Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

So Kerry doesn't like special interests.............

Feb 4, 2004 12:15PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Kerry and special interests...
Feb 4, 2004 9:39PM PST

Hi, Del.

Any politician alive has to accept some money from "special interests," or (s)he won't be elected. even though unconstitutional, I'd welcome a tight per-voter spending limit such as that in the UK. But the Republicans have a much clearer record of pandering to their contributors, the most blatant being the Medicaid Reform Act's prohibition agains the SSA using its size to negotiate lower prescription prices -- the direct opposite of the free market in action!

BTW, you can avoid the "runoff" problem with long links by using the following template for long links:
{url=site.com}text{/url}, except replacing the squiggly brackets with square brackets.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I was wondering how that's done. What about bold & italics? (NT)
Feb 5, 2004 2:07AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) Bold would be {b} and {/b}, (replace { with [ ), {i} for italics
Feb 5, 2004 3:19AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I don't really see how you have the nerve to say this...
Feb 5, 2004 4:01AM PST
But the Republicans have a much clearer record of pandering to their contributors,

When the world saw the numerous instances of the Brady bunch in the Rose Garden with Clinton and Kennedy, Kerry, and the rest of the Democrats.

Nor Haliburtons selection in Bosnia by the Clinton Admin after Haliburton donated to the DNC. Of course most of us thought it was because there simply are very few contractors who bid the jobs Haliburton does up until y'all said it was a result of political donations.

Go to good old Byrd's home state and see all the places with his name attached as a result of his pandering to special interests as well as to his ego.

No Dave, there is no "clear record" of who panders most to "special interests".

PS - you REALLY don't understand "free market" do you.
- Collapse -
Re: I don't really see how you have the nerve to say this...
Feb 5, 2004 5:01AM PST

Hi, Ed.

Bipartisan watchdog groups and fund-raising stats say that Bush has been much more active in fund-raising than Clinton ever was -- Bush just doesn't invite donors to stay at the White House. See, for example, Bush Beats Clinton in Fundraising Sweepstakes. Nice try to mask your own activities with a reference to a piker by comparison -- same with truth-telling!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
When you mention bipartisan and "watchdog groups" in...
Feb 5, 2004 8:42AM PST

the same sentence please mention them by name as most are neither.

Regarding the fund raising. So Bush is more successful--Clinton was praised for his ability while he was doing it.

Fund raising however is simply a red herring as no specific mention of any "back scratching" has been presented. If you really are interested you will find that an awful lot of the funds he has raised are from small contributors (individuals) having nothing to do with special interests.

- Collapse -
Bush also doesn't give China missile technology while collecting
Feb 5, 2004 8:47AM PST

their 'contributions'.

- Collapse -
I wish I had a link, but quick search didn't turn one up
Feb 5, 2004 4:16AM PST

Was just on Fox news about a group of Hollywood individuals forming an what is recognized by campaign laws as an independant group so their fund raising is not part of Democratic party or other such and outside those limits.

Their statement of purpose? anyone but Bush. The rollcall? all high power, high dollar, media movers and shakers, with so far millions committed to their campaign.

IMO, neither side has any 'moral ground' on taking money from special interest or groups. And groups like the pharmacical industry will give to either who will vote their way the most, OR, the one they believe will win election to hope to get them to vote their way.

Now I'll agree there is lots wrong with the bill passes supposely to help people with prescription drug cost. Like the original provision that Congress would trade their own privilged drug payments in for whatever the bill gave the public. A provision that was quietly stripped with no fanfare and no publicity in committee before final vote. And not one Representative or Senator stood up in session to ask why I bet.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, I wonder what agenda those folks have.
Feb 5, 2004 4:34AM PST

I don't think they're doing it in the public interest.

- Collapse -
Actually they're just trying to elect someone they think will be better for them
Feb 5, 2004 4:46AM PST

and their industry. I really can't fault them for that. But just goes to show shenaigans on all sides.

And unfortunately true just about everyone votes for what is best for them and maybe their community, not for the country. But then, that's sort of the purpose of our process.

We all elect representatives to serve out interest, and their suspose to work out how best to protect us with others protecting theirs, so compromises that hurt everyone equally. Wink

- Collapse -
Re:Hmmm, I wonder what agenda those folks have.
Feb 5, 2004 5:04AM PST

Hi, KP.

Maybe they don't like the already looming spectre of increasing government censorship? And while they're doubtless actining in their own interests, methinks their own interests are much more closely allied to the public's than the typical Republican coroporate donors', who wants a license to increase their own profits at public expense (be it the drug, energy, or insurance industry).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Hmmm, I wonder what agenda those folks have.
Feb 5, 2004 5:40AM PST

"they don't like the already looming spectre of increasing government censorship? "

From their view, that's a good argument. Not sure that their views on what is good guidelines for public entertainment and what is "spectre of increasing government censorship" agree with the majority of citizens. I don't have a problem so much with the what is offered as entertainment, as I do with it being forced on everyone. Heck, I'm normal enough semi-stereotypical male, I don't get incensed at shots of nice built women in scant outfits, not when it is where and when I expected anyway. Fortunately I'm not trying to raise kids and teach them any morals nowadays, but my sister and brother are.

Nice turn of phrase to make it ominous evil governmental oppression vs industry regulation though.

"...methinks their own interests are much more closely allied to the public's than the typical Republican coroporate donors'"

Ah, Dave, they may not make machine parts, but Hollywood producers, directors, actors, studios, etc, are pretty much equalivant to corporate donors. They're avoiding the laws regarding corporate donation though by forming associations of individuals. It would be about the same thing if members of sevearl board of directors form the same type group for individual donations. The money is legally the individuals I guess, but they're acting on the behalf of the industry, an investment in their own future earnings.

But as I said, is just an example that everyone does it. And they're just trying to promote their interest, as almost everyone does in choosing a candidate for office.

- Collapse -
Right, the public interest. Like Janet Jackson, MTV, Snoop Dog, etc.
Feb 5, 2004 8:50AM PST

Sorry, they're no more aligned with my interests than Enron was.

- Collapse -
Sounds like two peas in a pod, Kerry and Kennedy. (NT)
Feb 5, 2004 2:04AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:So Kerry doesn't like special interests.............
Feb 5, 2004 4:52PM PST

They keep passing the ammo. First Howard "EEEEYAAAAAAHHHH!!!" Dean,and now this (for starters, there's LOTS more coming...):

"At least three times in his Senate career, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees, records show."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/05/politics0226EST0429.DTL&type=printable

We need two serious parties, not one real American party vs. a faux American/We-must-surrender-our-sovereignty-to-the-UN/US-Is-Bad-everybody-else-is-better/We-are-the-world-we-are-the-anti-Americans" party.

This is just too easy!

DE