Switch Sides?
- Thread starter Lurker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2004 elections
White House's Medicare Videos Are Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.
The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure.
....
The General Accounting Office said that a specific part of the videos, a made-for-television "story package," violated the prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.
....
The accounting office said the videos were "not strictly factual news stories" and were flawed by "notable omissions and weaknesses" in their explanation of the Medicare law. But the main problem, it said, is that they were "misleading as to source."
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html?th
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.
The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure.
....
The General Accounting Office said that a specific part of the videos, a made-for-television "story package," violated the prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.
....
The accounting office said the videos were "not strictly factual news stories" and were flawed by "notable omissions and weaknesses" in their explanation of the Medicare law. But the main problem, it said, is that they were "misleading as to source."
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html?th
I read a book about the Danish EU-presidency, based on anonomous interviews with Danish diplomats. It mentioned that Bush claimed that the tarrifs were inmposed in order to ensure that a free trade bill would pass Congress by one vote, and guarantied that they would then gradually remove the restrictions.davefoc said:
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
I am totally with davefoc on this one. I am simply amazed that anyone would vote for Bush based on his record in office to date. The largest terror attack ever perpetrated on US soil happened on his watch, about a month after he got a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the US". Bin Laden is still at large, and apparently ignored by the Bush administration in favour of Iraq. They attack Iraq amid rhetoric of WMD, yet none are found. Quite simply, Iraq was not a threat to the USA. The entire country is now a huge clusterf***, one year after he flew into the aircraft carrier and announced that major combat operations were over in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Meanwhile, he has managed to inherit a surplus, turn it into a hugge deficit and the economy in general has gone into the toilet. Rumsfeld takes responsibility for the prison abuses, and instead of firing him, he says that he has been doing a superb job.
Seriously, is there anything that Bush has done right?
Meanwhile, he has managed to inherit a surplus, turn it into a hugge deficit and the economy in general has gone into the toilet. Rumsfeld takes responsibility for the prison abuses, and instead of firing him, he says that he has been doing a superb job.
Seriously, is there anything that Bush has done right?
Bush's shaky base
Robert Novak
May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON -- During George W. Bush's keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union (ACU) last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president's remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper but conservative stalwart Donald Devine.
As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. Furthermore, he is one of about 20 percent of Republicans that polls classify as not committed to voting for Bush's re-election.
The conventional wisdom portrays the latest Zogby Poll's 81 percent of Republican voters committed to Bush as reflecting extraordinary loyalty to the president by the GOP base. Actually, when nearly one out of five Republicans cannot flatly say they support Bush, that could spell defeat in a closely contested election. When Don Devine is among those one out of five, it signifies that the president's record does not please all conservatives.
....
To begin with, he shares concern with many Republicans about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and where it is going. Businessmen I have talked to recently exercise limited patience in how long they will tolerate the bloodshed and confusion.
What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine's purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government's reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending. A study by Brian Riedl for the conservative Heritage Foundation last December showed government spending had exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Riedl called it a "colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998."
....
Bush's saving grace for the 2004 election may be John Kerry. In the end, I am sure Don Devine will cast his ballot for George W. Bush, if only because the alternative is noxious. How many of the rest of that 19 percent of non-Bush voting Republicans in the Zogby Poll will fall in line may determine the outcome Nov. 2. That is the importance of Devine's little sit-down strike.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20040520.shtml
There have not and will not be Bush ads touting his accomplishments, because, so far, there aren't any.
Their's will again be an election strategy based on hatred of the opposition.
(What next, me citing the Wall Street Journal?)
Robert Novak
May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON -- During George W. Bush's keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union (ACU) last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president's remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper but conservative stalwart Donald Devine.
As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. Furthermore, he is one of about 20 percent of Republicans that polls classify as not committed to voting for Bush's re-election.
The conventional wisdom portrays the latest Zogby Poll's 81 percent of Republican voters committed to Bush as reflecting extraordinary loyalty to the president by the GOP base. Actually, when nearly one out of five Republicans cannot flatly say they support Bush, that could spell defeat in a closely contested election. When Don Devine is among those one out of five, it signifies that the president's record does not please all conservatives.
....
To begin with, he shares concern with many Republicans about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and where it is going. Businessmen I have talked to recently exercise limited patience in how long they will tolerate the bloodshed and confusion.
What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine's purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government's reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending. A study by Brian Riedl for the conservative Heritage Foundation last December showed government spending had exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Riedl called it a "colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998."
....
Bush's saving grace for the 2004 election may be John Kerry. In the end, I am sure Don Devine will cast his ballot for George W. Bush, if only because the alternative is noxious. How many of the rest of that 19 percent of non-Bush voting Republicans in the Zogby Poll will fall in line may determine the outcome Nov. 2. That is the importance of Devine's little sit-down strike.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20040520.shtml
There have not and will not be Bush ads touting his accomplishments, because, so far, there aren't any.
Their's will again be an election strategy based on hatred of the opposition.
(What next, me citing the Wall Street Journal?)
"...concern for changing leaders at this time."
I really can't even grasp this concept it hurts my head. So the more things are fudged up the more we shouldn't change cause its scary.
Kind of sounds like our current rationale for staying in Iraq: we can't leave it in the chaos we've created.
I really can't even grasp this concept it hurts my head. So the more things are fudged up the more we shouldn't change cause its scary.
Kind of sounds like our current rationale for staying in Iraq: we can't leave it in the chaos we've created.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
subgenius said:
Get a sense of humor, please!!
I have no problems with the articles. My sarcastic comment was directed at the common source for all of your links.
I'm sorry if my light-hearted post temporarily derailed your political agenda.
You're never going to last until November at this rate.
Lighten up! Politics can be fun!
Here's some more of those "overused" smileys... 
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
subgenius said:
SG,
Since I so dislike Kerry it will admittedly take alot for me to actually hold my nose and vote for him. Both of these conditions are really just different aspects of the existence of "a general policy". Orders are not given that are unambiguously contrary to policy. (at least not by officers who are interested in staying out of jail)
So, both of these conditions being met will make it very clear that the DOD was acting in accord with Bush admin wishes. Therefore I would no longer have to hold my nose to vote for Kerry...I would feel it to be an obligation to vote Bush out, and give Mr. Kerry a chance to clean things up.
As of this time, there is still little evidence that this goes higher. I appreciate the links, but I'm not going to be looking for evidence from President Bush's enemies. If the evidence is real I will be able to get it from the Washington Post or NYT.
Quite simply,...for me to vote against Bush the evidence will have to be unimpeachable. It is safe to assume that I do not expect evidence of this kind to exist,...yet if it does it is necessary to remove this guy. The good thing here SG, is that if such evidence exists it should lead to his impeachment....so that therefore, even if he wins re-election he will still be removed.
SG, I appreciate your thoughtful post...sorry I didn't respond right away,..but I've had trouble accessing JREF recently....and I've been posting at munu more often.
-z
BTW: Are you guys aware of the huge "forum split" controversy going on in the other threads/subfora? Took me a day just to read one thread on it. I'm now at munu just in case JREF goes tits-up...come on over...the water's fine!
