From the New York Times:

"In Washington on Wednesday, President Bush sat next to his brother Jeb 
Bush, the governor of Florida, and vowed to spend $235 million to buy a 
number of highly unpopular oil leases in a state where his brother is 
running for re-election and that handed him the presidency in 2000 by 
the slimmest of margins.  Jeb Bush acknowledged that he would probably 
gain politically from the plan. But he and the president insisted that 
it was also sound policy because the move would protect beaches and 
wetlands.

All of this has prompted officials in California, a heavily Democratic 
state that President Bush lost by a lopsided margin, to ask why saving 
their beaches and sensitive environment was not as high a priority, 
particularly since many here have been fighting offshore oil leases in 
the Santa Barbara area for decades."

...and...

"Last winter, the Justice Department took months to decide whether a 
redistricting plan for Congressional seats in Mississippi that was 
supported by blacks and Democrats met the requirements of the Voting 
Rights Act. The effect of the delay was to block the Democratic plan and 
allow a plan drawn by federal judges and favorable to Republicans to go 
into effect.

Now, the Justice Department is promising to rule quickly on a Florida 
redistricting map that was drawn by Republicans. The effect of the 
speedy decision will be to undermine a main element of a Democratic 
court challenge to the Florida plan."

29 responses total.

Well, it's obviously all the fault of Hillary Clinton.  

Interesting, too, how now it's finally coming out that the California
politicians were right -- Enron and other energy companies *were* creating
artifical shortages and jacking up trading volumes to increase energy
prices.  I hope, given this evidence that we can't expect these companies to
behave when left to their own devices, Michigan and other states will
abandon their deregulation plans.

#1> It is. If she were better in bed, maybe Bill wouldn't have looked
elsewhere, he wouldn't have been impeached, and Gore would have won a narrow
victory instead of losing a narrow victory.

re #0: Oh my God!  You mean the winner of an election can make 
decisions, and has influence that he can use to benefit his political 
friends, and he can further his political principles?  I had no idea.  
Now that a Republican is in office, this has got to be STOPPED!  NOW!

John, there's a difference between making decisions based on principles and
making decisions based on political allegiances. IF Bush is so interested in
offshore oil leases, why isn't he also following up with California?
California deserves to get punished because they didn't put him in office?

If your point is that Democrats have done corrupt things, too, well, *snort*
please. "It's ok if my guy does it because your guys do it too!" belongs on
elementary school playgrounds, not in Washington.

re #5: Did you say that 4 or 8 years ago?

Politics drives the world.  People form alliances and hope to further 
their own interests; if they win the election, they get stuff they 
want.  If they lose, they don't.

President Johnson (a Democrat) retaliated against a texas panhandle
county (Johnson was a texan) who voted against him by ordering the
closure of a local US Air Force base (economic punishment).  This 
is why to this day nuclear weapons are trucked or transported by 
rail to and from Pantex(R) (also in the same county) instead of 
being flown in and out of a secure military base.

Bush's Cuba policy is another example of the same thing.  The only
consideration that went into it is the knowledge that it'd win his party
votes in Florida.  If he really had a moral problem with economic contact
with countries that stifle political debate and imprison people who disagree
with the ruling party, we wouldn't be trading with China.  In fact, the
logical gap here is pretty obvious -- the stated reason we trade with China
is that it will encourage democracy, the stated reason we *don't* trade with
Cuba is it will prevent democratic reform.  How stupid does he think we are?

resp:3  Well, of course not.  Bill Clinton is most likely a sex addict.

Stop this unpatriotism, or I'll call in someone who will.

Dissent is patriotic, according to our Constitution. 

I think Phil has taken my advice and given up sleeping.

I am surprised that curlie would do anything inthe patriotic vein.

#6> Do you mean, Did I excuse Clinton's corruption on the grounds that
Republicans are corrupt? I don't believe I ever did. I *did* excuse Clinton's
marital infidelity on the grounds that some of the Republicans chastising him
for it were guilty of same, but that's not the same thing, because marital
infidelity is less relevant to his job than repaying political cronies.
 
Next time you try to accuse someone of being a hypocrite, John, make sure you
have the documentation to back it up.

re #14: I asked a question.  I didn't accuse you of being a hypocrite.  
I'll clarify that I don't think you're a hypocrite, but I do you're 
being partisan rather than basing your statements on any other 
principles.  I think your problem with Bush is that they put an "R" 
after his name instead of a "D".

<shrugs>  There are some of us who call it fighting dirty when either side
does it.  There's a shocker for you.

Re  #13: probably not what the majority calls patriotic, which I call a
lot of hupocritical hype. 

re #16: There are very few who do so evenly.

  I'm kind of surprised nobody has tried to tie this to Bush's failed
  attempts to open ANWR to drilling.  After putting a "national security"
  spin on the need to extract oil from virgin wilderness in Alaska, it's
  kind of funny to see Bush shelling out a quarter of a billion dollars
  in public money to shut down oil wells in Florida.. 

#15> My problem with Bush is a lot more complex than the letter in parantheses
after his name. I think Carter, a brilliant and compassionate man, was a
terrible president. I think Reagan was a fairly good president. I think
Clinton was a passable President, but a terrible liar (in both senses -- he
lied too much, and he lied too obviously) and blatantly corrupt. I could do
without Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). I loathe Gov. John Engler (R), but I also
resent that he's leaving office because of term limits and not because the
voters of Michigan were given the opportunity to come to their senses.
 
I'm Libertarian, John, so if you want to accuse me of blind partisanship, you
can kiss my hairy brown ass. (That's a Libertarian joke. ;} )
 
If you were just asking me a harmless, meaningless question, John, why did
you then accuse me of what you had just denied accusing me of: Making
judgments based on party affiliations, not on general princples (which is,
in my view, hypocrisy). Voting on principles is like this: You have two
candidates to choose from. There's some policy -- abortion, say -- that you
feel strongly about. You choose the candidate that best reflects your view
on abortion. If that candidate wins, you expect them to follow through on that
viewpoint. Supporters of the losing candidate shouldn't act surprised
(disappointed, yes) when the winning candidate fails to support their
viewpoints as readily. But the affiliations should be based on principled
lines, not on geopolitical ones -- giving special consideration to voting
districts that voted you in isn't supporting your supporters, it's corruption
(unless those voting districts are INEXORABLY tied to the issue, such as a
Democrat Governor of Michigan supporting the auto industry -- he wouldn't be
supporting the tri-county Metro Detroit area as a geographic unit
deliberately, but rather by the happenstance that that's where the bulk of
Michigan's auto industry is).

well said. i too, am sick of being labelled a stinking liberal for criticising
the president. i belong to no political party and do not vote. but i do live
here and i pay taxes which i feel entitles me to an opinion.

re#8:  The reason we started trading with the PRC was because it
started to move in a direction that we approve of and because of
the practicalities of the situation, PRC was/is self sufficient.
Doing business with the PRC does tend to move things in the right
direction as far as we are concerned.  It is in our national interest.
It wasn't that long ago that the US shut down chinese newspapers
in the US merely for carrying ads for PRC banks because that
was 'trading with the enemy'.  

Cuba on the other hand is not self sufficient and only very recently
started to move in a direction that is in our interest to encourage.
It is unclear how 'free trade' with Cuba would benefit anyone
other than those few oligarchs currently in power.  Indeed, 
substituting our support for that of the former USSR would only
prop up and perpetuate the existing regime rather than encourage
much needed reform.  It is in the US interest to maintain the status
quo.

I'm sure if California had a GOP governor it would get the same
attention and benefit from the current administration as Florida.
Just as I'm sure when the situation was reversed the same thing
happens.  Its part and parcel of the way the game is played,
for better or worse.  It is interesting to note that the current
GOP administration has good relations with the current chicagoland
administration - one could hardly mistake Daley for a republican.

i was under the impression cuba and most of its citizens don't want to trade
with the US even though it's made things tough for them. the big middle
finger.

i love all the crap i have that says "made in china".

Cuba would love to trade with us.  They'd love it even more to become a
US tourism destination (they were once before, in the 30's).  They'd
certainly love to export cigars to us.  They already do all these things
with Canada.

you sure?

Pretty sure - I've seen news articles on and off the past few years
talking about this, and there's even web sites -
 http://www.cigarfriendly.com/cuba.htm
Cuba is already legally exporting cigars to the US -- apparently
congress exempted itself from the regular trade embargo.
 http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cuba/US-Cuba/bloomberg062001.html

Re #19, #20:  I think we are all disgusted when politicians try to
buy our votes with our own money.  Or at least, we should be; too
many people have forgotten the observation of 2 centuries ago by
that fellow from France, that such is the way that republics perish.

Perhaps we should quantify how much public subsidy everyone gets
each year, and if it exceeds their taxes they don't get to vote.
Ditto for political contributions/lobbyists for corporations.
We should count the entire tax subsidy for gasohol against the
fuel-ethanol industry's taxes, to give just one example.

Re #23:  I'd prefer to buy from Mexico, Taiwan, India or any of a
host of South American, Carribean and African nations, but I seldom
see goods from any of those places.  I'd rather give money to
campesinos than whoever's favored by the Beijing regime this year.

I imagine that's possible.  I'd be very surprised if there weren't import
companies that try to be socially responsible about who they buy from.  
(Someone back me up here -- I only know about fair trade coffee, but I imagine
there's gotta be similar setups for other goods.)

Re #25: I have a WAV file from a Radio Havanna shortwave broadcast that
includes a tourism ad that references a Canadian travel agency, IIRC.  I
could dig it up for you.

I've held onto it mostly because I find the Radio Havanna identification
amusing.  They state they're broadcasting from "Havanna, Cuba, free
territory in the Americas."

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss