• news
  • SUNDAY AUGUST 19 2007 9:00 AM

I Would Like Rove And Bush To Eat My Asshole

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Commerce Department, Treasury Department, Hatch Act, Republicans, Karl Rove, George Bush



The corruption of the current White House is fucking amazing, especially considering George told us he was going to bring honor and respectability back to the presidency. The guy is the ultimate example of everything that the Founding Fathers feared. Using tax dollars to aid Republican candidates in elections is just one more example.


Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.


What a bunch of cunts. Plain and simple. Between 2001 and 2006, the Treasury Department received White House political briefings on how they could aid Republican candidates. The Commerce Department received four briefings. These actions are quite simply not allowed, as defined by the Hatch Act, which bans the use of government resources for campaign activities.


Under the Hatch Act, Cabinet members are permitted to attend political briefings and appear with members of Congress. But Cabinet members and other political appointees aren't permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates.


The White House is already being investigated by the House Oversight Committee to determine whether the administration violated the Hatch Act by briefing at least 15 federal agencies.


During the briefings at Treasury and Commerce, then-Bush administration political director Ken Mehlman and other White House aides detailed competitive congressional districts, battleground election states and key media markets and outlined GOP strategy for getting out the vote.


After the briefings, Commerce and Treasury political appointees made public appearances and grant announcements that just happened to benefit GOP interests. That sounds like it completely violates the Hatch Act. I wonder how the Democratic Congress will fail to do anything about it? Unfortunately, violations are not illegal. They are treated as administrative matters and usually lead to suspension or termination of those who violate the ban.

The law needs to be changed so that these type of actions are illegal. Why would a loyal follower care about violating the act? They would lose their job, but probably end up with a cushier position somewhere else due to their partisan actions.

Take Commerce Secretary Don Evans, who just happened to be Bush's former campaign finance chairman. He made eight appearances with Republican incumbents during competitive races. While there he handed out millions of dollars in grants and made public announcements. He has already left the Commerce Department, so he will not be punished. I would like to at the very least, hold his head in a toilet and flush it.

The guy who took over for Evans, picked up right where the big E left off.


In 2006, Evans' successor, Carlos Gutierrez, and his aides also made public announcements with several Republican congressional incumbents, including in the battleground states of Missouri, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Weeks before the 2006 election, Gutierrez and Congresswoman Wilson announced $3.45 million in grants for Albuquerque organizations. Also in the weeks before the election, a deputy secretary and Republican Sen. Rick Santorum announced that the department would be investing $2.25 million in Philadelphia.


You tax dollars at work, helping those poor, poor Republicans. Don't get mad Democrats, just sit back and take it.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 20, 2007 03:32 AM

oyaji said:
My apologies in advance to TFOK.



My eyebrow is raised so high it's capturing radio signals.

graphicsman77

graphicsman77

Pasadena, MD
June 2007

AUG 20, 2007 05:36 AM

well...I'm sure that Hillary is savvy enough to challenge the actions of this "corrupt" White House. Oh, that's right...she, and Bill and Al Gore have a pretty shady record too (when it comes to campaign finance and fundraising).

I'm going to put this one in the anti-Bush column. I might have had more respect for you, and this article....had you done a piece presenting the corrupt practices of the current administration, illustrations of the past corruptions by previous administrations, and what precisely you think we can do to fix the problem. Clearly McCain-Fiengold was not a reform of any kind, but merely a greenlight to the .org groups like MoveOn (and swiftboat vets) to drop as much coin on false claims and smear tactics as they like.

punk

punk

Phoenix, AZ
January 2004

AUG 20, 2007 06:29 AM

Not_a_sicko said:

osopolar1 said:
Oh,and the people who throw around the word democracy. Read the constitution, We are a REPUBLIC. skull


Democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.



..."the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.(Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

AUG 20, 2007 09:46 AM

scorp17yh said:
Nader...would of better served the people by joining the Dems and working form the INSIDE to change things. I hope this is not what an OR education does for ones comprehension. Though after 2 and 1/2 years here I'm afraid it does



First of all, Mr. Education Man, it's would HAVE, not would OF. You're also missing an apostrophe in "one's." I don't like playing grammar police, but you set yourself up there.

Second, Demorats [sic] didn't need Nader to lose the election in 2002 and 2004. They did it fine on their own. The problem with Demorats [sic] is not Nader--the problem with Demorats is that they're spineless rats. They need to grow a backbone and stop playing to a fickle, opinion poll "center." That way, at least they'll be spineful [sic] rats.

