Here's a Bush link that everyone can enjoy.
December 17, 2000 8:05 AM   Subscribe

Here's a Bush link that everyone can enjoy. The pro-Bush camp can crow over how great the country will be after all of these promises are put into place. The anti-Bush camp can rant about how the country will go to the dogs if any of these see the light of day. Or you could complain that the "liberal media" didn't run a list of Clinton's campaign promises. I'm just irked that there is a duplicate entry, making the actual total 178. Can you find it?
posted by JDC8 (11 comments total)
Or you could be like me and think
Prohibit putting U.S. troops under United Nations command.
Prevent unions from giving union dues to candidates.

Fight Europe's ban on importing U.S. biotech crops.
Deploy national and theater ballistic-missile defense as soon as possible.

The way this all breaks down, you can just imagine what group he was addressing when he made these promises. Politics is not a winners game.
posted by thirteen at 8:38 AM on December 17, 2000

Or you could have people thinking many of these are good plans, but will never happen, anyway, because Bush is too much of a wimp.
posted by dagnyscott at 9:17 AM on December 17, 2000

Require schools to have a "zero tolerance'' policy for classroom disruption.

I'm sorry, but zero tolerance policies, especially in schools, are EVIL. The only thing they are good for is for getting political points with hysterical parents. And what constitutes "classroom disruption" anyway?
posted by daveadams at 11:12 AM on December 17, 2000

Class clowns will be shot on sight.
posted by frykitty at 11:26 AM on December 17, 2000

Thirteen, quick question, if you think Unions giving donations to candidates is bad, shouldn't businesses be banned from doing the same?

It's basically the same conflict, isn't it?
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:05 PM on December 17, 2000

Impose stiffer penalties for frivolous lawsuits.

Tort reform! Dear god no!

Who wants the government telling you when you can sue somebody?


Absolutely nothing on alterna-fuels. Pollution simple won't drop if we keep using fossil fuels.

Doubled, sorry.

posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:14 PM on December 17, 2000

Absolutely nothing on alterna-fuels. Pollution simple won't drop if we keep using fossil fuels.

Not only will pollution not drop, but we'll be ill prepared when we can no longer pump and mine oil and coal at the same rates we've become dependent on. Of course, all of us well-off, concerned individuals can do our part (and probably have more influence than the government, not to mention protecting our personal interests) by starting to convert our personal power consumption to alternative sources.

Vote Solar in 2004!
posted by daveadams at 2:24 PM on December 17, 2000

Cap'n: It not that the union donating money is bad on the face of it. I not into banning much. I think the union donation is wrong because many people are not in a position where they can refuse to join the union. They are forced to pay those dues, and I do not think donating their dues away is a fair use. Anyone one in those unions are free to donate on their own is free to do so.
Business donation is nearly as bad, as they are spending money that really belongs in their profit column, and therefore are spending their shareholders money.
I don't have solutions, but I know this is wrong.
posted by thirteen at 3:12 PM on December 17, 2000

What's wrong with only allowing people to make political contributions, and disallowing contributions by organizations? If a particular candidate is a good choice for my industry/organization, then that's where I will give my dollars. I don't need my company lobbying on my behalf, particularly when I may not hold the same opinions as the good ol' boys in the boardroom.

I know that the "free speech" flag has been waved about a bit when this subject comes up, but I remain unconvinced that (a) spending money is a form of speech, and (b) that the framers intended for corporate entities to enjoy all the benefits of the Bill of Rights. But I digress.
posted by mkhall at 7:44 PM on December 17, 2000

Just so we all we know the ban on Union donations is basically to keep the Teacher's Union, historically a Democratic organization, out of politics. Republicans would prefer if there wasn't a Department of Education.

That's the stuff mkhall. Shake it, uh-huh. Not only should organizations be totally banned from political donations (which they consider investments to grease their lobbyists' wheels), but individual donations should be capped at $1,000. Anything over should be investigated for violations in the FEC code.

13, the problem with unions, businesses, wealthy individual and PACs donating to political campaigns is the conflict of interest that rises. The more the parties rely on donors, the more beholden they become to those donors. I know Clinton argued that there isn't any evidence to support this, but I say the evidence is in the worst disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor since the Depression and the rise of global corporatism as evinced in the WTO and FTAA.

The fact is individuals cannot compete with a corporations. Corporations are bigger and stronger than any one person can be. “Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).”

posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:50 PM on December 17, 2000

The whole idea of union involvement in politics stinks. The NEA has a lobbyist whose focus is on trade issues. Why does the nation's largest teachers union need to lobby about trade? Shouldn't their focus be on educational issues? How do they justify using member dues for this?

It should be noted that unions are supposed to provde an on-demand refund, in like percentage, the portion of any member's dues used for political contributions. My mother has asked for this refund, and has received something like 11% of her union dues returned to her. (She's a member of AFSCME by no choice of her own.)

The only problem with this is that a.) it takes forever to get the refund -- there should be an opt-out instead b.) the union says that only x% of the dues are used for political activities, but that only includes payment to lobbyists and direct contributions to candidates and parties.

Every month my mother receives a newsletter from AFSCME and for the last year, it has been about 90% Dem party propaganda and 10% official union information. But the cost of printing and sending that newsletter out is not considered a part of the refundable political portion. It's a nasty thing to do to people who have no choice but to be a part of a union -- especially when the union is putting forth so much time and money to advance ideals that are in direct opposition to a member's convictions.
posted by Dreama at 9:33 AM on December 18, 2000

« Older   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments