzsche]

That's okay. As long as we all agree.

Recently, two people [old guys ] commented that socially speaking, these are the worst times they have ever seen here. Although I agree, I must admit that a number of people have come around. As a die hard Republican, my oldest friend was once a Bush lover, but now he suspects that Bush is mentally unstable. It was like music to my ears.

Well I doubt most rational people could be a fan of a man who's every judicial and legal policy indicates that he probably wouldn't mind putting King in front of his name and IV after it.

But not all of us have to agree with you to feel that way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure what you mean. It is all about Bush.

I used to be a Republican... until daddy came along.

 

[turbo]

I'm not sure what you mean. It is all about Bush.

I used to be a Republican... until daddy came along.

I am an Independent, and actually voted for Reagan the first time, when he promised to shrink government. That's the last time I voted Republican in a presidential election, though Bill Cohen (R-Maine) got my vote every time, as did George Mitchell (D-Maine). I was not idealogically thrilled with either of them, but they understood how to work together - something most of our Senators and Congressmen seem to have abandoned. Where can we find some fiscally conservative candidates that aren't determined to meddle in the personal affairs of citizens? I am more fiscally conservative than anybody in Washington, and more socially liberal than any of them. That makes it hard to vote for anybody without holding my nose.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am an Independent, and actually voted for Reagan the first time, when he promised to shrink government. That's the last time I voted Republican in a presidential election, though Bill Cohen (R-Maine) got my vote every time, as did George Mitchell (D-Maine). I was not idealogically thrilled with either of them, but they understood how to work together - something most of our Senators and Congressmen seem to have abandoned. Where can we find some fiscally conservative candidates that aren't determined to meddle in the personal affairs of citizens? I am more fiscally conservative than anybody in Washington, and more socially liberal than any of them. That makes it hard to vote for anybody without holding my nose.

I am also Independent and actually campaigned for Reagan. That was the last time as a Rep for me as well. And I guess I should correct my previous statement. What has turned me off has been everything Bush the rest of the religious fanatics who took over my party. Reagan certainly had his failings but he was unique - I think he really believed everything that he said. As soon as Bush began to campaign, the entire tone of the party changed from idealism, to condescending newspeak bs from elitists who are more interested in what good for corporate America, than what's good for Americans.

As for the Democrats and as James Carvel recently noted, if the Dems can't win in this environment then they need to re-think the entire party.

 

[franznietzsche]

I am also Independent and actually campaigned for Reagan. That was the last time as a Rep for me as well. And I guess I should correct my previous statement. What has turned me off has been everything Bush the rest of the religious fanatics who took over my party. Reagan certainly had his failings but he was unique - I think he really believed everything that he said. As soon as Bush began to campaign, the entire tone of the party changed from idealism, to condescending newspeak bs from elitists who are more interested in what good for corporate America, than what's good for Americans.

As for the Democrats and as James Carvel recently noted, if the Dems can't win in this environment then they need to re-think the entire party.

I'll bite.

The religious right is being taken for a ride by the republican party. i think its clear that the party doesn't actually care, and is just playing the fundamentalists for chumps. You can always tell its an election year when suddenly republican politicians actually care about gay marriage all of a sudden. The fundamentalists didn't take over the party, the corporations learned it was a lot easier to rule if they pretended to play along with the fundamentalists.

I think the Democratic party is run by morons. They don't need to just rethink the party, they need to dissolve and reform altogether. The party has all the failings of the mind of a 13 year old. They were so obsessed with the impact on abortion of Bush's court appointments that they missed the real danger altogether--that Bush appointed judges who had consistently throughout their careers favoured the expansion of executive power at the expense of anything else--Bush and the powers that be in the republican party didn't really care about overturning Roe v Wade. They were so obsessed with Bush during '04 that they missed the brilliant (and more than little sleazy) move by the republicans to put anti-gay marriage votes on the ballots in all the swing states--draw out the fundamentalists, and while they're their they might as well vote for bush too. The Democratic party wasn't bright enough to catch that one either. The democrats are like a man in a rush--they never see the cliff before its too late. Don't even get me started on california democrats.

I'd go on, but I know I've covered this in a dozen other posts, and most of what I would continue to say has already been covered in a dozen other posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll bite.

The religious right is being taken for a ride by the republican party. i think its clear that the party doesn't actually care, and is just playing the fundamentalists for chumps. You can always tell its an election year when suddenly republican politicians actually care about gay marriage all of a sudden. The fundamentalists didn't take over the party, the corporations learned it was a lot easier to rule if they pretended to play along with the fundamentalists.

True in some cases and not in others, I think. But your point is valid and more accurate than what I had said. And I'm still not sure about GW. I could almost believe that it is all bull, but I tend to think he is a genuine nut.

I think the Democratic party is run by morons. They don't need to just rethink the party, they need to dissolve and reform altogether. The party has all the failings of the mind of a 13 year old. They were so obsessed with the impact on abortion of Bush's court appointments that they missed the real danger altogether--that Bush appointed judges who had consistently throughout their careers favoured the expansion of executive power at the expense of anything else--Bush and the powers that be in the republican party didn't really care about overturning Roe v Wade. They were so obsessed with Bush during '04 that they missed the brilliant (and more than little sleazy) move by the republicans to put anti-gay marriage votes on the ballots in all the swing states--draw out the fundamentalists, and while they're their they might as well vote for bush too. The Democratic party wasn't bright enough to catch that one either. The democrats are like a man in a rush--they never see the cliff before its too late. Don't even get me started on california democrats.

I'd go on, but I know I've covered this in a dozen other posts, and most of what I would continue to say has already been covered in a dozen other posts.

For me, Bill Clinton has been the only shining light but he certainly bungled things up but good. And it is such a shame. For one, he probably didn't do anything worse than most presidents. In fact, not that long ago his actions would never have been public informatoin. But the worst part for me is that he was a true leader. I think he had the capacity to be a great leader but he screwed it all up.

 

[franznietzsche]

For me, Bill Clinton has been the only shining light but he certainly bungled things up but good. And it is such a shame. For one, he probably didn't do anything worse than most presidents. In fact, not that long ago his actions would never have been public informatoin. But the worst part for me is that he was a true leader. I think he had the capacity to be a great leader but he screwed it all up.

I don't know that this is a fair assessment. Keep in mind he was stalemated by a republican legislature. I'm far less confident that things would have been so not screwed up if the democrats had both houses of congress and the presidency while he was in office.

 

[russ_watters]

Of all the positive things one might say about Clinton, "true leader" is one I never thought I'd hear. He pioneered Presidenting-by-opinion-poll! That's not leadership, that's perpetual campaigning and spinelessness. I guess I really don't know, though, whether he actually realized his belief in old-school hippieism was wrong or was just too spineless to continue to push it after a few spectacular early failures. Either way, it is tough to know if he really deserves credit for some of the later good things he did that went against the party grain.

I also tend to think (perhaps what franz was alluding to) that his greatest failure was one of his greatest successes (his failure to pass universal healthcare).

 

[franznietzsche]

Of all the positive things one might say about Clinton, "true leader" is one I never thought I'd hear. He pioneered Presidenting-by-opinion-poll! That's not leadership, that's perpetual campaigning.

That idea bothers me a lot less than how most politicians do business.

 

[turbo]

I have always been one to write letters to my elected representatives, but all I get back are form letters, so I do less of that than I should. Perhaps I should put "K Street" in the return address, so they'll respond. This haggling about which party is "better" is a sham. The differences between them primarily relate to which groups they want to give my tax money to and which groups they get their bribes from. At least Clinton left us with a nice surplus, while the "borrow and spend" Bush administration is driving us into the ditch, financially. Why is it that the recent Republican administrations (who invariably campaign on "fiscal responibility" and accuse Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility) manage to run incredible deficits while burdening future generations of taxpayers with debt that will be difficult to pay off with our poor economy? They run this scam constantly, and like lemmings, voters ignore their actions and vote for their words.

Despite the surplus he left, I fault Clinton for supporting globalization, because that puts low-income workers at risk for job loss and wage erosion. Contrary to what the Republicans tell us, low-income workers are the driving force in our economy because they spend every cent they make, and they spend it primarily on consumables. Give a tax cut to wealthy people, and they can splurge on an oriental carpet or a painting, or a new vehicle. Give a tax cut to poor people, and they will buy clothes or shoes for their kids, maybe rent more videos and get snacks for in-home entertainment, and in general put money back into their local economies.