Evilgasm

Evilgasm

Netherlands
April 2007

AUG 20, 2007 01:06 PM

oyaji said:

Evilgasm said:
I fear for the future of the USA. Your so called democracy... land of the free my ass! How can you call yourselves free when your entire political spectrum consists of just two political parties. One bunch of extremely right wing but totally spineless drones and the other even more right wing bunch of imbecilic religious nut jobs.

I guess that old saying is true (in America at least): If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal!



The United States has one of the most durable and robust legal frameworks for guaranteeing individual rights and liberties in the world. What does the current state of two party politics at the federal level of government have to do with that? We're a lot more free than any country in Europe from a historical perspective.



A historical perspective? I nearly burst out laughing when I read that one! You seriously need to learn more about US history.

Sure, America has a great deal of freedom. It just comes with three conditions:

1) You must be white.
2) You must be Christian
3) You must be hetrosexual

Fail to meet any/all of these criteria and you WILL have trouble finding yourself truly free in the United States. And this is in modern times. In the glorious early years of the USA (ignoring the genocide and slavery) failing to meet any of these conditions could have gotten you hung/stabbed/shot and seen your killers go free.

Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie. But please don't get high and mighty about America being a free country. You still had "whites only" restaurants as little as 50 years ago, you still don't have gay marriage, and you still have no real say in how your country gets run because you simply don't have the choice. Anyone who has an opinion that doesn't fit with your two political parties (between which the difference is hardly visible) simply doesn't count.

I do not believe that Americans are so shallow and unintelligent that the views of your entire society can be truly represented by two, nearly identical, political parties.

You call yourself a liberal. Well why don't you try opening your mind as well as your mouth. You might find that your society is (or at least, has the potential to be) even greater than you think. This potential is just not reflected in your narrow political spectrum.

Not_a_sicko

Not_a_sicko

Netherlands
September 2005

AUG 20, 2007 02:03 PM

punk said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Not_a_sicko said:

osopolar1 said:
Oh,and the people who throw around the word democracy. Read the constitution, We are a REPUBLIC. skull


Democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.



..."the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.(Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)


I'm not saying America is not a republic, just pointing out that it is a democracy. It keeps surprising me how many people think that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive terms.

oyaji said:
a bunch of second rate marshland in north-west Europe


/slap

Red_Russian13

Red_Russian13

Dayton, OH
February 2004

AUG 20, 2007 05:04 PM

oyaji said:

Evilgasm said:

oyaji said:
Evilgasm said:
I fear for the future of the USA. Your so called democracy... land of the free my ass! How can you call yourselves free when your entire political spectrum consists of just two political parties. One bunch of extremely right wing but totally spineless drones and the other even more right wing bunch of imbecilic religious nut jobs.

I guess that old saying is true (in America at least): If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal!



The United States has one of the most durable and robust legal frameworks for guaranteeing individual rights and liberties in the world. What does the current state of two party politics at the federal level of government have to do with that? We're a lot more free than any country in Europe from a historical perspective.



A historical perspective? I nearly burst out laughing when I read that one! You seriously need to learn more about US history.

Sure, America has a great deal of freedom. It just comes with three conditions:

1) You must be white.
2) You must be Christian
3) You must be hetrosexual



As opposed to continental Europe, which has always been accepting of non-white, non Christian, non-heterosexuals. Europe has given us:

(A) the Holocaust
(B) the Crusades
(C) the Inquisition
(D) the Pale of Settlement
(E) Nationalism
(F) Fascism
(G) Nazism
(H) Stalinism

Thanks but no thanks, Fuckers.

Fail to meet any/all of these criteria and you WILL have trouble finding yourself truly free in the United States.



Oyaji;

Well said.

I was going to opine that I cannot wait for 8 years of liberal "leadership" in the White House so we can see what kind of bullshit they bring upon us, and then I can laugh in all the liberal posters' faces (libs, conservatives, they're all the fucking same corrupt fucks), but I decided to just give you kudos for your excellent verbal assault. Great stuff.

scorp17yh

scorp17yh

Brookings, OR
November 2004

AUG 20, 2007 05:34 PM

herbancowboy said:

scorp17yh said:
Nader...would of better served the people by joining the Dems and working form the INSIDE to change things. I hope this is not what an OR education does for ones comprehension. Though after 2 and 1/2 years here I'm afraid it does



First of all, Mr. Education Man, it's would HAVE, not would OF. You're also missing an apostrophe in "one's." I don't like playing grammar police, but you set yourself up there.

Second, Demorats [sic] didn't need Nader to lose the election in 2002 and 2004. They did it fine on their own. The problem with Demorats [sic] is not Nader--the problem with Demorats is that they're spineless rats. They need to grow a backbone and stop playing to a fickle, opinion poll "center." That way, at least they'll be spineful [sic] rats.




Please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and join Mr Nader in
your la la la la I can't hear you land. And I only mentioned Nader in reference to the 2000 Presidential election. Nowhere did I say anything about '02. Like I said previously try reading a post before responding la la la la

And bye the way Naders relevance expired with the PINTO

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 20, 2007 05:56 PM

InnocentSid said:
FTR..great article BUT do you really want Rove and Bush to be anywhere near your asshole? Also, I would not call them cunts. That is much to nice!



"cunt" is a pleasure word, for me smile

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 20, 2007 05:58 PM

photoline said:
$1 million dollars paid by the Pentagon to ship two 19 cent washers.



Source for that one, please? (I'm genuinely interested.)

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

AUG 20, 2007 06:29 PM

It's true.

osopolar1

osopolar1

El Centro, CA
August 2007

AUG 20, 2007 09:08 PM

punk said:

Not_a_sicko said:

osopolar1 said:
Oh,and the people who throw around the word democracy. Read the constitution, We are a REPUBLIC. skull


Democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.



..."the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.(Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6)



osopolar1

osopolar1

El Centro, CA
August 2007

AUG 20, 2007 09:09 PM

Well said,Thank you

Evilgasm

Evilgasm

Netherlands
April 2007

AUG 21, 2007 03:10 AM

Well first of: Thanks. This is by far the mos interesting debate I have yet had here on SG.

My only request is that you try to curb the insults a little bit.

But I digress.

oyaji said:
As opposed to continental Europe, which has always been accepting of non-white, non Christian, non-heterosexuals. Europe has given us:

(A) the Holocaust
(B) the Crusades
(C) the Inquisition
(D) the Pale of Settlement
(E) Nationalism
(F) Fascism
(G) Nazism
(H) Stalinism

Thanks but no thanks, Fuckers.



I did say : Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie.

(Note I even linked a reference to the Holocaust there.)


Fail to meet any/all of these criteria and you WILL have trouble finding yourself truly free in the United States.



We have problems, sure.



OK. We are in agreement. So far.


You are being ridiculously simplistic about the way things actually work in the United States. But the absurd white Christian hetero orthodoxy you posit... what the fuck does it have to do with the two party political system AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL?



Just to explain my point of view: The Federal Government Level is the level at which your government interacts with the rest of the world. This is the face of America we see every day.


the federal government is of decidedly limited power in the United States, yes?



The federal government does indeed have (even severe) limitations on it's direct power. This however does not preclude it from having a great deal of direct influence. Decisions made at the federal level can, and almost always do, have a filtered down effect at the level of local government. The same shit happens here in Europe with the EU. (Most members of which don't even get elected by the people but appointed by individual governments. So you definitely win on that count.)


Most government is performed by state and local authorities that are largely autonomous from the federal government. Local government in San Francisco and Manhattan, for example, is extremely progressive. Shucks, we non-white-Christian-sexual-perverts are even, like, left alone and given equal protection under the law.



I actually am aware of this. And if anything it proves my point that greater political diversity is needed at the federal and executive level.

As a question: Is it not also the case that local government is compiled (predominantly) out of members of these two political parties?


The problems in the United States stem from inadequate enforcement of the law as it exists today.



You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Though I would go a step further and say that it is not just your laws but also your founding principles that have been poorly enforced.

(I especially like the bit about:
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.)


The problem is not that we are a bunch of homogeneous nationalists, which was, is and shall remain the problem of Europe for the foreseeable future.



I would like to invite you to explain this statement in more detail. Specifically giving any argument why this is a problem in Europe, but is not one in the United States? Because from my point of view we both have problems with Nationalism and intolerance. I just see the problems in America as being much more prevelant than they are here in Europe. Especially when it comes to the representation of your (diverse) population in federal government.


Like, how are those Turks and Algerians and Somalis being treated in their adopted homelands in the bosom of Europe?



For the most part (those who have cleared immigration, which I will admit is a total pain in the ass and could be run a LOT better) are actually doing reasonably well. Of course the golden rule here is the same as in the USA: Good News never makes the News. The only stories we (and I do mean both of us) hear about are the ones where things have gone horribly wrong.


How is the state of anti-semitism in France and Germany?



Pretty bad. Though I believe Poland and Russia actually have the worst of it these days.

How are things State side?


What percentage did Le Pen just get in the last French election?



OK. I risk offending a few people here, but most of my French friends didn't vote for him so I figure I'll be fairly safe.

The French government has long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the world at large. Despite being a founding member of the EU they have in the past blatantly discarded EU regulations and generally been quite pig-headed about how things should be done. In the kind of "My way or the Highway" attitude your current president is so fond of. Not a good thing in my opinion, so please don't judge all of Europe by the French government.


Gosh, I wish we had political parties like that in the US of A.

puke


You do.



And this is in modern times. In the glorious early years of the USA (ignoring the genocide and slavery) failing to meet any of these conditions could have gotten you hung/stabbed/shot and seen your killers go free.

Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie. But please don't get high and mighty about America being a free country. You still had "whites only" restaurants as little as 50 years ago, you still don't have gay marriage, and



Well, what was going on in your neck of the woods 50 years ago? Your neighbors turning you in to Nazi occupiers to be sent to concentration camps? GOODY SIGN ME UP.



Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie.



Shall we call it a tie, when it comes to historical evils? We are, after all, BOTH full of them.


you still have no real say in how your country gets run because you simply don't have the choice.



This is absurd. Just fucking absurd. I have a tremendous amount of say in the way my community is run. As does anyone who avails him or herself of his or her constitutional rights.



Something more Americans should do.

From your own Declaration of Independence: experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In my opinion this "availing of rights" could best be done by increasing the choices you have as to who gets elected into federal government.


Anyone who has an opinion that doesn't fit with your two political parties (between which the difference is hardly visible) simply doesn't count.



Where are you getting this shit. There is no central committee of the Democratic Party or Republican Party laying down the Way It Is for all federal, state and local government. It is simply not the way it is.



No, there is no central committee. But it is the case that these two political factions decide who gets placed into political office. Since these representatives will (in order to get party approval) be of a particular ideology it is through the beliefs of the political parties that the first steps of the law making process are altered.

Undoubtedly local government will better reflect the population over which it governs. My main question really is: Why can this not be done at the federal level? I honestly do believe it would be the best thing for the United States and it's people.


I do not believe that Americans are so shallow and unintelligent that the views of your entire society can be truly represented by two, nearly identical, political parties.



I do not believe that anyone who is intelligent enough to spend the modest amount of time necessary to educate oneself about the American system of government before spouting off like a bloviating blowhard about it would do anything but scoff at and heap scorn on this statement.



My issue is not with your system of government, but with the level of representation you population has within this system. I actually think your system is quite good. I just think there is not enough political diversity (at a federal level) to make it work to it's fullest potential.


You call yourself a liberal. Well why don't you try opening your mind as well as your mouth. You might find that your society is (or at least, has the potential to be) even greater than you think. This potential is just not reflected in your narrow political spectrum.



Man, I didn't say that the United States was perfect. It's just way, way better than anything you fuckers have in Europe.



Here, I am afraid, we simply disagree.


I said it before and I will say it again, we have the most robust and long-lasting legal system for protecting individual rights in the history of the world.



Well, the United States hasn't been around that long (from a historical perspective) so to say your system is the most robust may be a slightly premature statement.

As for protectingIndividual rights. Tricky topic... I would want to read up a little more on that before debating it.

Now Civil Rights (those granted by government) are another matter. True civil rights, as we know them today, are a fairly recent concept. It was only during the post WWII era that true civil rights came into to play ANYWHERE in the world and are as you say:


a work in progress




But your critique based on so-called two party rule is asinine and vapid. The root of our problems is not the two parties.



Nor do I believe it is the root of your problems. I do however believe that it is a major hindrance to your nations progress and the resolution of your problems.

On a side note:


a bunch of second rate marshland in north-west Europe



Yeah. That's why it's experts from this second rate marshland that are being drafted into New Orleans to try and make sure some decent flood defenses get built.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews