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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (281580)7/29/2002 7:18:35 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
According to a number of sources, Clinton's fees -- several at $250,000 per speech and one at $350,000 -- are exceptional, even for entertainment stars. The information was described in congressional financial disclosure forms filed yesterday by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

The former president's year was remarkable for the number of engagements, the fees he received and the distances he traveled to share his thoughts, according to industry sources.

"There's no question he's the highest-paid speaker in the history of the lecture industry," said Don Walker, president of the Harry Walker Agency in New York, which handles Clinton's speaking arrangements.

Canada Stefl, president of KEY Speakers Bureau Inc., in Corona del Mar, Calif., which also handles many celebrities, said few big-name speakers fetch more than $100,000 per speech. She said she knew of none who gets more than $200,000, even abroad.

Former president Ronald Reagan created a stir in 1989, the year he left office, when he received $2 million for two 20-minute speeches sponsored by a Japanese communications firm. Former president George H.W. Bush also ran into controversy when he received an undisclosed sum for a series of speeches to followers of the wife of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church.

Stefl and Walker said they could think of no celebrity whose schedule was as extensive as Clinton's 2001 speaking tour. During some periods, he made speeches virtually every day, often in different countries on consecutive days.

During four days in April, Clinton spoke in Norway, Sweden, Austria and Poland, receiving a total of more than $600,000. In August, he made three speeches on successive days to different audiences from the same Japanese corporation, followed four days later by a speech in Brazil. He netted $700,000 for the four addresses.

His biggest single take was $350,000 for a speech to an association in Milan, Italy. His smallest fee was $28,100 to speak to the London School of Economics and Political Science.

His spokeswoman, Julia Payne, said Clinton made several dozen uncompensated speeches for causes such as combating AIDS, promoting civil rights and expanding music programs in schools. She said many paid speeches were made to help raise money for charitable causes.

The average fee for Clinton's 59 paid speeches in 2001 was more than $150,000.

Most of the speeches were made to companies and business-related groups in the United States, usually at $125,000 or $150,000 each. But some fees were higher, such as the $250,000 he received for a speech to New York-based Fortune Magazine Forum.

Others who paid to hear him included Oracle Corp., the Paris Golf & Country Club, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., the El Paso Holocaust Museum and the British Broadcasting Corp.

The total of $9.2 million appeared to be more than enough to pay off the legal fees the Clintons owe to three law firms as a result of investigations and litigation during the former president's final years in office.

The Clintons reported paying more than $1.3 million in legal fees for themselves and former staffers last year, and estimated their remaining legal debts at between $1.75 million and $6.5 million. The estimates are imprecise because the congressional annual disclosure forms use broad ranges of figures.

Former presidents usually can keep their post-White House income confidential. But former president Clinton's income had to be made public because members of Congress must report their spouses' income as well as well as their own assets and earnings.

Clinton accepted only a fraction of the speaking invitations he received, Walker said.

Hillary Clinton reported receiving $2.85 million from the $8 million advance for her memoirs, which are due out next year. The Clintons also reported a blind trust with assets of $1 million to $5 million and deposit accounts of $5 million to $25 million.

washingtonpost.com.



To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (281580)7/29/2002 7:36:57 PM
From: CYBERKEN  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Too many people interested in politics get hung up on the tactical level and ignore the strategic. We are seeing it today in both parties as they worry about the tactical-level off-year election coming up. The president can build strategic value by doing his job well and speaking above the daily conflicts. The Bush team is handling that well, despite some grousing in the party ranks, as well as in the base itself. But the result is that Bush can maximize his impact on the off-year fights through both televised visits and fund raising. At the same time, it's already obvious to all but about 15% on the far left that he will walk in to a second term in 2004.

No, the Bush team didn't invent this strategic-level imaging, but they appear to be the first among the Republicans to have (finally) mastered it. The Democrats are stuck in the rut of acting like they still have Clinton in the White House, and continue their mission of trashing the opposition with lies. They are, in the time-honored historical sense, fighting the last war. Much of this is residue from the post-2000 legal conflict, which they should have walked away from instead of trying to reverse the close electoral result. The Republicans walked away from 2 shady election results: 1960 and 1976. And, while that was heartbreaking for them at the time, their party emerged stronger within a few election cycles because they didn't dwell on "getting screwed". That's a tactic that strokes the base for a while, but hurts a party's rebuilding efforts, as the Democrats will see over the rest of this decade.

We will see if the 200-year-old Democratic party is going to survive another two centuries, or fade away to obscurity like the Whigs, if, after their coming disappointment in 2002, they run Carville/Begala/Greenberg out of the party and begin the long road back to being a LOYAL opposition again...



To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (281580)7/29/2002 7:44:15 PM
From: ThirdEye  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
He has taken the high road and voters will remember that.

The Orwellian high road, and yes, we will remember that.

Learning to love Big Brother
George W. Bush channels George Orwell


Daniel Kurtzman Sunday, July 28, 2002

Here's a question for constitutional scholars: Can a sitting president be charged with plagiarism?

As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell. The work in question is "1984, " the prophetic novel about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda, cracking down on subversive thought and altering history to suit its needs. It was intended to be read as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism -- not a how-to manual.

Granted, we're a long way from resembling the kind of authoritarian state Orwell depicted, but some of the similarities are starting to get a bit eerie.

PERMANENT WAR
In "1984," the state remained perpetually at war against a vague and ever- changing enemy. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices.

Bush's war against terrorism has become almost as amorphous. Although we are told the president's resolve is steady and the mission clear, we seem to know less and less about the enemy we are fighting. What began as a war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda quickly morphed into a war against Afghanistan, followed by dire warnings about an "Axis of Evil," the targeting of terrorists in some 50 to 60 countries, and now the beginnings of a major campaign against Iraq. Exactly what will constitute success in this war remains unclear, but the one thing the Bush administration has made certain is that the war will continue "indefinitely."

MINISTRY OF TRUTH
Serving as the propaganda arm of the ruling party in "1984," the Ministry of Truth not only spread lies to suit its strategic goals, but constantly rewrote and falsified history. It is a practice that has become increasingly commonplace in the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely sanitized to remove the president's gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. 11 get spottier with each retelling, and the facts surrounding Bush's past financial dealings are subject to continual revision.

The Bush administration has been surprisingly up front about its intentions of propagating falsehoods. In February, for example, the Pentagon announced a plan to create an Office of Strategic Influence to provide false news and information abroad to help manipulate public opinion and further its military objectives. Following a public outcry, the Pentagon said it would close the office -- news that would have sounded more convincing had it not come from a place that just announced it was planning to spread misinformation.

INFALLIBLE LEADER
An omnipresent and all-powerful leader, Big Brother commanded the total, unquestioning support of the people. He was both adored and feared, and no one dared speak out against him, lest they be met by the wrath of the state.

President Bush may not be as menacing a figure, but he has hardly concealed his desire for greater powers. Never mind that he has mentioned -- on no fewer than three occasions -- how much easier things would be if he were dictator. By abandoning many of the checks and balances established in the Constitution to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, Bush has already achieved the greatest expansion of executive powers since Nixon. His approval ratings remain remarkably high, and his minions have worked hard to cultivate an image of infallibility. Nowhere was that more apparent than during a recent commencement address Bush gave at Ohio State, where students were threatened with arrest and expulsion if they protested the speech. They were ordered to give him a "thunderous ovation," and they did.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
The ever-watchful eye of Big Brother kept constant tabs on the citizens of Orwell's totalitarian state, using two-way telescreens to monitor people's every move while simultaneously broadcasting party propaganda.

While that technology may not have arrived yet, public video surveillance has become all the rage in law enforcement, with cameras being deployed everywhere from sporting events to public beaches. The Bush administration has also announced plans to recruit millions of Americans to form a corps of citizen spies who will serve as "extra eyes and ears for law enforcement," reporting any suspicious activity as part of a program dubbed Operation TIPS --

Terrorism Information and Prevention System.

And thanks to the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has sweeping new powers to monitor phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records. Best of all, law enforcement need not be burdened any longer with such inconveniences as probable cause.

THOUGHT POLICE
Charged with eradicating dissent and ferreting out resistance, the ever- present Thought Police described in "1984" carefully monitored all unorthodox or potentially subversive thoughts. The Bush administration is not prosecuting thought crime yet, but members have been quick to question the patriotism of anyone who dares criticize their handling of the war on terrorism or homeland defense. Take, for example, the way Attorney General John Ashcroft answered critics of his anti-terrorism measures, saying that opponents of the administration "only aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies. "

Even more ominous was the stern warning White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer sent to Americans after Bill Maher, host of the now defunct "Politically Incorrect," called past U.S. military actions "cowardly." Said Fleischer, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

What would it take to turn America into the kind of society that Orwell warned about, a society that envisions war as peace, freedom as slavery and ignorance as strength? Would it happen overnight, or would it involve a gradual erosion of freedoms with the people's consent?

Because we are a nation at war -- as we are constantly reminded -- most Americans say they are willing to sacrifice many of our freedoms in return for the promise of greater security. We have been asked to put our blind faith in government and most of us have done so with patriotic fervor. But when the government abuses that trust and begins to stamp out the freedom of dissent that is the hallmark of a democratic society, can there be any turning back?

So powerful was the state's control over people's minds in "1984" that, eventually, everyone came to love Big Brother. Perhaps in time we all will, too.

Daniel Kurtzman is a San Francisco writer and former Washington political correspondent.

sfgate.com



To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (281580)7/29/2002 9:36:49 PM
From: rich4eagle  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
What high road "evil axis and smoke em out" that high road