Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Double standards? What double standards?
glenn, that fruit was rotten, no matter who picked it.
Call it apples or oranges, Trent's jokes and Dean's lame humor were equally inappropriate,and deserve equal censure. Spin this one - either Dean should be censured as fervently as Lott was, or Lott should have been treated as lightly as Dean was. Simple decency demands the former.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 21, 2005 at 6:47 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
You are wasting everyone's time by trying to match your apples with our oranges! You have mastered the spin mode and stay on message approach very well! George Bush has made some very provocative moves in his first four years that have nothing to do with sanity. The rule of law will prevail!
posted by
Glennb
on February 18, 2005 at 8:18 PM
| link to this | reply
It was their money and they could do what they want, my problem
was the money spent on the security and that Washington DC had to pick up a heavy tab and dip into Homeland Security money that was to go security programs, not 9 balls. Bush of course deserved the celebration but in todays world I think he could have cut back and saved the taxpayers some money.
posted by
scoop
on February 18, 2005 at 8:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Go do the research, fwmystic. No, better yet, here's the exact quote: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." For something that never happened, a lot of people are upset. As for your other remarks, President Bush criticized Lott’s remarks because he was wrong to make them, as a joke or not. And, mystic, the Democrats most certainly did condemn him. It was the Democrat senators, particularly Kerry and Feingold, who called for him to resign as Senate majority leader. The mostly Democrat Congressional Black Caucus called for his censure. And Rev. Jackson, himself known to have made a racist remark or two, was among many Democrats outside Congress who attacked him. (See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/) for discussion.) glenn, be careful with that brush with which you paint me as a "closet 'bigot'" and conservatives as "neo-Nazis." That sounds pretty bigoted to me. scoop, very good points well taken. My only issue for you is, since this people were so exercised over private funds being spent on the inauguration, why weren't they just as upset over private funds spent on this? The people who funded the inauguation were just as free to do what they wanted with their money as Christo was with his.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2005 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofBull ...
Trent Lott was not villified by Democrats, he was turned on by Republicans, most notably George W. who gave a very public speech condemning his remarks and saying they had no place in American society. How come George didn't think the were, as you say in the hills, "faa - shee -- suss?" Didn't see the Dean remark, and sure as heck ain't gonna take your word he said it.
posted by
fwmystic
on February 17, 2005 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight or better Writerof Dark,
Isn’t it wonderful that you live in a country where idiocy can be treated with equality? You have no clue! George Bush is more offensive than any man in the public arena today. But he has the support of closet “bigots” like yourself. Lay low before you get “outed”! And this whole neo-Conservative movement is exposed for what it is, a revamped version of “Nazism”!
posted by
Glennb
on February 17, 2005 at 8:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Good questions,
First I didn’t hear the deal on Howard Dean so I cannot comment.
Second as far as the artist, it is his money, he can do what he wants with it. Also you and I don’t know if he did or didn’t send any to the tsunami fund.
As far as Bush yes a lot of it was private funding, but the taxpayer got hit hard because of security so here is my question based on the facts as I know them;
At the time, the city of Washington DC was expected to spend $17.3 million on inauguration. Up from the $8 million from Bush's first inauguration.
But my problem was this, $11.9 million of the funding for the inauguration was coming from homeland security projects this is just plain wrong.
It broke down like this;
$8.8 million in overtime pay for about 2,000 D.C. police officers;
$2.7 million to pay 1,000-plus officers being sent by other jurisdictions across the country;
$3 million to construct reviewing stands;
$2.5 million to place public works, health, transportation, fire, emergency management and business
posted by
scoop
on February 17, 2005 at 6:48 AM
| link to this | reply