2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

I realy think that the reason this election cycle started over 2 years before the elections, is that they they need to keep us busy, intrested, not in the issuies or in what people stand for, but just keeping the front-runners at the top of the news, while stateing thier stances at least as possible, all we hear noe is "ohh... This guy riased 9 million, hes SOOOO good!" Rather then hearing about WHAT a canidate stands for, we hear how much they have gotten in donations! These canidates are so empty, and won't state what they belive in that the media has taken to 'reporting' statistics, and how much each is worth, implying that 'he who has the money, is right' Which is obserd. These canidaes are skating ouround what they belive in, and the media is building up the charectures that they want in power.

Mabye im just to young to get what the deal with Campain Finiace Reform is. I thouhg tthat the goverment would give X amount to each canidate, and the rest would come from donations for people(or corperations). IMHO i don't think that there should be restrictions on donations, but thats only becasue i haven't really thought it out, or heard a true indication of what a better option would be.

As for the goverment assistance, i do frown on it, for a varity of reasons. I have a friend who is quite cleaver, he has figured out how to fill out all kinds of forms, and such that he has never had to work a day in his life, and all his tuition is paid for, as well as his books, and he gets an aditional $2000 a month, just for spending money. So what does he do, he goes and fills out even more documents to get Medical Marijuna, and him and his G/f live in thier parents garage, rent freee, racking up money as fast as they fill out the forms.

I do belive that the goverment shouls help out people, just he ones that deserve it, for instacne our soilders. Our soilders should recive everything they need, from money for college, to money to cover any health problems that may have arisen from combat. I don't thiunk that you should get money from the goverment for getting the 'Single Mexican Teen-age mother' scholorship, i was sick when reading all the types of scholar ships avilible that were like this. Everything you can think of there is some Federeral, State or Local scolarship, expect for the White Male, whose parents make a decent living, because my grandmother put away a good chunck of change for each of her grandkids before they were born, that makes it so i quilified for just about no scholar ships.

I don't liek the cradel to grave mentality that our country is starting to put in, and with Hillary saying, 'The goverment should give people 5Grand for having kids... i don't like that... we can handle our own lives, put our own money away for down the road.

reply to post by TKainZero


TKainZero Rather then hearing about WHAT a candidate stands for, we hear how much they have gotten in donations! These candidates are so empty, and won't state what they believe in . . Maybe im just to young to get what the deal with Campaign Finance Reform is.

Well, look at it like this. There are 45,000 registered lobbyists in W-DC. Some like Jack Abramoff. How many? There are 535 Congresspersons. That means there are 84 lobbyists for each and every Congressperson. Look at this, Congress itself has 38,000 employees. Each committee has staff and each Congresspersons has staff. Each of the 2 US Senators from Florida have an office in Tallahassee, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, Ft. Myers, and Miami Ft Lauderdale. That’s six offices. 5 to 10 persons in each office. 15-20 in their W-DC office. 5 phone lines per state office and 10 lines for the W-DC office. Copy machines, fax, scanners, computers, Federal cell phones, maybe 2,000 volumes of law books in each office. And on and on.

Remember Ohio’s Congressman Jack Nye who is now doing time for taking bribes. Remember Congressman Butch Cunningham of San Diego who is now in the pen for taking bribes. BUT in neither case has the person who GAVE the bribes been charged! Why is that? Bush43 and Alberto Gonzales fired the prosecutors, that’s why.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by TKainZero


TKainZero As for the government assistance, I do frown on it, for a vanity of reasons. I have a friend who is quite cleaver, he has figured out how to fill out all kinds of forms, and such that he has never had to work a day in his life, and all his tuition is paid for, as well as his books, and he gets an additional $2000 a month, just for spending money.

Mr T/K/Z, I think somebody is pulling your leg.

One guy doing wrong has nothing to do with you.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by TKainZero


TKainZero I thought that the government would give X amount to each candidate, and the rest would come from donations for people(or corporations). IMHO I don't think that there should be restrictions on donations, but that’s only because I haven't really thought it out, or heard a true indication of what a better option would be.

That was the plan back in the early 1970s when the “check off” plan was adopted. The IRS Form 1040 series have a box to check if you want to donate $3 to the Presidential Election Finance Fund. The form advises you this nether adds to nor takes from your tax bill. Yet many people think this has something to do with their taxes. The Form 1040 series was the choice of getting public opinion on the Plan and to give a basis for its funding out of the General Fund.

If a candidate of one of the 2 major parties OPTS in, then he or she gets $22 million - must be matched by private donations not over $50 - for the primary campaign, and $44 million - must be matched by private donations not over $50 - for the General election. If his or her opponent does not also OPT in, then the one who does gets an amount equal to the non-playing candidate in extra funds. Problem is, the OPT in candidate will be running about 3-4 weeks behind the other candidate which can be critical in October. No one has opted in this year.

Chicken feed.

Corporations are not allowed to give money to a political campaign. But who says their shareholders, their boards of directors, their upper level management and anyone else cannot give? An unworkable idea.

For 2007-2008, a private person is limited to $2,300 donations to one candidate in the primaries and to $2,300 in the general election campaign.

We have tried every plan the mind of man can invent to allow private donors to political candidates but keeping the amount small enough that he candidate will not have to sell his soul.

The Supreme Court is the cause of this unsolvable problem.

Why can't corperations donate to canidates? Behind each coperaration, is a person or persons with thier own ideaology, so why can't they donate?

It seems like a simple fact to me, that they more rules you lay down, the more rules are broken.

I don't think there should be any restrictions on campain donations, and i do remeber each of the names that you posted. Heres what i don't get though.

If someone belives in something, how is some colourful paper going to sway them?

For instance, if i am a strong supported of 2nd amendment rights, i don't care how much money some anti-gun activists give me, its not going to make me go against the 2nd amendment, and conversly, why should the NRA not be able to donate money, if they agree with the views of the person they wish to donate money to?

So i am for no restrictions, at all, but im sure that someone might convice me otherwise, for the most obvious answer, itsnt always the correct one.

reply to post by TKainZero


TKainZero Why can't corporations donate to candidates? Behind each corpora ration, is a person or persons with their own ideology, so why can't they donate?

As you point out “Behind each corporation, is a person or persons with their own ideology.” I’m sure not all shareholders agree on any particular ideology. This is the argument that is applied to unions which 99.44% support Democrats. Fortunately or unfortunately as you see it, unions can give to Democrats - or Republicans - but corporations cannot. It’s the law. Corporations are commercial enterprises formed to make money for their investors. Unions are loose associations of people with similar interests where “majority rule” is accepted as the proper way to arrive at decisions.

TKainZero For instance, if I am a strong supported of 2nd amendment rights, I don't care how much money some anti-gun activists give me, its not going to make me go against the 2nd amendment, and conversely, why should the NRA not be able to donate money, if they agree with the views of the person they wish to donate money to?

Well up to today, the NRA can do that. I disagree with the NRA’s pro gun policy. I’ll quote you from the Articles of Confederation to help you understand on your own - not what your are told by others - what the Second Amendment meant to the FFs in 1789. Article 6. “ . . every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

“Have ready for use, in public stores.” That is where the FFs meant to keep guns. "Public stores" then is what we call an armory today.

TKainZero So I am for no restrictions, at all, but im sure that someone might convince me otherwise, for the most obvious answer, isn’t always the correct one.

No. If you think you can compete on equal terms with billionaires, that is your choice. Political ideology is like GOD ideology. You like Him, you believe in Him and no amount of argument will convince anyone otherwise. I think it is how you are born. My first memory of disbelief was when in Sunday School - I’m a Protestant - I was given a ‘Jonah and the Whale’ picture card with a story on the back. Hmm? Why did not GOD snap his fingers and convert Nineveh? Why do it the hard way when the easy way is quicker? Now, many years later, Charles Darwin, Crick and Watson and the Big Bang explains it all to my satisfaction.

[edit on 10/8/2007 by donwhite]

Well the way I see it is that any system that allows the same group of entities to control the government via campaign funding is dangerous. The issue itself is very complex the politicians themselves have done nothing to prevent the situation from developing into a money buys all feast.

reply to post by xpert11


xpert11 Well the way I see it is that any system that allows the same group of entities to control the government via campaign funding is dangerous. The issue itself is very complex the politicians themselves have done nothing to prevent the situation from developing into a money buys all feast.

Elections in America have always had some element of vote buying. After all, in a money short economy, a man is sorely tempted to sell his vote when he may not see cash until the next election. The object is to prevent elections from being decided by bought votes. In my state of Kentucky it was often said a half pint of whiskey and $1 would buy a vote in those areas where the practice was tolerated. I suppose today it would take a 300 ml of whiskey and $10.

I have claimed to have MORE electoral experience than anyone. From the time of my birth until 1994 - 60 years - Ky had 1 primary and 1 general election every year. Once, in 1937, we had a run-off primary, making 2. That meant until 1994, I had lived through 121 elections. Since then, add 22 more elections. In ‘07 I have lived through 133 elections. In 1994, Ky changed its constitution so that state and local officers are chosen the same year, reducing to 3 elections out of 4 years. Six counting primaries and generals.

Again, going by what I have learned in my state of Kentucky, it was also said you really could not know who won a very close election. In all those years, I am only aware of one election where bought votes may have made the difference. That’s because where Dems bought votes in areas they were strong, the GOP bought votes in area where it was strong. You don’t buy votes in your enemy’s territory. You might get caught! Any good local pol knows who is selling and who is buying in his district. If he does not know that, he will not be a “pol” but will be a has-been.

Not much to do with CFR but it’s part of the American electoral process.

Half the people you meet who lived in Chicago in 1936 will claim to have been hired by the Dems to ride busses around the city all day, voting many times. $5 and a box lunch. NYC’s Tammany Hall would redeem tickets given by precinct captains for cash. But in upstate NY and downstate IL the GOP were busy buying votes too.

More to your question. After the 1940-1948 elections the Dems were able to count on millions of union workers going to the polls and voting Dem. The GOP had millions of dollars donated by the Rich and Famous. GM. GE. US Steel. JP Morgan. Etc. As long as the Dems were wining - until 1968 - they did not care much. After the debacle of 1968 and the slow demise of the labor unions - Nixon and Regan killed the unions - money began to count more than foot soldiers.

So Dems try to write rules (laws) that will cut into GOP donors and GOP try to write rules (laws) that will cut into Dem donors. Both need money to survive. Neither wants to risk banning money. How do you enforce that? Each side knows the other side is constantly at work to undercut them.

All us normal people can do is hope the lying, cheating and stealing balances out. It’s a mess. It’s a morass. It’s a quagmire.

[edit on 10/8/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


At the time of our founding fathers, there was no WalMarts, and KMarts that held all the firearms, at the time of the fouding fathers all the public stores were owned my Average Citizens, for the most part. I don't think the FF's had huge mega-stores in mind.

Here in America we have the freedom to change our social status, to make a great fortune, and lose it too. We want to be equal from the start, not at the finnish. If a billionare wants to runs, he has the money to do so, but if his message doesn't ring true with the votting audience, then he is just wasteing his money, and conversly, someone who does not have much money, but has a message that motivates a nation, and can inspire people, then other will donate to the cause.

Also, i don't think political ideology is like God ideologly, or mabye it is, people can reason, people can realise that what they belive in is not what is, and they can choose to change thier beliefs. I used to be a pretty liberal guy (probaly because in high school the liberial girls were more fun:lol, but now i am in college, and in California, i see things in a diffrent light. Reasonable people can reason, and those that cannot will mantian thier dogmatic princeipals, then teach the same preinceipals to thier children. If you teach kids to reason, then in time, they will find what is right.

Oh, and you have, oh idon't know, 30x more election experince then i, i can clearly remember 4 elections, Hugo Chavez election in Venezuela (i lived there at the time), the 2000 President, 2004 Presindent, and the 2006 midterm elections, and have voted in 2 of them.

What you say about what happen in Chicago, is exactly what is happening here all over California, people load up the Illigals on election day, and bus them around to diffrent precincts, and have them vote many many times, during the '06 elections, a local radio staion followed around one such bus, and counted that they went to over 10 diffrent voting stations. And a couple callers, that called in, also went to several places.

All these rules and laws, only encourage people to break them, i think that if the rules were simple, things would be more obvios.

TKainZero you remind me of Libertarians who don't understand that without certain laws regulation to protect society freedoms. Without the ability to prosecute vote rigging and protect the integrity of the electoral system you have have a political system that is nothing more then a illusion controlled by the powers that be.

I know that we are a nation of laws, but some laws i find are unnessicary. I fail to see how allowing corperations to donate would make the people have any less faith in the goverment.

The current system we have, people have lost faith, people no longer have faith in our election system as it is, there is no way to validate our election results. Having gone to a paper-less voting system, we cannot validate the elections with a recount, and without a recount, no election is legit, i saw this first hand.

Originally posted by TKainZero
I know that we are a nation of laws, but some laws i find are unnessicary. I fail to see how allowing corperations to donate would make the people have any less faith in the goverment.

Governments can both preserve and take away freedom the question is always when the government should intervene in such matters. Its more a matter of corporations monopolizing political funding which squeezes out those who don't play along with corporate agendas. Providing that a means such as tax payer funding is available and , transparency and oversight then corporate donations to political parties isnt bad by itself.

Should it be necessary to outlaw Corporate donations people would in part have more faith in government because they would know that the party's on offer differ by more then just there name. But its probably best if things don't go that far. Having said the US does have a habit of doing nothing about issues like this one which means drastic action is required.

The current system we have, people have lost faith, people no longer have faith in our election system as it is, there is no way to validate our election results. Having gone to a paper-less voting system, we cannot validate the elections with a recount, and without a recount, no election is legit, i saw this first hand.

You said it these issues need to be dealt with as well.

posted by TKainZero
(1) I fail to see how allowing corporations to donate would make the people have any less faith in the government. (2) The current system we have, people have lost faith, people no longer have faith in our election system as it is, there is no way to validate our election results. Having gone to a paper-less voting system, we cannot validate the elections with a recount, and without a recount, no election is legit, I saw this first hand.

Mr T/K/Z you have raised two separate issues 1) Financing political campaigns. And 2) A reliable, transparent voting system with safeguards.

1) I have already explained why corporations cannot donate money to political candidates. Corporations are artificially created fictional persons. They are state chartered as vehicles for commercial enterprises. Yes, the CEO runs the company, but he does not own it. He has no right to give away shareholders money. Corporate money belongs to all the shareholders. Read a corporate charter. It is not a legitimate business expense item to give corporate money to the CEO’s “favorite” candidate. What’s hard about this?

2) I have had many years experience with the optical scan system. The ballot itself is of heavy manila paper. On proof of voter identity and on signing the registration book, the voter is issued a sequentially numbered ballot. At one of several privacy booths, the voter marks his ballot with a pencil furnished by the polling place. He then inserts his ballot into a paper folder which protects the ballot from view by the poll worker who tears off the numbered tag on the ballot. This is to prevent the voter from substituting another ballot for the one he was issued.

The poll worker inserts the ballot into a slot on the voting machine which “sucks” the ballot out of the folded paper and into the optical scanning part of the machine and is immediately counted. The ballot is then automatically deposited into a bin inside the machine where it is stored indefinitely. This is an electro-mechanical system which is simple, and in my experience, works flawlessly.

After an election any candidate may request a RE-CANVAS. The back of each machine is opened exposing to full view the read-outs. The numbers are recorded and forwarded to the counting site to be totaled. This is free and quick.

If the candidate wishes more, he asks for a RE-COUNT. The candidates are charged an hourly rate for this service. The re-count involves removing the manila paper ballots from the machines and counting all the votes by hand. Depending on the number of ballots to be re-counted, it can take hours or days.

Optical scan machines are simple to make, easy to maintain and are robust in use. Best of all, they are NOT made by Deibold, the Halliburton of elections.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by donwhite]

I am begining to see your point about a Publicly-owned corperation(one that has share holders) giving money to canidates, this would make sense, becuase each of the shareholders technaly owns a part of the company, and thus, it is not a single corperation.

But, what of the small business, "Average Joes, average Cup of Joe cafe" where Joe is the sole owner of the business, is he alowd to donate via the company? Also, new point, why are there limitaions on donation from private citizens?

As for the issuie of voteing recounts, and Re-canvus(1st i have heard of that)

During the 2000 elecition, did AlGore do the Re-canvus before the recount, or was it a Re-Canvus and the media misreported it as a recount.

Now, on the digital ballots, i used to be in favor of this, and used to think that, 'Hey, if anyone can vote from anywhere, on any computer at any time, THATS A GOOD THING, that will boost voter turn out!'

I seen curuption of the digital ballots first hand, albeit at the lowest of all low levels, but if it is possible by some crumy college kids, it is not far from possible for the elite to do something similar.

That company you mentioned... is that Jimmy Carters company... the voting machines taht were made in Venezuela? I think i could be wroung.

Anywayz, i have a class in 2 hours, i think i should get SOME sleep.

posted by TKainZero
I see your point about a publicly-owned corporation (one that has share holders) giving money to candidates. This would make sense, because each of the shareholders technically owns a part of the company and thus, it is not a single corporation.

And remember because corporations are the creations of state legislatures, they can only do those things the law authorizes them to do. Corporations are not allowed to “dabble” in politics. Who gives money is important to know. We want to know if Harry Jones gave money, not if ABC Company gave money. For all we know, ABC Company may be held in trust by a Cayman Islands legal entity.

But, what of the small business, "Average Joes, average Cup of Joe café" where Joe is the sole owner of the business, is he allowed to donate via the company? Also, new point, why are there limitations on donation from private citizens?

I think it is safe to say most small businesses “Average Joe’s Cup of Joe Café” types are what the IRS calls a sub-chapter S corporation. The advantage for the sub-chapter S corporation is that all its profits are “passed though” to the real owners, untaxed. This avoids double taxation on small companies. Sub-chapter S is available only to a business owned by 10 or fewer shareholders. (Regular corporations are sub-chapter C).

As for the issue of voting recounts, and re-canvas, 1st I have heard of that.

The process may have different names in different states. The simple and quick one is to merely check to see that all the voting machine totals were correctly reported. Maybe a hurried precinct worker reported Smith got 379 votes when in fact, Smith got 973 votes. I call that a re-canvas.

Re-count means you dump all the ballots on the table and many people working around the table begin to examine each ballot one at a time, and record the votes. Supposedly more accurate and certainly more time consuming. Candidates usually have to pay for this. In computer systems there is nothing to re-count.

During the 2000 election, did Al Gore do the Re-canvas before the recount, or was it a Re-Canvas and the media misreported it as a recount.

It was a re-count. Money was no object. Ballot by ballot. Florida like most states had a tangle of contradictory laws. Close races are rare so no one really cares until AFTER it happens. For example, under one law, the Secretary of States was to declare a winner 14 days after the polls closed. Under another law, the candidates had a right to a full recount but no mention was made of a time limit in that law.

More trouble. In some counties that used a paper hole punch system of marking ballots, the piece of paper the voter punched might not fall out or off the ballot and so we had what they called “hanging chads.” Did that indicate the voter changed his or her mind? Or that they voter was oblivious of the chad? This stack of ballots goes into a ‘CONTESTED” ballot condition to be reviewed by a judge. The re-count system broke down in this instance and could not be physically accomplished before the 14 days imperative on the Secretary of State.

The Dems went to the Florida Supreme Court for an injunction stopping the Secretary of State determining the winner until all the contested ballots cold be adjudicated, ignoring the 14 day law. That court ruled 7 to 0 in the Dems favor. The Republicans went to Washington to get the US Supreme Court to intervene and “trump” the Florida Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was 5 Republicans to 4 Democrats. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republicans, 5 to 4, on the grounds the Florida Supreme Court could not ignore the 14 day law because it was legal.

The US Supreme Court withheld its order until the Republicans were ahead in the re-count by 537 votes. Between 10,000 and 15,000 votes remained uncounted but the US Supreme Court said "too bad." (By a careful review Gore won Florida by 107 votes. See Wikipedia.). The next year this same question arose in New Jersey, and when that case was taken to the US Supreme Court, it said, “NO, that is a state question, not a Federal question, and we cannot be involved.”

Aside: Suppose Florida did not finish its recount in time to cast its electoral vote - December 15. Then the presidential election would have been put into the House of Representatives. There each state gets 1 vote. Evenly divided states would not get to cast their vote. The GOP held the majority of states and so, Bush43 would have won in the House. End.

I seen corruption of the digital ballots first hand, albeit at the lowest of all low levels, but if it is possible by some crummy college kids, it is not far from possible for the elite to do something similar. That company you mentioned... is that Jimmy Carters company... the voting machines that were made in Venezuela? I think I could be wrong. Anyway, I have a class in 2 hours, I think I should get SOME sleep.

Diebold is an Ohio company which historically made adding machines and office equipment. It’s owner is a longtime donor to Bush43 and other Republicans. It is not Jimmy Carters. It would be honest if it were.

NO politician want internet voting. ALL pols are scared to death of the internet. The worst thing any politician wants is UNPREDICTABLY. Even losing can be dealt with better than unpredictability. Uncertainty. It will come. But it will be delayed as long as pols can delay it.

It’s pure crapola to say the internet is not secure. Every day a billion dollars is spent buying and selling on the internet. Every time you swipe your credit card at a gas station or a grocery store or anywhere, you are “connecting” to the credit card company via the internet. If any college kid could tap into that, believe me, he would.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by TKainZero


T/K/Z
Yes, get some sleep. You are now in school. This is your best opportunity to get ready for 1000s of tomorrows. Do not waste your time playing. Now is the time to work. Play-time will come later, after you have your diploma. Remember this: in this one thing are we all humans equal: we have 168 hours a week. What we do and how we spend those hours will go far to determine what our tomorrows will bring. Learn how to learn. Or how to study. Facts change eery day. But technique does not.

Freebie: Sometime when you are not too busy, go over to the library. Ask a librarian to show you the index of doctoral dissertations. Sometimes referred to as a thesis. Do not be put-off. 98% of librarians do not know where it is or that it even exists. Be nice, but be assertive. Therein you will find a listing by topic and author of all the PhDs of the past in every American college and university. Every topic under the sun has already been studied. And peer reviewed. Learn where that resource is and in the future, you can get one leg up on most others.

[edit on 10/9/2007 by donwhite]

What's up with this bad press for Thompson today after the debate?

I saw it, I didn't think he did bad, especially for his first debate. But listening to all the coverage, you'd think he totally bombed.

reply to post by djohnsto77


I was just about to ask if anyone had seen the debate.

But Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, and Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, continued the verbal sparring their campaigns have engaged in over the last few weeks.

When asked by moderator MSNBC's Chris Matthews to outline the differences between himself and the former governor, Giuliani said Romney failed to control taxes. Video Watch Giuliani spar with Romney, Ron Paul »

"I brought taxes down by 17 percent. Under him, taxes went up 11 percent per capita," said Giuliani, the current front-runner in most national polls. "I led; he lagged."
Don't Miss

Source

It would seem that Giuliani and Romney stole Fred Thunder.
The sheer number of debates should cheapen the concept and peoples interest but that doesn't seem to be the case. The debate over the candidates taxation records will be vital to the candidates. The insane arm of the Republican party will back the candidate who they think will cut taxes the most rather then worry about fiscal sanity.

reply to post by xpert11


Discover Magazine Slams Rudy Giuliani and Christy Todd Whitman for lying to public at WTC work site.

At a hearing in W-DC, EPA Administrator Whitman - she later resigned - cutely and smugly claimed the “cause of the deaths at the WTC was 19 foreign born terrorists” which by implication she excused herself and the Bush43 Administration of any liability or responsibility for the afterwards injuries caused by the hazardous materials.

It turns out her agency was unprepared to do its lawfully assigned tasks of overseeing the cleanup of harmful substances spilled into the environment including 4,000 tons of asbestos contained in the three collapsed towers at the WTC. Whitman wrongfully issued statements claiming it was “safe” to work in the clean-up and later, to return to normal work in the area. Mayor Giuliani was complicit in this similar mis-representation of the health risks, but he now claims he relied on the EPA for expertise and not on NYC's Health Department. .

The Federal government still refuses to move into the issue with any vigor or money. NYC government and NY state government have been very slow to move. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg is now making public statements implying NYC is into the arena but neglects to inform us that the movement was begun by private funds donated by individuals and companies. Only after they began to find 1000s of effected people did Bloomberg become a johnny-come-lately to the issue.

Neither Rudy nor Mike want to do anything to keep the tourists away!

The Bush43 White House actually censored Whitman’s early statements. It redacted her equivocal statements about the future risks and dangers of working at the site and inserted false statements that it was “safe” to continue cleanup and to return to work. That blatant falsification of known facts should be grounds for criminal charges, IMO. What did HE know and when did HE know it?

All material from Discovery Magazine for October, 2007.

[edit on 10/13/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by xpert11


xpert11 It would seem that Giuliani and Romney stole Fred’s thunder. The sheer number of debates should cheapen the concept and people’s interest but that doesn't seem to be the case. The debate over the candidates taxation records will be vital to the candidates. The insane arm of the Republican party will back the candidate who they think will cut taxes the most rather then worry about fiscal sanity.

Fred has proved to be hollow. Disillusioned conservatives hoped he would fulfill their desire for a resurrection of Reagan. Bush43 has proved half again too smart for no-flex-allowed conservatives. B43 is like the latter day Nixon, too deep into his legacy to worry about real time issues. The SURGE salvaged his presidency from its most vulnerable time, from January to September of 2007.

The new Dem controlled Congress took office in January. B43 had to weather that explosion of oversight committee hearings. The SURGE sufficiently distracted the public and the Congress so that he is now SAFE. Nothing Congress can do will get the troops out on his watch. The public reluctantly accepts their wises have been thwarted. However the Iraq Civil War ends, B43 can claim VICTORY. Like Nixon and that evil adviser Kissinger, all the KIAs are long forgotten for the sake of LEGACY.