SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (22562)1/29/2002 1:16:53 AM
From: RON BL  Respond to of 59480
 
BUSH EPA PLAN ALL WASHED UP
THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT

By: Paul Fallavollita

These past few weeks, I have been keeping a running list of the un-conservative, anti-libertarian offenses committed by President Bush. He has signed Commissar Kennedy’s education bill, for starters. He also proposed restoring food stamp benefits to immigrants---something Bill Clinton (of all people) took away from them in 1996. His latest offense is a direct attack on a central pillar of traditional American thought: private property rights.

This attack comes encapsulated in Bush’s plan to create a new program in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed at cleaning up river and stream pollution in ten new watersheds to be chosen around the nation. The program will cost $21 million, as part of the $2.1 trillion 2003 federal budget to be released February 4. A drop in the bucket, but that does not diminish the impact of two factors: the laws accompanying the program will no doubt be intrusive and confiscatory, and this new budget will run a deficit.

W.’s accomplice, the EPA head and Republican-in-name-only Christie Whitman, stated that a "watershed based approach" was necessary since most of the "challenges" we face come from non-fixed point sources, like fertilizer carried by rainfall and melted snow. In other words, since there are no specific factories for the government to haul into court with a straight face, they are now sticking the bill to everybody, collectively. Sounds like socialism to me.

I thought a man from Texas would have understood that not all that is good comes from Washington, D.C., or from passing a law or tossing money at a problem. Yet Bush bolsters one of the most despicable federal alphabet agencies ever created, with its myriad regulations, junk-science wielding bureaucracy, and apologist special interest groups that always stand ready to make a statement to the press or testify before Congress.

Apparently, Bush has forgotten the voters who elected him (besides the elderly Jewish West Palm Beach Buchanan voters): those in the "Red Zone" on the famed USA Today 2000 electoral map. Much of the Red Zone is located in the Western part of the country, which has especially felt the impact of the EPA’s grinding boot, as well as that of the EPA’s state and local fellow-travelers. An excellent background source for the tyranny of the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) in the West is online. The URL is fitting, for the EPA truly is nothing more than a scheme.

Liberals have long sought to transfer the resolution of issues great and small to the FEDGOVUSA, and to the courts in particular, because they know they cannot win using redistributionist tactics when the people have a choice in the matter. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is one of the most essential amendments for the preservation of liberty; only the Second Amendment trumps it for the title, as the Second ultimately guarantees the others.

Bush ran on a platform and with a party that gave lip service to localism and decentralization, just as he also implied America needed a less expansionist foreign policy that included extracting ourselves from the Balkans. Instead, we have bigger government programs at home and a Wilsonian perpetual crusade around the globe "ridding the world of evil and terror." If only Bush would now allow the Food and Drug Administration to apply the labeling laws to his political rhetoric, we could sue for false representation.

Now we know what a "compassionate conservative" is---the most liberal Republican president America has ever endured. Where are all his fear-stricken voters now, who darkly intoned "a vote for any candidate other than Bush is a vote for ‘Algore,’ and a Gore presidency will be the end of the American way of life?" I am afraid I fail to see the difference between Gush and Bore at all. Let us cattle-prod W. to remember his base, remember the Red Zone. E-mail Bush at president@whitehouse.gov



To: sandintoes who wrote (22562)1/29/2002 5:20:34 AM
From: Ish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
I saw that this morning. Another ugly story.



To: sandintoes who wrote (22562)1/29/2002 3:42:51 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Poetic justice, isn't it? And now there's a Global Crossing/Daschle connection to explore: nytimes.com

August 15, 2000

Trying to Keep Big Contributors in a Giving Mood

By JOHN M. BRODER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.




OS ANGELES, Aug. 14 -- The party that closed a city block outside the restaurant Spago in Beverly Hills Sunday night was not a fund-raiser, Democratic officials contended today. Nor was the reception for big-money donors at the Giorgio Armani boutique, they asserted. Nor was the late-night dessert reception with President Clinton for the party's most generous givers.

In Democratic fund-raising parlance, these were "donor servicing" or "donor maintenance" events. The distinction party leaders draw is that no money actually changed hands at these affairs; the checks have long since been cashed. But the events were intended to "energize" donors, encouraging them to make further donations and keep the money flowing.

Democratic Party officials have not staged the type of fund-raising gala here that the Republicans did in Philadelphia with a $10 million event headlined by Gov. George W. Bush.

Yet the Democratic Party has been as aggressive as the Republicans in using its convention to court its biggest donors, trying to put them in the mood to write new checks for the fall campaign. Supporters who contributed at least $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee were issued an 18-page "Convention 2000 Passport." It lists four days and nights of invitation-only meals, receptions and intimate events with party leaders, including the president, Vice President Al Gore and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still, party leaders here, aware of the criticism of overzealous fund-raising that they received in 1996, are trying to play down the party's fund-raising at this convention.

Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Convention Committee, said the convention was nothing like the Republican gathering two weeks ago.

"This is in stark contrast to what went on in Philadelphia, where they turned the entire Republican convention into a fund-raiser," Mr. McAuliffe said. "One night they bragged they raised $15 million. I mean, thank goodness the Liberty Bell was bolted down or they would have sold that, too."

There is another reason Democratic leaders want to keep the money chase more muted. In its platform, the party advocates a ban on political contributions known as soft money. Mr. Gore has pledged an effort to outlaw soft money as his first legislative priority. Democrats are also worried that the investigation of fund-raising in the 1996 election could hurt Mr. Gore.

In defending fund-raising practices in 1996, Democratic leaders did some semantic gyrations to explain their techniques. For example, the White House said that more than 100 coffees for donors were not fund-raisers, but "donor maintenance" affairs to reward supporters.

Mr. Gore initially described the now-infamous luncheon at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in 1996 as a "community outreach" session, even though nuns and others at the temple contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton-Gore campaign. Later, he said the visit was "finance-related." When Mr. Gore was questioned in April by the special counsel investigating campaign finance, he insisted the event was not a fund-raiser.

Even the vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, criticized the word play, especially the White House's claims that the coffees were not fund-raisers. "In a sense that most people would understand, they were fund-raisers," Mr. Lieberman said in 1997. "I think credibility is lost when we continue to insist on technical legal points."

But the party's concerns have not stopped it from establishing an elite club for contributors of at least $500,000 called the "Chairman's Circle." Several unions and three individuals are among its inaugural members: Peter G. Angelos, a trial lawyer and owner of the Baltimore Orioles; Peter L. Buttenwieser, a Philadelphia philanthropist; and S. Daniel Abraham, chairman of Slim-Fast Foods. (The top donor club of the Republicans, the Regents, has 139 individuals and corporations that have given at least $250,000.)

The Democratic Party identifies four dozen sponsors of their so-called "donor servicing" affairs here, including America Online, BellSouth, Ernst & Young, Texaco, United Parcel Service and the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae.

Despite the efforts by Mr. McAuliffe and other Democrats to distinguish the convention from the Republicans' gathering, some party officials acknowledged that thanking donors and soliciting more funds are an important part of the agenda.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who, with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has championed legislation to overhaul campaign finance, said today that he was ashamed of his party's fund-raising efforts. Mr. Feingold called it "a system of legalized bribery and legalized extortion."

When told that some party officials said that little or no fund-raising was occurring outside the Staples Center, where the convention is being held, Mr. Feingold scoffed. "That's absurd," he said. "In room after room, hotel after hotel and private home after private home, there are literally scores of fund-raisers that include contribution levels as high as $50,000 or $100,000."

Mr. Feingold cited the numerous "tributes" to members of Congress sponsored by major corporations and attended by donors of $20,000 to $100,000. Among them are a luncheon for Senator Dianne Feinstein of California sponsored by Chevron and a dinner for Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota paid for by Global Crossing, a telecommunications company. BellSouth, US West, EchoStar Communications and United Parcel Service are paying for a concert by Cheryl Crow on behalf of Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont.

The Democratic National Convention is holding only one formal fund-raiser, a concert featuring Barbra Streisand, the singer Babyface and Whoopi Goldberg on Thursday night. Party officials estimated the concert would raise $3 million to $4 million in "hard money," contributions that are limited in size (the maximum individual donation is $1,000) but can be used for any political purpose.

The Democratic Party's reluctance to hold several fund-raising events has not stopped a number of House and Senate candidates from doing so.

The convention itself is being underwritten by several corporations, many of whom also sponsored the Republican convention. General Motors is contributing $1 million in cash and services and 400 cars, the same as it did in Philadelphia. The automaker is also sponsoring several receptions for lawmakers and donors. G.M. provided similar services for the Republicans.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company