Industrial-strength hypocrisy

[CADsortaGUY]

Since we have delved into posting OP/EDs and such....

"anti-special interest"

Oh wait...I thought...Well...he said...Uhhh....Ummm....Well, dammit - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Kerry is a weak choice, but he still beats Bush hands-down. Given's Bush's abominable performance, "Anyone but Bush" is as good as reason as any in this case.

 

[Bleep]

Since we have delved into posting OP/EDs and such.

Sure a lot better than some on here that repeat Hannity and Limbaugh.

Bleep

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bleep

Since we have delved into posting OP/EDs and such.

Sure a lot better than some on here that repeat Hannity and Limbaugh.

Bleep

Hmm...daily circulation among the top 5 newpapers is what? What is the daily tune-in for Rush? Hannity?

And what makes written OP/EDs "better" than vocal or visual?

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

Mr. Bush's acceptance of special-interest money and his subsequent rewards to the industries doing the giving dwarf anything in Mr. Kerry's record.

click

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
What is the daily tune-in for Rush? Hannity?

CkG

not as many as the tune-in for American Idol.

 

[jahawkin]

From Wash. Times:

At the same time, no senator has raised more money ($640,000) from lobbyists over the past 15 years than Mr. Kerry.

Oh no, the horror!!!
From Wash. Post:

Mr. Bush has raised more than four times as much from lobbyists during the 2004 race as Mr. Kerry has -- $960,000 for Mr. Bush to $235,000 for Mr. Kerry.

Bush has raised more money from lobbyists for the 2004 race than Kerry has in 15 years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
From Wash. Times:

At the same time, no senator has raised more money ($640,000) from lobbyists over the past 15 years than Mr. Kerry.

Oh no, the horror!!!
From Wash. Post:

Mr. Bush has raised more than four times as much from lobbyists during the 2004 race as Mr. Kerry has -- $960,000 for Mr. Bush to $235,000 for Mr. Kerry.

Bush has raised more money from lobbyists for the 2004 race than Kerry has in 15 years.

Is Bush trying to say he's an anti-special interest candidate? (no)
Are you going to compare a national candidate with a state Senator(who isn't the nominee yet)?

Anyway this is about the hypocracy of kerry and edwards - this isn't about Bush as he isn't running as an "anti-special interest" candidate.

CkG

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bleep

Since we have delved into posting OP/EDs and such.

Sure a lot better than some on here that repeat Hannity and Limbaugh.

Bleep

Hmm...daily circulation among the top 5 newpapers is what? What is the daily tune-in for Rush? Hannity?

And what makes written OP/EDs "better" than vocal or visual?

CkG

op/ed usually dont Refer to you as "Stupid" or an "Idiot" or "Treasonous" if you dont tow their line like Hannity and Rush Do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, CkG, your own hypocrisy petticoats are showing. The one national candidate not beholden to special interests at all was (is?) Howard Dean, who you attacked mercilessly, along with every other special interest mouthpiece in the Country.

Special interest money is a fact of life in our Capital, none of the members of Congress or any recent President could have been elected or survived w/o it. While Kerry and other Dems may, indeed, be swayed by it, they haven't put out a "For Sale" sign, as have the current repub leaders...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Kerry is a weak choice, but he still beats Bush hands-down. Given's Bush's abominable performance, "Anyone but Bush" is as good as reason as any in this case.

I agree, Kerry is not perfect but he still seems better than Bush. We can't look for perfect presidents, it's always a choice of the lesser of two evils. In 2000 I thought Bush was the lesser of two evils and I voted for him, and unfortunately that decision came back to bite me in the ass. No nation building- yeah, should have remembered his father's infamous ability to keep promises. So it's quite possible Kerry wins the nomination, I vote for him and he turns out just as bad or worse than Bush, but at least there's the possibility he won't be. Voting for Bush again would guarantee a negligent president, so I'd rather take a risk with Kerry. Trying to judge how well a person will be as president during the nomination campaign seems simply futile to me, time and time again we see politicans make glamoruous campaign promises and do a 180 once in the White House.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, CkG, your own hypocrisy petticoats are showing. The one national candidate not beholden to special interests at all was (is?) Howard Dean, who you attacked mercilessly, along with every other special interest mouthpiece in the Country.

Special interest money is a fact of life in our Capital, none of the members of Congress or any recent President could have been elected or survived w/o it. While Kerry and other Dems may, indeed, be swayed by it, they haven't put out a "For Sale" sign, as have the current repub leaders...

Again, this isn't about me or Bush. This is about 2 people who are trying to claim they are "anti- special interest" but in actuality aren't. dean was no better than these two also - but I see you bought his load too. Good job - you've furthered the dean lie, you've tried make this about the poster, and you've pulled out the "Bush/Repub is worstester" excuse - you win a cookie.

CkG

 

[Cerb]

Get Cthulhu in power, make sure he knows you voted for him so he can kill you early on, and be done with it. There simply are no good candidates in this election.

 

[dirtboy]

I love it when someone points out that the commi-libs are hypocrits.... it's funny to watch their heads spin and watch them try to recover by saying that someone else is worse, so it must be okay that their candidate is a hypocrite just like they are.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I love it when someone points out that the commi-libs are hypocrits.... it's funny to watch their heads spin and watch them try to recover by saying that someone else is worse, so it must be okay that their candidate is a hypocrite just like they are.

Who would you vote for then, if it came to Bush vs. Kerry? Hypocrite #1 or Hypocrite #2?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I love it when someone points out that the commi-libs are hypocrits.... it's funny to watch their heads spin and watch them try to recover by saying that someone else is worse, so it must be okay that their candidate is a hypocrite just like they are.

"...that someone else is worse..." In lieu of Moonbeam comin' down on your ass with his mirror, I'll just accuse you of doing exatly what you're accusing the "commi-libs" of doing. Pfffft. Hypocrite.

 

[DealMonkey]

Back OT ... I cringe every time a democrat insists he's anti-special interests. What's the point? Both parties bow down to their own special interests and the dems certainly have theirs. Teacher unions, labor unions, environmental groups and on and on. Why even bother? Frankly, there are bigger fish to fry in the upcoming election.

 

[chess9]

CAD:

Thanks for telling us that Bush isn't running as the anti-special interests candidate. No one knew that. You just need your own web site to get these gems out to the rest of the world.

-Robert

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Is Bush trying to say he's an anti-special interest candidate? (no)
Are you going to compare a national candidate with a state Senator(who isn't the nominee yet)?

Anyway this is about the hypocracy of kerry and edwards - this isn't about Bush as he isn't running as an "anti-special interest" candidate.

CkG

Is Kerry a national candidate now that he's running for pres?? (yes)
Can we compare the $$$ raised by Kerry and Bush running as national candidates?? (yes)
Since Bush's campaign put out ads attacking Kerry as being beholden to special intrests, I think its fair game to compare the records of both Bush and Kerry, and in doing so, Kerry comes out as the "anti-special intrest" candidate.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Since we have delved into posting OP/EDs and such....

"anti-special interest"

Oh wait...I thought...Well...he said...Uhhh....Ummm....Well, dammit - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

CkG

Lawyers... hmmm..

How about oil and energy companies, Cad, care to post those numbers? Thought so.

BTW, does it not bother you in the least to know your candidate for prez isn't against special interest funding?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep - more of this "worstester" argument which totally misses the point. But go ahead and make bush the issue in everything while completely ignoring the point of the OP/ED.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - more of this "worstester" argument which totally misses the point. But go ahead and make bush the issue in everything while completely ignoring the point of the OP/ED.

CkG

When the differences are ten-fold (as in tele and pharm contributions), ya the issue of "worster" is relevant. What's the point of the op-ed?? Point out all the special-interest money that Kerry and Edwards are receiving?? Then show the same numbers for Bush. He's in a different league of special-interest money and payoff.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - more of this "worstester" argument which totally misses the point. But go ahead and make bush the issue in everything while completely ignoring the point of the OP/ED.

CkG

I'd say its a little more relevant than you and John and co bringing up Clinton and his exploits everytime a finger is pointed at bush to begin with... seeing as how bush is still prez and all...

But I see the point Cad... though I have no evidence to back up my contention that the op/ed part about how Kerry's 600k in lobbyist contributions is the most in the senate is hogwash, there's not a whole lot I can say without delving into the facts myself.

But I don't think there's any doubt that republican party contributions as a whole from energy companies will greatly outnumber anything Kery gets from lawyers...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Seems you both still have trouble with reading comprehension. The point of the article wasn't comparing either of them to Bush or anything else. It was about how they both claim to be "anti-special interest" and campaign on their supposed position when infact they take take take too. That might be why it's called "Industrial-strength hypocrisy" Nothing to do with Bush, me, or other people - just those two and what they say but then are actually doing.

Meh - whatever people want to do and think is fine with me...just eat it up.

CkG

 

[arsbanned]

So what? To get enough money to challenge against one of the most connected presidents in history (hell, his influence reaches to the Supreme Court, as the last election showed) Kerry is going to need to do whatever is necessary to get the cash.
As for politicians lying, we should all be used to that with the current admin....