RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Something fishy around Senator Edwards' campaign...(34 posts)

Something fishy around Senator Edwards' campaign...ClydeTri
May 7, 2003 6:41 AM
http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx
skirting campaign finance laws, are we? nmDougSloan
May 7, 2003 7:09 AM
I wondered about this the other day whenOldEdScott
May 7, 2003 7:46 AM
I was browsing through the latest campaign finance reports. I was pretty shocked. He's raised a HUGE amount of money, a great big chunk of it from trial lawyers. Law firms are notorious for funneling money inappropriately through their legions of 'associates.'
what I've seenDougSloan
May 7, 2003 7:52 AM
I've not seen direct abuse like that appears to be, but often I've seen lawfirms "buy a table" of 10 or so at fundraising dinners, with (very expensive) reservations in individual names. I'd bet that's common.

Doug
Aw, c'mon--the Bush campaign stole a whole damn Navy jet.Silverback
May 7, 2003 1:19 PM
How come none of you conservatives is harping about the waste of government money involved in making that carrier landing in a nice, photogenic jet instead of fluttering out there by helicopter or waiting for the ship to dock and stepping aboard? How come nobody's hammering Ari Fleischer for saying it was "out of range" when it was 30 miles from shore? This thing fails the Clinton Test: If it were Bill, would we still love it?
just can't let the Clinton camparisons go, can you? :-) nmDougSloan
May 7, 2003 1:29 PM
Report today: $1 million extra to keep the carrier out therecory
May 8, 2003 8:48 AM
Hard to shrug this one off: AP says Ari admitted Wednesday that it cost an extra $1 million to keep the carrier out an extra day, 30 miles from home, so Bush could make the landing. To say nothing of delaying the homecoming of 5,000 or so of those brave men and women of whom he always speaks so proudly. And to say nothing else about the $9 billion his budget cuts from veterans' benefits, for that matter....
contrary to what I heardDougSloan
May 8, 2003 9:02 AM
I saw a report on CNN last night that said that ship was actually ahead of schedule, and was not prepared to dock anyway. It said something to the effect that docking a carrier is not like parking a car, and lots of arrangements had to be made for the dock, security, family members meeting crew, etc. It said that every "top brass" official contacted said there was zero delay due to the President's visit.

As to the jet landing, the report did mention that approximately 30-40 members of congress get paid junkets to the Paris Air Show each year, and the cost for that is many factors more expensive.

I'll see if I can find a confirmed source.

Doug
here it is -- CNNDougSloan
May 8, 2003 9:05 AM
part of the report:

Navy officials said Wednesday that the method Bush used to travel to the Lincoln did not add additional costs and did not delay the ship's May 2 docking in San Diego, California.

Both the White House and the Navy said the carrier was closing in on San Diego ahead of schedule and theoretically could have made it to the dock a day early.

But Navy officials said carrier arrival dates are firmly set and are rarely changed because of the hardship it puts on families who fly to the port of arrival from all over the country to greet loved ones.

Also, the logistics surrounding a carrier arrival are such that delays or advanced arrivals would not allow time for preparations to be made -- and the proper equipment to be in place -- to handle the large ship as it comes into port, Navy officials said.

Responding to questions about the cost of the flights for the president and his staff, Navy officials said that the cost of flying the president on the S-3 Viking jet was the same as it would have been had they been flown to the carrier on a helicopter.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/08/bush.lincoln/index.html
The rationale for going by jet still was a bald-faced lie. . .czardonic
May 8, 2003 11:02 AM
. . .and the event still placed politics over the interests of the American people.
Was it a National Guard jet ?????MR_GRUMPY
May 8, 2003 11:39 AM
Maybe George was trying to make up air time.
maybe the sailors/troops liked it nmDougSloan
May 8, 2003 12:17 PM
I'm sure they did. That excuses lies? (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 1:22 PM
also, did Dukakis own that tank he drove around? ;-) nmDougSloan
May 8, 2003 12:18 PM
Are you equating the two events? (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 1:21 PM
in concept, yesDougSloan
May 8, 2003 1:34 PM
Dukakis rode in a military vehicle for pure political publicity, right?

From the CNN article, pilots need a certain amount of seat time, anyway, so there is a good chance that this ride did not result in $1 extra cost for taxpayers. Nonetheless, it was arguably a political stunt, but there certainly is plenty of precedent for it on both sides of the aisle.

Doug
Where is the equivalent Democratic precedent?czardonic
May 8, 2003 1:52 PM
Dukakis pulled a stunt, but he was not intentionally trying to play American's natural sentimentality towards their troops during wartime to his political advantage. Was he?

Nor did, as far as I know, did he ever desert his country for political purposes during one time of national emergency only to insinuate himself into a military setting under false pretenses, again for political purposes, during another time of national emergency.
I guess them Dems have nothing else ...Live Steam
May 8, 2003 1:58 PM
to criticize so this event and Bill Bennett's legal gambling habits are all they have :O) If memory servers me, Clinton did quite a lot of unnecessary traveling toward the end of his last term. He racked up the most miles traveled by any President and he went with a huge entourage that cost the tax payers millions. Maybe he was just trying to rack up some frequent flier miles for use after he left office :O)
Is that what Bush was doing on 9/11?czardonic
May 8, 2003 2:28 PM
Racking up frequent flier miles?
? nmLive Steam
May 8, 2003 4:04 PM
Another highlight in Bush's record of cowardice and cover-up.czardonic
May 8, 2003 4:32 PM
"The Bush administration appeared to back away yesterday from its claim that a threat was lodged against Air Force One on the day terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32319-2001Sep26?language=printer)

Note how Fleischer and Cheney hypothesize about the origin and legitimacy of the threat, yet there is no evidence of the threat's existence in the first place.
our brave military man......rufus
May 11, 2003 7:19 AM
was probably huddled under his desk soiling his panties.
Let me get this straight ...Live Steam
May 11, 2003 10:02 AM
you guys believe that Bush should have jetted back to DC while it was unclear what was happening and not knowing what the next target might have been, thus potentially putting himself in harms way. Yet you also believe that his landing on an aricraft carrier in a jet was foolish because he could possibly have been hurt or killed? I think it took balls to land on the carrier. I don't think that is what he is lacking if you are looking for fault. He has taken political risks as well as personal risks IMO od course :O) Heck your favorite Tzar or is that Czar? Dick Cheney, would have assumed the Presidency had Bush been killed on 9/11!
no, i don't think he should have jetted right backrufus
May 11, 2003 3:55 PM
but he shouldn't have had his staff concoct some BS story about a threat directed at air force one to cover for his weak ass. he should have had the balls to come right out and say that because of the attacks, he and his advisors thought it prudent to take all necessary precautions. but this administration can't come right out and give a straight answer for anything.

and i don't think his landing on the carrier was foolish cause he might have been killed or injured. if he wants to take that risk for the sake of a photo op, go ahead. but then again, don't come up with some BS story about having to do it that way cause it was too far away for a copter. be a man and say you did it cause it was cool.
I agree on your second point, but I will have to ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 7:49 AM
say he deserves a pass on point one. First he was only in office for a few months. His staff wasn't even fully up to speed and manned. And, this was a unprecedented event. I am sure that there was no intention to obfuscate so much as I am sure there was mass confusion and lack of information and possibly conjecture on the part of the Secret Service as to what may be the next target.

Weak ass? OK if you say so. Not quite as pudgy as that fat ass Clinton though :O) If you ask me, Clinton was a real pu$$y compared to GW. GW is a man's man - a rancher/outdoorsman. I always laughed at Clinton's purported 7 minute miles. I doubt his fat a$$ did 10 minute miles!
he PRETENDS to be a man's man...rufus
May 12, 2003 9:55 AM
when what he is is a pampered spoiled rich boy from yale. probably never did a day's work on his "ranch" in his life. that's what the meskin's are for. not that's it's even a working ranch anyway.
he PRETENDS .... just as Al Bore boasted of how ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 10:34 AM
he picked "tobbacky" and hung it to dry. The guy grew up in a hotel in DC fo Jimminy sake. I'm not sure about the ranch being a working ranch or not. Who cares any way? The best part is that it irritates the hell ot of you guys ;0) Now ya' know how we all felt about Bubba!
When will you stop making excuses for this lying coward!?czardonic
May 12, 2003 10:26 AM
Only on office for a "few months"? "Few" as in over eight? "Few" enough that he needed to take an entire month off?

The intention to obfuscate is obvious. If there was confusion and conjecture, they should have said so instead of lying to the American people, especially impressionable fellows like yourself.

As for "rancher/outdoorsman", even Laura admits that they are "dashboard cowboys" who roam the range from behind the wheel of a pick-up truck. Are you even outdoors if you are inside a car?
OK I am very impressionable. Want to know what my ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 10:40 AM
Nah. I won't go there!

Instead I will remind you that GW is President and will probably be until 2008. The House and Senate are both controlled by Republicans and will gain greater control in the next election cycle and you my furry little friend will have to suck it up for quite a while! Yeehaa! "I'm an ol' cow hand on the Rio Grande"!
Power before principles, I see. No wonder you're a Bush fan. (nm)czardonic
May 12, 2003 11:07 AM
Bravo! Nice comeback :O) I would just like to know ...Live Steam
May 12, 2003 1:10 PM
what high and mighty principals Bubba stood for. Shall we put them in alphabetical order or in the order in which they were abused?

lying
treasonist
lying
adultery
adultery
adultery (probably more of this in there)
lying
fraud
lying
adultery
lying
sexual harassment (probably more of this in there)
lying
obstruction of justice
lying
accessory to murder
lying
treasonist
lying
racketeering
lying
steeling
more lying

Actually there is probably lots more of all of this in his resume!
IOW, you've no more excuses for the lying coward coke-head. (nm)czardonic
May 12, 2003 1:55 PM
This doesn't make any sense to meKristin
May 12, 2003 12:24 PM
If this was a scheme, it was one of the dumbest ones ever thunk up. I agree it sounds fishy but help me understand here.

1. Why couldn't the firms just donate a larger amount of money under the firms name? Is there a cap? Is it illegal for a law firm to donate to a campaign?

2. The article is implying that these firms are enticing certain of their employee's (especially those with money troubles) to donate. What enticement are they using? I would assume monitary. If so, what do they gain by contributing this way. It costs them much more in the long run.

3. Why in the world would anyone think they could keep this many random doners (people with money issues, I might add) under wraps? Someone was bound to leak.
Here are the basicsLive Steam
May 12, 2003 1:22 PM
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa112199.htm

You will see that there are limits to individual contributions.

Why would someone agree to go along with it? Hmm? Maybe they want to stay in good stead with the boss. Maybe they are also being compensated in some way like under the table money or the promise of a bonus. Did they fear being caught? Obviously not. People abuse election laws all the time. I would guess they are tough to ferret out and prove in court. I heard stories about a lot of abuses during the last national election here in NY. There were tons of voting machines out of order in strong Republican districts. It was also reported that quite a few deceased individuals were voting that day :O) Hmm? Hillary did run in NY. I know another Right Wing conspiracy theory at work :O)