PDA

View Full Version : Bush bait and switch


DEAD ZONE
July 17th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Bush means some repulsive things

Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Tqp...mIvpLHkfw%3D%3D

ast summer, President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership had a problem. The legislative linchpin of the president's reelection effort, a bill to add prescription-drug coverage to Medicare, lacked the votes in Congress, where conservative Republicans were chafing at the expense. GOP leaders finally secured a bare majority by consenting to the demands of 13 Republican House members, who agreed to vote yes if the cost would not exceed $400 billion over ten years. But that created another problem: The administration knew the bill would cost considerably more--$534 billion, to be exact.

The only non-loyalist who seems to have known the real number was Richard Foster, a 31-year veteran of the bureaucracy who was serving as chief actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The job of putting a lid on Foster fell to his boss, Thomas Scully, appointed by Bush to run Medicare. Scully instructed Foster not to reveal the number, or even to answer queries from Democrats, without his approval. Foster later said he understood Scully to be operating at the White House's direction. In one e-mail obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Foster asked Scully for permission to answer congressional queries that "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information." No, replied Scully's assistant, who then warned, "The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe." (Scully, by the way, later admitted to having negotiated a job with lobbying firms while he helped craft the bill, in which they had a massive interest.)

The Medicare bill was therefore widely understood to cost $400 billion when, at three o'clock in the morning on November 23, the House of Representatives assembled to vote on it. Surprisingly, a majority voted no. In response, the GOP leadership violated the customary time limit on votes, holding the vote open for nearly three hours and twisting enough arms to reverse the result shortly before dawn. (A hint as to their methods of persuasion came from retiring Republican Representative Nick Smith, who offhandedly revealed a few days later that certain "members and groups" had offered to contribute $100,000 to the congressional campaign of his son Brad, who was running for Smith's seat, if he voted yes.) When Democrats controlled Congress, they had extended a vote once, in 1987, for 15 minutes, after a member inadvertently caused a budget bill's defeat and then left town--provoking spasms of indignation from Republicans. The three-hour Medicare vote, congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute later wrote, was "the ugliest and most outrageous breach of standards in the modern history of the House." To ensure that it received proper credit for the new law, the Bush administration employed similarly unconventional means, hiring a pharmaceutical lobbyist to help sell it to distrustful voters. The advertising campaign included $9.5 million in TV advertising--which, astoundingly enough, was financed not by Bush's campaign, but by taxpayer dollars. Promotion of the law also involved the production of "video news releases," in which a "reporter"--actually, a p.r. agent--touted the virtues of the new Medicare law. The General Accounting Office (GAO) later concluded that the videos amounted to an illegal use of government money to produce propaganda, but not before 40 TV stations had already aired them.
Read the rest. I dont agree with all of it but most is dead on target.

Then we have this:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/July/15/update.htm

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Trespassing charges against two people who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s July 4 rally at the West Virginia Capitol were dropped Thursday because a city ordinance did not cover trespassing on Statehouse grounds.

Nicole and Jeff Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were removed from the event in restraints after taking off an outer layer of clothes to reveal homemade T-shirts that had President Bush’s name with a slash through it and the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back.

The Ranks were given summonses to appear in Charleston Municipal Court and released.

Charleston Municipal Judge Carole Bloom dismissed the charges on the motion of Assistant City Attorney Deloris Martin.Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU’s West Virginia chapter, said the organization has been monitoring a pattern of similar cases in other states. The ACLU in September filed a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances.

The Secret Service agreed to stop the practice, ACLU attorney Witold Walczak told The Charleston Gazette.
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004071520/

The fact that the gag order was placed on the man that clearly knew shows that knew it was a bait and switch.

RubberDucky
July 18th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Terrible. Does anybody else know of similar occurences happening during the reelection campaigns of other former Presidents?

sinecure
July 19th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Acording to democraticunderground.com-- [and we all know that you can take anything you find there to the bank...] Millard Fillmore had a Whig protester flogged within an inch of his life when he put a sign with Fillmore's name on the rump of his horse.

The resulting outcry [by the Town Criers Local 142] cost Fillmore the support of the Whigs, and in a fit of spite, Fillmore took steps to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in the North.

On the positive side, Fillmore kept the U.S. out of Viet Nam...:wink :question :lol :lol

Dumbie
July 19th, 2004, 10:53 AM
JULY 27 - CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST PROTESTOR ARRESTED AT BUSH TAMPA RALLY

Tampa, Florida
July 27, 2001

Today State Attorney Mark Ober announced the dismissal of charges against Grandmother Janis Lentz, who was arrested after Republican operatives pointed her out to Police for removal from an event at Tampa's Legends Field.

Ms. Lentz, Grandmother Suni Haught, and Gay Rights Activist Mauricio Rosas were arrested June 4, 2001. Mr. Rosas was accosted for holding a sign that read in part, "Boo!"

Supporters of President Bush were allowed to remain, displaying signs that were supportive of Mr. Bush, while the grandmothers, whose signs requested an investigation into the Florida election, were forcibly removed from the stadium when they insisted that they had a right to display their signs too.

Defense Attorneys W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr., Will Knight, and Luke Lirot of Tampa, represent the trio who has been charged since their June arrest with trespassing, and in the case of Grandmother Suni Haught, an additional charge of disorderly conduct.
http://www.fringefolk.com/tampa0604.html