And just who's benefitted the most from 9/11?

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

And just who's benefitted the most from 9/11?

Post by andrewgd » Apr 23rd 2003, 3:20 am

Ok, maybe the subject is a little off, but it sort of fits this story:
President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million — twice the amount of his first campaign — to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.
Is it just me, or is it totally disgusting to use ground zero of 9/11 as a campaign tactic? Its also amusing that he will be kicking off his campaign on national security, while his track record (at this point) isn't a home run:
Osama Bin Laden: Missing
Anthrax Mailer: Missing
Saddam Hussein: Missing

But, he used 9/11 to smash Saddam's regime, maybe he can use it to win an election, right?
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Apr 23rd 2003, 5:58 am

Ho hum... I rather suspected something like this might happen... *sigh*. I worry about his list of countries next up for attack, and how as soon as someone mentions september 11th, everyone gets all upset about everything and Bush can do what he wants. There was an extremely telling quote from Clinton reported in the papers this week. I will try to dig it out.

I have a question though - when politicians campaign in the USA, are they free to spend as much money as they like on buying TV slots etc? (obviously, providing they have it). Where do they get this money and how is that regulated?

The reason I ask is that over here, in the lead-up to elections, parties are not allowed a proportion of media coverage relating to the amount of money they pay: they each get 3 or 4 10 min slots to make a 'party election broadcast' usually after the evening news. It's all regulated and having more money doesn't mean you can buy national media coverage.

Also, over here there is a register of donations so that the party who receives donations of over a certain amount (and I think it's pretty low) has to list how much they were given, by who and when. The idea, I believe, was to counter the situation where politicians were
a) getting money from third parties in order to have their political agendas pushed in the Houses of Parliament; and
b) so that the electorate can see where the money comes from which funds the party; if a sizeable donation was received from a body or person you don't like, you'd be aware of the political affiliations...

How does it work with finances for political parties in the USA? I'm assuming you must have something similar...

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Apr 23rd 2003, 12:48 pm

It is not surprising at all, the right have been using it to do everything and anything.

At this point it is just pointless to try and stop it. Problem is the majority of Americans are friggin morons and would believe that Saddam himself was flying one of the planes into the WTC on 9/11.

There is nothing that can be done. Bush will most likely be reelected, he is still seen favorably in the polls (damn good thing those planes hit the wtc huh?), Iraq is seen as a success, and N. Korea hasn't nuked us .... yet. Plus look at how ridiculous the democratic candidates are, Lieberman will never win, and (besides FLorida and Nader) he was probably the reason Gore didn't win in the first place (like he had a chance in hell anyway, good ol' jeb made sure of that). At this point the only candidates I am seriously thinking of voting for are Cthulhu himself or Al Sharpton (just for shits and giggles).

To answer the question posed in the subject line Bush and the Right. I have said it from day one. The second I saw the smoke billowing from the towers (and where they once stood) and smelled the lovely smell it emitted for days I knew America was screwed worse than it was before, because the would give Bush and his right wing militia the "right" to do anything they want. I think the more important question is who is really guilty?

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Re: And just who's benefitted the most from 9/11?

Post by lance » Apr 23rd 2003, 1:35 pm

andrewgd wrote:Ok, maybe the subject is a little off, but it sort of fits this story:
President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million — twice the amount of his first campaign — to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.
Is it just me, or is it totally disgusting to use ground zero of 9/11 as a campaign tactic? Its also amusing that he will be kicking off his campaign on national security, while his track record (at this point) isn't a home run:
Osama Bin Laden: Missing
Anthrax Mailer: Missing
Saddam Hussein: Missing

But, he used 9/11 to smash Saddam's regime, maybe he can use it to win an election, right?
Yup,

fairly shamless but when you have 70%+ approval ratings one can do no wrong? Right?

Traditionally I believe the party conventions are normally held in July and August respectively.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
ducksqueak
Let's Bolt Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Nov 17th 2002, 7:28 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by ducksqueak » May 13th 2003, 10:03 pm

To answer one of Starbug's questions first, yes there are laws regulating how much money an individual can give to a political party or candidate. I am not sure of the amount. But there are all kinds of loopholes that people seem to find so they can donate more to their beloved party or candidate. Also, there is no equality in terms of political ads. You have the money and you can buy a commercial spot. I rather like the idea of every party getting an equal time slot. Maybe I should move to the UK.....

As for our sainted president, there is nothing to be said. He is capitalizing off one of the US's greatest tragedies ever. Maybe the same can be said about Governor Pataki in NYC. He was governor when it happened. He showed great dignity and leadership during our city's crisis and he was re-elected, but I do not think his campaign was shameful. He had campaign commercials where he actually thanked NY for it's strength. I voted for him because he went about it the right way. He still continues to do a great job as our governor. Bush, on the other hand, has not been that great for our country. He has haphazardly handled foreign affairs (North Korea and threats to Syria anyone?), jumped into a war that cannot be called a success (I'm still waiting for WMD or Saddam's head on a meat hook.), and our economy is in shambles. For him to use 9/11 as his gimmick is unacceptable. I did not even think he was a great leader in the days after the attack. Rudy Guliani was the only leader for me. I have never liked President Bush and never will. And I am the person he is campaigning to. I'll tell you one thing, he'll never win my vote because he was in office when 9/11 happened. It's in poor taste if he or his public relations people think they can win me and people like me over. I hope Tom Daschle runs. He's someone who would get my vote. What an amazing man.

Just found this quote and I wanted to add it.
"When someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a so-called political cause, at that point the political cause becomes immoral and unjust and they should be eliminated from any serious discussion, any serious debate."
----Rudy Giuliani, in a CNN interview 09-11-02
"Gee, you're beautiful when you're unconscious."
---Link in "Hairspray"

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

stuff

Post by lance » May 14th 2003, 8:58 am

From NPR Thursday May 1st:

Currently 6, 800, 000 Americans are out of work. Of those 1, 900,000 have been looking for work for over six months.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » May 14th 2003, 1:38 pm

<sarcasm>
..Of those 1, 899,999 were told that the CEO positions they applied for, at fortune 500 companies, were filled!
</sarcasm>
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests