America in the grip of Bush's 'Iron Triangle'

Ed Vulliamy in Washington reveals the network of big business interests that is now waiting to reap its rewards from an administration that may stand for little but revenge and greed Special report: the US elections

Sunday December 3, 2000

The ominous joke in Washington is that George W. Bush is learning how to pronounce the word 'inaugural'.

The city that has for eight years filled its cappuccino bars with the staff of a reforming presidency is bracing itself for change: an influx of Texan Stetsons and Cuban heels - and a politics stamped with a familiar brand name, the Bush family. 'It will be,' says one senior White House aide, 'the restoration of the aristocracy, motivated by revenge and greed.'

The Bush Transition Office has just opened across the River Potomac from the leafy, liberal streets of Georgetown in McClean, Virginia, where heavy-hitting lobbies of the conservative Right fill the phone directory. From here, where workers are rewiring to make way for more phone lines, Bush's presidency-in-waiting will take shape, even though the election result remains contested.

The question the capital is asking is the one posed by White House communications director Sidney Blumenthal on Friday: 'If Bush wins, who is the President?'

That is a question more and more Americans are raising as Bush's grip on the White House strengthens by the day. Just what does 'Dubya' stand for? The answer seems to be: not much. The more you look at Bush the less you see. For every clue as to what kind of President he would make, there is a question; for every pattern, a glitch.

The clues are among the entourage, either packing for Washington or else already here, planning the next four years while Bush bides his time - relaxing, apparently - at his ranch. If there was ever a President defined by his donors and patrons, it is Bush. Like a player in a baroque allegorical drama, he is not really a person, more a personification of interests.

They come from three overlapping spheres of influence: his father's ancien régime , the clique of political operatives with which 'Dubya' has governed the nation's second biggest state, and - most formidably - business interests behind the Republican Party that have waited eight long Clinton years for this moment. For all of them, another Bush administration is payback time.

A network controlled by George Bush Snr first opened the floodgates for the funds that bought 'W' the election. 'The old man's network,' says Bush's cousin, John Ellis, 'is probably 50,000 people, and I think they were looking for some kind of vindication. I don't think you can possibly overrate the hatred of Bill Clinton in the Republican Party'.

The old guard falls into two categories. The privy council of the last Bush administration is led by Dick Cheney, getting down to the unfinished business of 1992 while 'Dubya' is out of town. It includes General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State James Baker, Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz and National Security aide Condoleeza Rice. From his father's domestic team, Bush has former Federal Reserve appointee Lawrence Summers, and faithful soldier Andrew Card to be his Chief of Staff - of whom one aide said: 'At least he's not a Texan.'

Then there is the overlapping circle of investors and corporate barons made rich by Bush's father, collected into the Carlyle Group, a cabalistic, Washington-based merchant bank chaired by Ronald Reagan's former Pentagon chief, Frank Carlucci. Carlyle is a financial club for Bush Snr's intimate circle and can expect to enjoy political clout in the White House.

Bush Snr is one of the bank's paid emissaries. Among the partners are his economic adviser Richard Darman and Dubya's front man in Florida, James Baker (Bush Jnr has his own connections with Carlyle).

>From this ancien régime comes talk of bipartisanship, conciliatory gestures to a riven nation and Congress, and even recruitment of pro-Bush Democrats into the Cabinet. But behind the figureheads are other faces - the hardline Texan managers of the most disciplined and lavishly funded political campaign in recent history.

And behind them are the real power brokers, hands to guide the White House from within the world of business and industry with whom Bush has worked for years, who wield awesome power in American society and owe no debt to compromise.

In the capital, the point man works both on stage and behind the scenes. When the Supreme Court convened on Friday, Bush was represented by Theodore Olson, a high-profile attorney and former partner of Kenneth Starr.

But, backstage, Olson is the Washingtonian who has kept the right-wing candle burning on the capital's dining circuit during the Clinton years, along with his socialite wife, Barbara. It is intriguing that Bush should have appointed the man who accepted some $2.4 million from the ultra-conservative donor Mellon Scaife for what became known as the Arkansas Project - the conspiracy to launch the Paula Jones lawsuit, to detonate the fruitless Whitewater 'scandal' through paid operatives in Little Rock, and ultimately to force the impeachment of President Clinton. Now Olson has become ambassador inside the Beltway for the state of Texas.

To most Washingtonians, Texas - with its 1.4 million children without health insurance, squandered surplus, appalling pollution record, exaggerated school standards, housing crisis and execution factory - is not an alluring model for America.

But Bush has, from the beginning, pointed to Texas as the validation of his presidential collateral. And the Bush power base - of his own generation, at least - lies in his fiefdom, in whose image he would forge the nation.

Most obviously, Bush will continue to lean on the so-called 'Iron Triangle' of his closest aides throughout his political career. The most visible of these is spokeswoman Karen Hughes, whom CNN's Charles Zewe says 'treats the media like a covey of quail that can be rounded up'.

'Bush,' says a Texan Democrat consultant, 'is the boy in the bubble of infotainment.' Hughes, an army brat born in Paris (France, not Texas), with size-12 shoes and Texan-sized voice, will be the woman to make sure the bubble does not burst, like the boil on Bush's cheek the week after he first thought he was elected.

The second point of the triangle is the buzz-cut Oklahoman Joe Allbaugh, quiet enforcer of the governor's will. He would be the White House 'thought police', with a further role to mediate friction that exists, hidden, between Hughes and the apex of the Iron Triangle, Karl Rove.

Rove goes back nearly 30 years in Republican politics, 25 of them with the Bush family. He moved to Texas to work for the then Congressman Bush in 1973. Talking to him is like meeting a robot; it is hard to detect any sign of feeling other than devotion to and control over his current master, for whom he has fought every political campaign. Even Tom Paulen, former chairman of the Texas Republican Party, calls Rove 'a control freak'.

Rove was Bush Snr's emissary to his own son. He had the idea 'Dubya' should run 'some time during the 1995 session', he told The Observer - and in this he is more than a political strategist. Rove does not only form part of the Iron Triangle; he welds it to other scaffolding in the Bush political edifice. He is the centre of a nexus that connects not only the gubernatorial machine to Bush Snr, but to the business and party interests that sought out George W. Bush (rather than the other way round) to win back the White House at, literally, any cost.

'I never dreamed about being President,' says Bush, 'All of a sudden, people started talking to me about the presidency'. Karl Rove organised the meetings in 1998 that began the Republicans' courting of this real-life Forrest Gump - for a reason.

Clinton was regarded as an illegitimate President because he gave certain quarters of American power a hard time - characterised by a new term in the Wall Street lexicon during the aftermath of the election: 'Bush stocks'.

'There's been a sigh of relief,' said Larry Smith, an analyst with Sutro in New York. Bush's proclaimed victory was greeted by a sudden leap in the share value of big pharmaceutical companies, big insurers of health care, and the big oil and tobacco companies.

While Rove was masterminding Bush's gubernatorial victory of 1994 in Texas, he himself had another job with one of these companies: a paid political intelligence operative for the Philip Morris cigarette company, reporting to another Bush aide, Jack Dillard, ubiquitous tobacco lobbyist.

Unlike that of Clinton, Bush's record on tobacco does not displease the industry; he decreed it impossible for the civil lawsuit against tobacco companies to proceed in Texas. 'The prospect of Bill Clinton gone and a Bush presidency makes the tobacco industry almost giddy,' says Martin Feldman, an analyst of the industry for the consultants Salomon Smith and Barney.

Corporate delight at the prospect of a Bush team heading for Washington stems from the core political philosophy Bush brings from Texas to Washington, which is also Rove's principal achievement. In Texas legalese it was called 'tort reform'; in Washington it translates as grand-scale deregulation of business, services and industry.

Even if a full-blooded Bush agenda is partly clipped by the pall of illegitimacy and the narrowness of his official victory, this is the Texas manifesto the newcomers to Washington will be determined - and likely - to accomplish.

It was described to The Observer this last week by a senior White House aide as 'bringing the business special interests into politics so they can take over the regulatory bodies of government and regulate themselves'. For example: the Environmental Protection Agency, the fair trade agencies, the health, safety and 'human resources' executives, the regulation of industry, education, guns, medicine and land use.

And so, behind the political 'Iron Triangle' is the real 'Iron Triangle' also lying in wait with Bush - the businessmen.

Foremost among these is Don Evans, the rainmaker. Evans, an oil executive from Bush's home town of Midland, Texas, goes back three decades with the governor, who was his childhood friend and confidant. Evans became his presidential campaign chairman, filling the biggest political war chest of all time.

He is now tipped by one Republican insider for 'any job he wants' in the White House. Whatever that is, he will be among the most influential politicians in America. The word among Republicans is that Evans may have his eye on the chairmanship of the party's National Committee.

Evans represents the industry in which Bush himself began his career, which propels the economy of Texas and was crucial to both his and his father's victories - oil.

No industry has a higher stake in 'tort reform' than the drillers of black gold, and few look forward to a deregulating Bush administration more than the executives of the oil industry, which has already been promised almost unfettered exploration and drilling rights.

But there are other interests too, and two of them - urban development and health care - combine with oil in another mighty figure in the background of a Bush administration. If he must thank his father for his name, Bush must thank Richard Rainwater for his money.

Last year, as he prepared to run for President, Bush liquidated a blind trust he created to hold his assets - many of them in oil, real estate, health care and other companies owned by Rainwater, a contributor to Bush's campaigns and with whose money Bush aquired his windfall stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Rainwater is a billionaire buying into beleaguered companies at discount prices and reselling when everyone wants in. But he is also involved in companies, including oil firms, that are heavily regulated with hundreds of millions in government contracts.

One, a hospital chain called Columbia/HCA, is the subject of a federal investigation into Medicare fraud. Another, Charter Behavioural Health Systems (in which Bush held investments), is subject to regulatory scrutiny, while another - Crescent Real Estate, which operates mental hospitals - has its multi-million-dollar government input under federal investigation. Rainwater is not himself accused of any misdemeanour, but in each case, the prospect of Bush's promise to privatise and deregulate the health system is a tempting one.

Rainwater is most famous for investing the oil wealth of the third point of Bush's business Iron Triangle - the Bass Brothers, builders of the metropolis Fort Worth. He turned the $50 million they invested with him in 1970 to $5 billion in 1986, mainly through timely investing in Texaco oil and Disney.

This is how the wheels go round in Texas: in 1997, Governor Bush supported a tax reform Bill aimed to cut, among other things, school property taxes. The reform saved Rainwater's Crescent Real Estate $2.5m.

In 1999, Bush rushed through an emergency tax relief package to help independent oil producers as prices slumped. According to state records, the biggest beneficiary was the Pioneer Natural Resources oil company, with a $1m tax break. Filings with the Security Exchange Commission show Rainwater to own 55m shares in Pioneer.

The scale model for this entwinement of political and commercial interests was the inclusion of the oil companies in drawing up Texas's clean air regulations last year. The rules were devised by Bush's office in collaboration with Marathon Oil and Exxon, and left companies to set their own standards voluntarily.

But while the governor was waiting to sign the new 'self-regulatory' Bill into law, the town of Odessa, Texas, was covered by a pall of black smoke so thick that drivers had to switch on their lights during daylight.

Odessa, said Dr David Karman of the Texas Natural Resources Commission, 'was like having an open incinerator in your backyard. Only this incinerator is burning a very large soup of toxic chemicals'.

In bringing the politics of Texan non-government into national government, Bush is in perfect harmony with two of his most powerful lieutenants in Congress: Dick Armey, leader of the House, and Tom Delay, the Republicans' feared chief whip.

Delay, who led the impeachment of President Clinton and whose office mobilised the baying crowds bussed around Florida last month, is seen as the coming man and leader of the extreme Right, with which Bush must deal. Delay has called the Environmental Protection Agency the 'Gestapo' of government.

Armey has likewise attacked what he calls 'government shackles on enterprise'; both men have sworn absolute loyalty to Bush.

And as it happens, both men, like George W. Bush, come from Texas. Another Iron Triangle.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Answers

Cherri, you have to realize, Republicans think all this is great.

They won't yell until they feel some hurt.

NIMBY applies to all the oil drilling and so forth. Keep it out of the wealthy neighborhoods, and just drill your heart out.

Compassionate conservative never meant anything to GW except a campaign slogan that Rove dreamed up.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

...and, for those who want it, the link to the original article (the British, as they say, are apparently NOT amused...).

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

With this kind of a choke-hold, Paul, what kind of "hurt" would they ever feel?

No, I'm afraid it's back to the Reagan/Bush status quo.

I'm simply amazed at the blinders his so-called "supporters" have with regards to the shady business dealings. But oh-my-gawd -- if that was a (GASP!) Democrat with those same links.....

Funny thing is that I've been saying all along that I felt Junior never really wanted to run; that it was "those in the background" who orchestrated this, much as his entire life has been orchestrated.

In a way, I almost feel sorry for the guy. If he wasn't such an arrogant spoiled brat, I just might.

The British are definitely NOT amused. Neither am I.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Patricia:

And if I should paste in a long article from the American Spectator smearing Gore, would you nod and marvel at what total assholes Gore's supporters must be? Or would you suspect that the American Spectator was, uh, slanted a bit?

What's amusing (for real) is that you and Cherri are doing *precisely* what the y2k doomers did before rollover -- finding the most absurdly unrealistic speculations and opinions you can from the furthest end of the loony bin, and using these as the "evidence" to support foregone conclusions. What *happened* to your ability to see this? The Guardian was a mouthpiece for Robin Guenier, yet neither of you ever claimed that "the British" expected meltdown and cited The Guardian in your support! You used to know better. What happened?

Sheesh! We have here a close election between two fairly capable people representing two very similar centrist parties. Any really STRONG preference for either one must necessarily be based on imaginary differences, because the real ones just aren't there. Your unseemly enthusiastic willingness to throw rationality to the winds and start gleefully cheering the most vile mud slinging is very disturbing.

Earth to Cherri! Earth to Patricia! Being a partisan is fun, rooting for the home team is all in the spirit of the game. But the visiting team is only the loyal opposition, they are NOT the very spawn of the devil out to rape your children while they sell you into slavery! I simply cannot *believe* you are buying into this? Hello, anyone in there anymore...?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

they are NOT the very spawn of the devil out to rape your children while they sell you into slavery!

Are you sure? [grin]

I think what you're missing here, Flint, is that many folks see Gore competent [by a hair] and Bush totally incompetent. YOU seem to feel that they are EQUALLY competent, or even equally incompetent. It's scary to some that a total nincompoop could confuse the nuclear button with the game-boy button. Personally, I don't think that the Bush handlers will let him anywhere NEAR the nuclear button, so unless he's left totally unattended, I have no fears in this regard.

This goes beyond partisanship, Flint. Many people would have felt comfortable with a Republican candidate like McCain. I would have voted for him, myself, over Gore.

The awful truth [that Patricia continues to point out] is that many people associate Gore with Clinton and their hatred of Clinton goes FAR beyond the fear some of us feel that a child in a man's body has control of our country.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

"Earth to Patricia!"?! Excuse me?

Yes, my "partisanship" is apparent -- but not as regards the FACTS that are presented in this article (facts that I have seen elsewhere as well, prior to reading this piece). My "partisanship" comes into play whereby I happen to feel that this is a very bad thing for the country.

I am NOT comfortable with all these Reagan/Bush Sr. cronies, all the big-business concerns, all the shady and bordering-on-illegal dealings they bring to the table. I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that GWB has never made a decision on his own in his life. I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that Daddy and/or Daddy's friends have gotten him into and out of everything he's ever touched. I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that everything he does and says is SCRIPTED by these "advisors".

THAT is not the hallmark of a "leader".

And because of THIS you drill me a new one? Dispute the facts, Flint, and leave the personal attacks out of it. It's that "credibility" thing again.

Oh and who's "...doing *precisely* what the y2k doomers did..."?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

Having been inundated with about $3 billion worth of campaign advertising, some of us have come away convinced by these incessant messages that Gore is a petty, unlikeable, mean-spirited liar while Bush is too stupid to pound sand and someone must flap his lips for him while the puppet masters actually speak. Great. We have to choose between an evil monster and a drooling idiot!

But I notice that Bush has been governor of Texas for some years, and not one of 254 counties voted against him in this election, not even inner city counties heavy with minorities. How much of a drooling idiot can he be? And Gore had a good Congressional record and has been a perfectly good Vice President. These may not be the world's most exciting candidates, but they both seem quite competent.

Patricia:

You're losing it, sweetie. This article starts in the first sentence with the nice, factual speculation that a Bush administration "may stand for little but revenge and greed", and carries on in the second with the nice factual "joke" that "George W. Bush is learning how to pronounce the word 'inaugural'"

And downhill we go from there, while you lap it up as gospel. This entire article qualifies as vicious, so hopelessly slanted as to defy belief. And I'd have the same opinion if it were about Gore. We do NOT need this kind of bile informing our discussions. I don't know who Ed Vulliamy is, but he seems to be a pretty damn good litmus test. Those who can stomach what he pukes up have abandoned all reality in their fanaticism.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

The article is from the Guardian. It's always interesting, if not pleasant, to see what other countries see when they look at America.

This so called 'election' was a farce and a tragedy.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Pam:

The problem is, reading The Guardian to find out what England thinks of America is like reading the KKK literature to find out what "America" thinks of Africa. Not exactly a neutral selection there. And Patricia, who lives here and ought to know better, is citing this slander as FACT in a tone of voice (and thought) invented by Paul Milne.

All I can do is keep repeating that these guys are BOTH on our side, and BOTH of them want what's best for the country. We can have our preferences without putting our minds on a war footing (where truth is the first casualty and the enemy is evil beyond imagining) and abandoning rational thought. Hell, you'd think even *women* could do this, although this thread militates against that unusually strongly...

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Flint:

We didn't get any T.V. ads. It's a given that it's a Republican state, so the Dems didn't bother, and why would the Repugs bother to dispute what wasn't there?

I wonder, however, where you got the idea that all 254 counties voted for Bush. MY county did, but there are certainly counties that did not. You must also understand that the Republican party has all the money in elections here in Texas. There are few that can compete with that. In fact, for Senate and House this year, I had a choice of a Republican for Senate and a Republican for the House. There WAS no opposition.

Presidential Votes by County for President in Texas 2000

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

>> ... not one of 254 counties [in Texas] voted against [Bush] in this election... <<

I followed Anita's link. It was obvious that most Texas counties voted for Bush. In most cases overwhelmingly.

In all, 21 counties voted for Gore: Cameron, Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, El Paso, Hidalgo, Jefferson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Lasalle, Maverick, Morris, Newton, Presidio, Reeves, Robertson, Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala. That's less than 10%, but more than 0%.

About 10 more were rather close. The rest were a blowout for Bush.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Brian:

I think you forgot Brooks [but don't feel bad, I missed it on my first pass as well.]

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Brian and Anita:

Thanks. I saw one of those "every county in the US" maps, and Texas looked entirely red. I looked closely, but it wasn't a large map, and Texas sure has a lot of tiny counties. It looked pretty solid. Certainly Bush seemed much more popular in Texas than Gore did in Tennessee. But who knows, maybe if Gore had been more directly involved in Tennessee politics (like governor) he'd have won there overwhelmingly. In which case I confess I would be *much* more impressed by Gore. It's hard for ANY governor to be that popular.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Brian:

You also missed Frio and Starr. Is that 24 now? We're almost up to the 10% point. Should we count until we get the figure we like?[grin]

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

I looked at the 'Times' to find rabid articles but came up with something quite different. If this has been in the American online press, I have missed it. WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 06 2000 JEFF MITCHELL / REUTERS George W. Bush arrives at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, after his CIA briefing at the Governor's Mansion

US Election 2000

Surgeon challenges Cheneys fitness after heart attacks

FROM DAMIAN WHITWORTH IN WASHINGTON

GEORGE W. BUSH continued with preparations to become President yesterday as new doubts were cast on the health of Richard Cheney, the man who has taken on the burden of planning the transition. Mr Bush received his first intelligence briefing from the CIA and Mr Cheney briefed congressional Republicans on how work was progressing on assembling a new administration.

One of the nation’s leading heart surgeons raised questions, however, about the fitness of the vice-presidential nominee, who is recovering from his fourth heart attack.

Mr Cheney has had to fend off persistent questioning from reporters after he suffered a mild heart attack two weeks ago and declined to fully discuss the details of his condition.

Eric Topol, chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, discussed Mr Cheney’s case with his personal cardiologist, Jonathan Reiner, and publicly warned Mr Cheney that he could expect further attacks and that he was not taking the necessary steps to change his lifestyle.

Dr Topol revealed that Mr Cheney, who suffered three heart attacks in the 22 years before the latest incident, had gained 40lb since he underwent a quadruple heart bypass 12 years ago.

“We like to have patients who have coronary disease to be at their ideal — I call “fighting” — weight. So clearly, he isn’t there yet,” Dr Topol said. He added that Mr Cheney was not taking enough exercise. “It hasn’t been one of these religious-type things that it needs to be for patients who have had heart disease.”

He added that Mr Cheney had continued to smoke after at least his first two heart attacks and suggested that the four drugs the former Defence Secretary took may have given him an inaccurate belief that he is healthier than he is.

“With these medications is a false sense that they don’t really need to make radical changes in lifestyles,” he told ABC News.

He concluded that “it’s very likely that Mr Cheney will have another heart event at some point”.

Nevertheless, Mr Cheney continues to shuttle backwards and forwards between Washington DC and Austin, Texas, while Mr Bush takes life at a much gentler pace, dividing his time between his ranch and the Governor’s mansion.

Yesterday he had what he described as a “good briefing” from a CIA officer on intelligence matters. “I appreciate the (Clinton) Administration’s willingness to send a member of the intelligence community over to give me a security briefing.”

Clearly anxious to appear statesmanlike, Mr Bush did not echo Republican calls for Mr Gore to concede immediately. “That’s a decision the Vice-President should make,” he said. “It’s a difficult decision, of course. I understand what he may be going through.”

Condoleezza Rice, tipped to become Mr Bush’s National Security Adviser, joined him for what he called a “busy day” of work yesterday. She is one of the certainties to join a Bush Cabinet.

Almost anybody else, apart from Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and another veteran of the previous Bush Administration, who has been all but named Secretary of State, is just another name to be tossed around in the political parlour game of the moment.

Lawrence Lindsey, the prominent economist and a longtime adviser, is expected to become either Treasury Secretary or chief economic adviser. Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website. United States News December 06, 2000 HELP CROSSWORD SEARCH CONTACT US TERMS & CONDITIONS

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Whassuupp?

I wonder, however, where you got the idea that all 254 counties voted for Bush

He got it from the same Meme the Conservatives get their constant echoing dribble from. "The Rush Limbaugh-WorldNetDaily whining we are perfectly correct and the other half of the country are freaking lazy morons dribble", that stuff.

Clue one for these WRONG yo-yos should be the fact they constantly need reassurance for their views. Right doesn't NEED reassurance, it IS all by itself. Where are all the supposedly "liberal" radio shows? TV shows? websites? webboards? Oh sure a few, but they are out- numbered the way a polly was against the Y2k Zoombies. Centrists don't need to "debate" the OBVIOUS. Meme infected units do cause they got an infection which needs constant feeding.

254 voted,,,wrongo. Also wrong ANYONE has won squat in this Presidential election as well. Why do many just assume Bush has won and Albert is trying to steal it away now? Why do many just assume there has been a zillion recounts already? We have had TWO machine recounts and various hand recounts of varing size and quality. ALL the counts show variations unacceptable in an election this close. Thus according to Florida state law Al Gore is entitled to a hand recount in three counties he chooses. When will Miami follow the LAW?

ZERO has been decided. What has happened is Bush has succeeded in painting his opponent as Evil. He has drawn this thing out so long opposing the LAW(go read it)with lawsuits meant to avoid recounts, and to certify methods he himself didn't believe accurate in his own damn state. The public is predictably tired. They understand the process does not allow for a fair and accurate count anyhow. System is a JOKE and half have known this for along time and don't even bother.

Truth is the Conservative Meme is the Meme to be riding(ask Rush about it, or Mike Adams, or Joe Farah). This election is about the Meme winning, not truth. Not about decency, compassion, fairness, about the Meme. Same Meme we pollys encountered with Y2k. The selfish, fearful, racist, hypocritical, screw all yous as long as I get mine Meme. The "computers are crooked", the "gumbit is crooked", the "whole freaking world is crooked cept little-old-me" Meme.

This is where Mr. Debater gets his ALL 254 counties voted for Dumbo line from. Gentleman wants depth. LOOK IN THE MIRROR for starters Mr. Flint.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Speaking of memes, time to update your usage of the word.

LINK http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004C28

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

I'm "losing it, sweetie"? Oh my.....not a very good start, my man.

(And I did catch the dig once again that I "should know better". Trying to figure out if that's supposed to be a compliment in some obscure way.)

You know something, Flint? A part of me really believes that a Bush Administration (not so much Bush himself -- but the people around him) just MIGHT "...stand for little but revenge and greed...". And that's part of the problem I have with a Bush Administration.

Your opinion (which, BTW, isn't always the "right one"; especially in this case) that the article goes "downhill ... from there" is just that -- your OPINION. You then go on to make assumptions (I "lap it up as gospel"; the "entire article qualifies as vicious, so hopelessly slanted as to defy belief"). No Flint, it only defies YOUR belief, and the belief of others who SUPPORT BUSH.

Why someone as intelligent as you are cannot seem to see this is beyond my scope of comprehension. (<---my little dig; not that it matters)

Oh, you did add that little "qualifier": "And I'd have the same opinion if it were about Gore." Funny thing there; I have yet to see you denounce the HUNDREDS of articles posted that were, in fact JUST LIKE THIS ONE, but were about Gore. By all means, if I've missed them, feel free to link. I'll happily retract that statement.

It seems to me that you've completely missed the part in my previous post where I stated that I had seen this information (FACTS) elsewhere PRIOR to reading this article. Funny thing about that; I saw a strangely similar piece published in Mother Jones back in 1992. How odd that such "bile" and "speculation" would last eight whole years (sound kind of familiar to you?); and even the names didn't change all that much.

Funnier still is the FACT that you don't seem to question any of the specifics in this piece; much the same as most Bush "supporters" don't seem to question any of his "advisors'" or family's business dealings, associates, etc. Like I said, if the situation were reversed and it was Gore instead of Bush, the cries of DEMON would be even louder than they are now. (<---speculation a la Fineman)

Your personal digs towards me aside, Flint, I really expected better of YOU. (<---not a dig; genuine surprise)

Just a little unsolicited Helpful Hint: Don't start off by calling me "sweetie"; it really diminishes anything of value that you might have to say following it.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Patricia:

You may dislike Bush. You may feel he would do an inferior job. And that's perfectly legitimate. But you write:

[I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that GWB has never made a decision on his own in his life. I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that Daddy and/or Daddy's friends have gotten him into and out of everything he's ever touched. I am NOT comfortable with the FACT that everything he does and says is SCRIPTED by these "advisors".]

Now, these are facts only Paul Milne would be comfortable with. Remember Paul, who regarded his predictions as being FACTS? There is absolutely nothing "factual" about any of these things you are not comfortable with-- they are the wooliest of subjective impressions by nature. Now, you may be comfortable with your impressions (though you might just ask yourself *where* you got these impressions), but they are no more "facts" than if I said it was a FACT that the article went downhill from there. Just taking a statement that would be slander if it had any substance and capitalizing the word FACT doesn't make it factual, it only highlights stunning ignorance of what a fact really is. Stunning ignorance deserves a "sweetie" every now and then. You certainly recognize opinions when *I* state them, why can't you do the same with your precious Mother Jones opinions? Calling them FACTS is frankly stupid.

Now, you write:

[I stated that I had seen this information (FACTS) elsewhere PRIOR to reading this article. Funny thing about that; I saw a strangely similar piece published in Mother Jones back in 1992.]

Now, let's stop and think. Information need not be factual. You can call opinions "information" if you wish, but that doesn't make them facts. Mother Jones is an opinion magazine. OK, maybe this gives us a clue whose opinions you have adopted. But sharing opinions doesn't make them facts either. As "information", it only tells us what your opinion is and with whom you share it. The opinion itself doesn't qualify as "information", but as noise.

As a footnote, anyone can go back and dredge up an opinion piece lambasting ANY politician who holds or runs for office. I invite you to point to these pieces and state your agreement with them. But your agreement does NOT render them facts -- they remain opinions, often supported by nothing but wishful thinking and partisan politics. Hell, stating "GWB has never made a decision in his life" is gramatically correct but lacks any semantic content. You simply could not define what this statement *means* clearly enough so that any two people could agree that it applies or does not apply to any particular past instance of behavior. But hey, you don't seem to care that it lacks both content and meaning, you call it a FACT because it makes you feel "comfortable". You tell 'em, sweetie!

And I've seen lots of cheerleading for Bush and Gore here, and I think that's fine. I've seen plenty of discussion of the various tactics and strategies they are using, and I've seen people question the positions taken by lawyers and judges. These are good discussions. But now I've started to see posts describing the candidates as drooling, evil puppets under the control of nameless but EVIL eminences out to do we don't know what, except it's really really awful. Like the candidates have been stolen from homes for the retarded and taken over by space aliens or something. This is silly. This is pure imagination, based on nothing but exposure to the media of choice and extrapolated beyond all recognition.

And yes, I think you should know better than this. I'm perfectly willing to talk about why I think Bush might (no guarantees) make a slightly better President. And I do NOT think so because I believe Gore is too stupid to tie his shoes and anyone who doesn't agree is a cretin! I'd be ashamed to base my case on a vicious hatchet job by a paid political hack, much less BUY INTO that kind of screed.

Patricia, neither of these guys is a strong candidate. I sometimes suspect strong candidates chose not to run because current conditions are almost certain to make the winner end up looking bad. And I don't think even a strong and exciting candidate could overcome economic trends when saddled with a split legislature. But you are going overboard here with paranoia. I believe that you should rule your own opinions, and not let them rule you. You've crossed that line, and you need to see this. You've said nothing in Gore's favor, making you the poster child for negative campaigning. Fear and hatred are a *terrible* basis for motivation.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

You're right; some of what I stated as FACT was opinion on my part; but it was based on FACTS that I've seen. A little research on your part would uncover exactly the same FACTS that mine did.

What I read in Mother Jones was not wholly opinion, Flint; most of it was a matter of *public records* -- SEC records, prosecutorial records, police records, all available for *public viewing*.

Yes, they put a spin on the piece and inserted their opinions, but it didn't change the FACTS of who the Bush family deals with, of how the Bush family "deals", of where the Bush family "deals", all the little details and all the relationships. All a matter of *public record*. What surprised me most about the article was the small number of speculations and allegations, versus facts that are on record; especially considering it was in Mother Jones.

I've not said anything in Gore's favor because we weren't exactly discussing Gore, Flint; we were discussing *Bush*. And unlike some Bush "supporters", I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand.

I'm also on record as stating (at least twice that I can recall; possibly more) that I'm not all that much a Gore fan and that, much to my dismay, I voted for the man because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. I'm further on record as stating that I'm not even registered in a party, as since the day I was able to register, I have felt that, for the most part, the two "major" parties are "major" morons. And that was almost twenty-three years ago.

So you're correct; I'm not going out of my way to "support" Gore, because he doesn't necessarily represent *me*. And as we do agree that one cannot have a 100% fit in these things, my vote went to Gore because he represented MORE of me than did Bush, and I felt he would be a better leader than Bush.

You seem to feel there's something "wrong with me" because I don't happen to think GWB is competent enough to lead this country. You seem to feel there's something "wrong with me" because I don't trust the people with whom he has surrounded himself (based on their individual and collective history). You call me "paranoid" because I honestly believe that those very same people are the ones who are REALLY going to be running things; each one with their own little agenda.

Yet once again, I don't see you attempting to refute what I've SAID; just the fact that I SAID it.

You claim that you would be perfectly willing to discuss why you think Bush might be a better President than Gore; feel free, but (no offense) I'm not really interested in why you feel that way. Which probably explains why I don't recall asking for your opinion on that. What I do recall is that I responded to Paul Davis regarding his comments on the article posted at the beginning of this thread. What I then recall is you took what you "read between the lines" that I wrote, and blasted **me** (not what I **wrote**) to no end (as you continue to do) because you don't agree with what I've said, how I've said it, and, apparently, the mere fact that I've said it.

I'm going to re-post my last response to you on the other thread; it fits here quite well:

You said: I believe these are BOTH decent, capable people, and our country will be in good hands under either one.

And therein lies the difference, Flint. I DON'T believe GWB is "capable" (he probably is "decent" in many ways; though his apparent record on executions would tend to belie at least some of that) and I DON'T think our country will be in "good hands" under him. Because I DON'T believe it will BE "under him".

I don't "hate" the guy and I never said that he was some kind of "demon" (his "advisors" are another story entirely). I simply think he's incompetent (he certainly gives that impression when he speaks) and I honestly think he gives Gore a (serious) run for the money in the "arrogance" department (and I think many, if not most people who exhibit such "arrogance" -- and this includes Gore -- are compensating for some other failing in their lives; in many instances it's incompetency that's being "hidden"). I DEFINITELY don't trust the people around him -- the people who I believe will REALLY be "running things".

FWIW, I believe GWB is naive; I think he trusts too many of the *wrong* people; and this probably stems from so many years of having Daddy and Daddy's friends "take care of" things for him. I further agree with the "bile" and "speculation" of the article in The Guardian that indicated it wasn't GWB's idea to run for President in the first place. I had had that "feeling" all along; and I'll take it a step further and state that he initially didn't WANT to run for President.

You see, Flint, that's what it all comes down to -- A Difference of Opinion between us. As I said on another thread (or was it this one?) -- the Truth probably lies somewhere in the Middle. No great, earth-shattering newsflash there; kind of the way it is and the way it probably always will be.

Continuing to refer to me as "sweetie" and comparing me to Milne does nothing for your credibility, Flint. And I would think that would mean something to you. You see, I **do** "know better".

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Patricia:

As we saw watching Jimmy Carter, no one man can do it all or know it all, even working 20 hours a day. All Presidents must delegate authority and solicit expert advice from advisors they trust. There is no avoiding this.

If Bush becomes President and the advisors he trusts (1) Are as bad as you fear; and (2) Are really running the whole show after all, then I hope we make it through without too much permanent damage done.

But I admit I'm allergic to the kind of exaggeration and demonizing that you've started to drift toward. I agree GWB is no prize, nor is Gore, but I sincerely doubt either one is nearly as bad in real life as in the imaginations of the fearful.

And whether you care to face it or not, the "facts" you cited earlier were quintessential "Milne-facts". We all try to base our opinions on facts, but we all tend to select the most congenial facts, and we also tend to regard allegations and assertions as facts whenever we find *them* congenial.

I can cite facts and figures I cribbed from Rush Limbaugh all day long. Are these "facts"? Well, Limbaugh is AT LEAST as neutral a source as Mother Jones. So by your standards, these are indeed facts. Right? After all, Rush Limbaugh *claims* they are a matter of public record. Do you believe him?

And even if they are all public record, (1) They are very selectively culled (remember y2k?); (2) They are being used to *support* a case, not to derive one; (3) They can ALWAYS lead to a variety of logically supportable but mutually exclusive conclusions.

We are always dealing with half truths. I suppose someone could comb through your past, selecting the worst (or worst-sounding) things and *nothing else*, and using these to draw extremely misleading and unpleasant conclusions about you. Is this "factual" if everything selected is on record?

You'd probably protest, "Hey, wait a minute. That's not FAIR!" And you'd be entirely correct. Yet when someone does *exactly* this same thing to Bush, you revel in it and call it "the facts", and your imagination takes it from there and runs rampant. And I think that's bad for your soul.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

In reading over my responses, I realize I've not made something clear; in thinking about it, I didn't realize it was necessary. But it seems I do.

I do NOT think the President, all by his lonesome, makes EVERY decision. But that is NOT my issue with GWB's "advisors". These people are NOTORIOUS (IMO), and I'm genuinely surprised that you don't see this. If it's due to your propensity to agree with what they stand for (and what they stood for through the Reagan/Bush years), then BIAS explains it.

But if you are aware of what these people are about, why do you continue to drill me for my OPINION that they will be the ones REALLY running things and that this will be a bad thing?

I thought I had agreed with you that neither Bush nor Gore is probably as bad as they are made out to be. But we weren't talking about that; you were pounding on me for my OPINIONS of Bush, and the "source" of my "facts".

Which is it? What are we really talking about here? You don't like my "sources"; you don't like my "facts". You still have yet to refute them, instead telling me I'm "demonizing" Bush a la Milne! *I'm* not "demonizing" him, Flint; his associations are "demonizing" him.

Yes, THOSE particular facts on which I have based a good percentage of my OPINION are selectively culled. But THOSE are the PROBLEMS I have with Bush and his "advisors". What am I supposed to do -- tell you that Cheney DOESN'T beat his wife, and that I don't have a problem with that? Well, OK, then -- Cheney doesn't beat his wife. He has at least ONE redeeming quality. Bush doesn't beat his wife. He has at least ONE redeeming quality. Frankly, I'm sure the whole lot of them have many MORE redeeming qualities.

But this has NOTHING to do with the ISSUES I have with them.....nor does it have anything to do with holding the power of running the country.

Yes, I would think it "unfair" if someone selectively culled the worst from me. But it would go to the ISSUES they had with me; and there's really nothing I can do about that except try to understand if there is a legitimate issue there, and if so, is there a way I can fix it.

And, FWIW, I've had it happen to me. And that's how I handled it. How ironic that you should use that as an example.

I don't know where you got the impression I "revel in" any of this. It's all-too-sad, Flint; all-too-sad that this is what it has come to. I "revel in" NONE of this. I derive no "joy" from any of this. I express no "glee" because of this. It hurts me to my core.

And I felt exactly the same way so many times during the Y2K "debate". I saw things that shouldn't BE. I tried to correct those things (and so did you).

I have consistently expressed my incredulity with many of the so-called Bush "supporters" who will POUNCE on anything that even HINTS at a perceived Democrat "scandal" (even going so far as to hang any perceived Clinton "scandal" on Gore!), yet who will COMPLETELY OVERLOOK the shady business dealings of Bush, the Bush family, and the Bush family "friends" (who became the GWB "advisors", some of whom are now destined to be the GWB CABINET!).

That's the same type of disconnect I saw during the Y2K "debate". So I'm approaching it in the same way.

Your concern for my soul notwithstanding, I really don't see what the point of all this is, Flint. We've agreed that everyone is biased in some way or another. We've agreed that, in most people, this clouds their thought processes. We've further agreed that people will argue from the viewpoint of their biases (and that includes you as well). Do you believe that my bias is clouding my thought processes beyond a reasonable level? Then say so man! Don't sit there and liken me to Milne. Jeez; in my "worst liberal skin", I'm not that bad. I don't learn anything from such "constructive criticism"; I don't see how anyone could.

You're fierce, Flint. But you need to state your purpose at some point in this discussion. Personal attacks aside, you're an excellent adversary.

(And the dawn of realization hits her like a rock.....)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

*grin*

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Patricia:

[Do you believe that my bias is clouding my thought processes beyond a reasonable level?]

I'm not sure. I'm *definitely* sure this is true of Cherri.

As I see it, nobody lives a life in politics sufficient to be elected President without meeting a lot of people along the line who have significant influence on their lives and their decisions. This is as true of Gore as of Bush (both of whom have fathers whose influence is profound). In addition, ANY president is going to seek advice from those of congenial politics. Democrats tend to seek out/nominate/appoint academics from frankly liberal unversities, while Republicans tend to look toward private industry for these people.

If you're are saying that these other people literally tell Bush (or Gore) what opinions to hold, then I will never agree. If you're saying that a lifetime listening to similar opinions has formed those of Bush (or Gore), then fine, of course nobody will disagree. I think any President, just like you or me, holds an at least nascent opinion about anything we think we understand at all. And like anyone else, the President is going to seek information that *supports* that opinion, or develops it in a direction with which he feels comfortable. Sometimes we call this an aspect of "political instinct."

So when you say you feel Gore (and his advisors and appointees and lieutenants) will in your opinion do a better job of running the country than Bush and his crowd, this is one thing. When you say Bush is a puppet who has never made a decision in his life, that everything he has ever done or thought has been scripted and controlled by others, this is quite *another* thing. Hey, I'm a bit less comfortable with Gore's "political instincts", but I'm not about to claim he's a moron puppet whose strings are being pulled by the forces of evil!

Most of the time, you sound like someone who prefers Gore's general approach to the issues and questions of our time, and (from my perspective) your thought processes are just fine and not clouded at all. But when you start extolling a hatchet job that claims Bush "is not really a person" but rather a mindless mouthpiece for "his father's ancien regime", this is simply too much. This ugly article combines false allegation, innuendo, implication, extreme slant, and boiling hatred to build a picture that *should* embarrass ANYONE, UNLESS their thought processes are clouded beyond a reasonable level.

Now, anyone sufficiently vicious could dig through Gore's history and his associates, and with a sequence of hints and half-truths and loaded terms and other outright dishonest argument, make Gore look like a tool of the Devil as well. I'm NOT saying anyone should be forbidden from writing or publishing that kind of filth. But as I wrote before, I consider one's reaction to it as a litmus test. Those who wallow in it rather than reject it for the excrement it is (no matter WHO is being dirtied) are NOT displaying clear thought in my opinion.

Most of the time, I find your thoughts clear and reasonable, and you support them very well. Seeing you buying into this kind of of shit slinging is like finding you under a pointed hood at a cross burning. I am shocked. What in the *hell* is Patricia *doing* here?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

lolol, loved your "hello, hello" post Flint. Isn't it interesting how comrades change sides, depending on the cause? I am withdrawing from politics for now, well, not really, I'm just looking at the lighter side of it now. I did my bit and voted a couple of times, so I figure its now time to have some fun with the hardcore who can't quite seem to stop "campaigning."

I did request that Cherri link to the fruitcake sites she quotes from, in order to afford me more humorous material...got any links to Alan Dertwitch ramblings?? ;)

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000