×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the politics-as-usual dept.

Communications 1430

An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1430 comments

+5 flamebait (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341434)

Re:+5 flamebait (1)

heauxmeaux (869966) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341465)

Perhaps THIS [starwarscelebration.com] will change your mind.
Shut the fuck up! indeed.

Re:+5 flamebait (1, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341566)

"Jeff Gannon" is the Bush White House Lewinsky [globalnewsmatrix.com]

GannonGuckert accessed the White House approximately 200 times over a twenty-two month period, simply using a day pass. That's twice a week for a two year period. This is fishy as hell. And ON A DAY PASS. If that's isn't regular access, what is?

The real question is WHY was he so freely there and WHO was behind this??



Secret Service Gave "Jeff Gannon" Unparalled Access to White House.

No two ways around it: "Jeff Gannon" is someone's (or multiple persons') Lewinsky.

Nothing else makes sense. The Secret Service cannot be that lax. He was being let in on days when there were no press briefings held and allowed to leave through multiple exits and without signing out (many long, sweaty romps, no doubt).

I'm cranking up the e-Rolodex and will fire this one off to hundreds of thousands, including every newspaper columnist and radio wag extant.

I bet this sick @!#$ is/was stretching Queen George, Rove, Scott McClellan and Ken Mehlman (and mebbe Andrew Card, who reportedly swings that way). No other story is hotter and more damaging to the Bush Admin than "Jeff Gannon."

From Americablog: [blogspot.com]

Oh, it gets better.


Many times he didn't sign in or out. Perhaps more notable than the frequency of his attendance, however, is several distinct anomalies about his visits.

Guckert made more than three dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One - which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House.

On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.

In March, 2003, Guckert left the White House twice on days he had never checked in with the Secret Service. Over the next 22 months, Guckert failed to check out with the Service on thirteen days. On several of these visits, Guckert either entered or exited by a different entry/exit point than his usual one. On one of these days, no briefing was held.

"I'd be worried if I was the White House and I knew that a reporter with a day pass never left," one White House reporter told RAW STORY. "I'd wonder, where is he hiding? It seems like a security risk."


All FOIA Docs Here [rawprint.com]

Full analysis [rawstory.com] of Secret Service access logs.

Re:+5 flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341694)

Mr. Cornelius: Stop posting to comments that have absolutely no connection to your comment you fucking karma whore.

Send in the Clones! (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341438)

call us nutty

I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike all those heathen socialists in South America.)

I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to care. Heck, if Nixon were still around he'd probably get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for spying on americans and his groundbreaking work on coverups. Small wonder Cheney's threatening to get tough with dems in the Senate, they see what's going on and the priorities of the administration.

On the way in this morning I heard a blurb about an upcoming film Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room [imdb.com] and it got me thinking about what a hatchet job was done on California Governor Gray Davis (while I'm not a particularly huge fan of his) apparently to lay the foundation for a republican challenger to replace a disgraced democrat, while the Dept of Energy and the president sat on their hands.

Where is the sense of outrage? I dunno, pass me another beer.

Re:Send in the Clones! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341532)

If this isn't flamebait I don't know what is. It makes fun of Republicans and encourages "Democracy" which is just another word for Communism.

Re:Send in the Clones! (4, Interesting)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341584)

The sense of outrage is crushed by the lack of a decent political system to accomadate it. Who's going to actually stand up to our politicians? Commies? Democrats? There are no real non-money biased political organizations out there that anyone can even remotely consider mainstream. The system is designed to stamp them out, look at the green party. And the Libertarians. And of course, look at Ross Perot. There's no room for dissent beyond the approved dissent, and we need major change, and we have no leaders because of the smear-based media. The US is lamed by its politics now instead of uplifted, because we've become so shallow.

Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.

Re:Send in the Clones! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341638)

George Washington knew what he was talking about when he advised against political parties in his farewell address.

Re:Send in the Clones! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341660)

How did they know how much these guys gave to who? How would the Gov. know what $$'s an individual gave to a candidate? Is this public informations somehow?

If so...that sounds as bad as doing away with the anonymity of the voting booth...

Re:Send in the Clones! (2, Informative)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341692)

This information is all public- you could get info on how much your neighbors had given before the election. Everything's supposedly public, but the grouping of it all is a little hard to track. There's a website out there somewhere that has all this data mapped out.

I personally prefer this to the other option of, "Gee, Bush got 100 million last week.... wonder where that came from..."

Re:Send in the Clones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341661)

the sense of outrage is crushed by prozac.
Fuck 1984, we live in an above-ground THX-1134.

Re:Send in the Clones! (3, Insightful)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341662)

I was a newborn when Nixon was doing his thing, but I have read my history. The difference between NIXON and Bush is that NIXON knew what he was doing was wrong. Bush seems to think anything he *CAN* do is fair. The republicans are drunk on power right now and are creating the circumstances from which the instrument of their downfall will arise -- corruption beyond imagination.

I am reminded of a famous investigator (whose name I've forgotten) who cracked the CIA selling drugs in LA thing in the 80s I think?. He said, "People get lazy when they think they are playing in a fixed game." And tahts what is happening here -- they aren't even BOTHERING to hide their corruption -- because they think nobody can do anything about it.

Re:Send in the Clones! (4, Insightful)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341679)

I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to care.
People don't care because Dubya is known as "a good Christian man." I'm quoting a lady who actually told me not to badmouth him for that reason. I was completely floored by such blind faith in a fallable human. I guess most people aren't. Sad.

Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (4, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341440)

This just in: Bush Jr. engages in petty retribution. Film at 11.

Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an act of treason [townhall.com] to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq. Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?

Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.

What a silly thing to get upset about. (1, Flamebait)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341508)

Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.

Sounds like much ado about nothing if you ask me.

You're right, it's just whining (-1, Flamebait)

HBI (604924) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341567)

If their guy had been elected, a similar purge would occur going the other way. I think they'd be upset with their guy if he _didn't_ get rid of the nasty Republicans in high places, no?

I'm totally glad Bush is removing Democrats from appointed positions. They don't belong there in a Republican administration. Go win an election if you want to choose who represents this country.

Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (5, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341602)

Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.

The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.

This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.

The sad thing is that you can't seem to see this.

Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341569)

Yes, I hear all these criticisms a lot, yet no one ever offers any evidence. Show me solid evidence and I'll get more worked up about it.

I'm not necessarily a Bush fan either, but goddamn: show some evidence or shut up.

Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341637)

Yes, I hear all these criticisms a lot, yet no one ever offers any evidence. Show me solid evidence and I'll get more worked up about it.

1. Someone identified Valerie Plume's status as an undercover CIA agent to the media.
2. This is at least a seious felony.
3. The FBI has determined this leak came from the west wing.

Other questions?

Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341594)

You may be right, but it looks like trolling or flamebait when you don't back up your views at all. You claim "lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism" are all in Bush's record. Can you please explain those to the unenlightened.

Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (3, Interesting)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341600)

Well, Americans also voted them back into office - and that's nothing they can blame on anyone but themselves...

So to the liberals, I say this, "Get your shit together and get them out of office next time..." For all of the liberal documentation of corruption, lies and deception, the republicans are far, far, FAR better at media manipulation than the liberals are. And until the liberals fix that oversight and work the "spin" a bit better, they're not going to be back in office.

Hell, Bush has done things a helluva lot worse than Clinton ever did, and he's getting away with it without a second glance by the media. They just label anyone who disagrees with Bush a "traitor" and move on... Nice "free" country...

BTW: Anyone notice how Bush's brother is going out of his way to start looking like the president? Similar hair/clothing styles, mannerisms, etc. Anyone wanna guess who the republicans are gonna try and field for the next election?

God (cawf cawf) help you all...

N.

Shock and Bah (4, Insightful)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341441)

How can this come as a surprise to anybody even remotely attuned to American politics? How does this differ from how they've been running everything else?

The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.

This is par for the course, folks. If you want a seat at the table, you're going to toe the line, period.

unfortunately... (-1, Troll)

CausticPuppy (82139) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341516)

(any administration) values loyalty over all else.
(any administration) brooks no dissent.
(any administration) carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
(any administration) is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.

Unfortunately, all of these apply to any of the previous administrations that I can think of.
Insert "The Clinton Administration" in there if you want. It all remains valid. Or Reagan.

Re:unfortunately... (1)

kevlar (13509) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341603)

Exactly. The difference with this campaign is that there is an extremely vocal contending party.

I do agree some what with their concerns, however this isn't something that previous administrations didn't do. Their complaining now because its working against their interests instead of for them!

Re:Shock and Bah (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341583)

This thread must be finished, 'cause it sure sounds like you're describing Nazi Germany to me...

Re:Shock and Bah (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341683)

Thread 'aint finished, according to Godwin. It just is no longer capable of supporting a meaningful dialogue.

Of course, Godwin assumes the belief of Nazism as a historical and socio-political singularity, to which no reasonable comparison is ever appropriate. This attitude allows latter-day neo-fascism to flourish unimpeeded. All parallels drawn with fascist and Nazi examples are derisable as hyperbole and hate-mongering.

Re:Shock and Bah (4, Insightful)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341630)

  • The current administration values loyalty over all else.
  • The current administration brooks no dissent.
  • The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
  • The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions
I *will* be modded as troll, flaimbait or whatever, but there are other governments that fit this criteria,
  • Nazis
  • Stalin and other "communists" (see China or North Korea)
  • Iran's Theocracy
  • Saddam's gov't in Iraq.

All of these were/are totalitarian regimes. How is it that in US people still call their goventment a "democracy"? I mean, if there is no dissent, there is no democracy. Period.

And now rebublicans want to change rules because a handful of judges (less than 1 or 2% percent of appointments made by Bush) are not getting though the senate!! Over the last two or three decades, there were over 30 judges filibustered/vetoed, 80% by the republicans...

But, I guess, as long as Americans can have their assult rifles for "home protection" they will be happy....

Doesn't Bush have the right to pick his team? (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341649)

How can this come as a surprise to anybody even remotely attuned to American politics? How does this differ from how they've been running everything else?

The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.

I would disagree with #3. If they are staging and scripting Bush, they are doing a horrible job of it. Bush is one of the few presidents I can remember who likes to lean in and start talking. And he gets roasted on tv, from the comedy central to the late night shows. But that has not stopped him from talking freely. If he was coached and staged, it would be a speech and he would be done. He would not be looking into space trying to find the word he is looking for.

Re:Shock and Bah (0, Troll)

ichthus (72442) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341650)

The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.

So? The former administration wrote the book on this one. Wouldn't you agree it would be foolish not to do this?

The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.

Yes, and thank God for that! Unwavering conviction is called integrity, and being unapologetic coincides with firm belief in your cause. On behalf of my fellow members of the Vast, Right-wing Conspiracy, I'll take this as a compliment.

Re:Shock and Bah (2, Interesting)

dark_requiem (806308) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341684)

You could replace the word "current" in each of those lines with the name of any president in, say, the last 150 years, and you'd still be dead-on. This isn't a new thing, it's politics as usual.

All states naturally devolve to tyranny. It's just a question of time.

kerry (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341446)

democrats pwnz republicans

What next? (5, Insightful)

lordkuri (514498) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341447)

Ya know... I don't get into political stuff much, but this shit has. got. to. stop.

It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341548)

we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)

Facist: discrimination or prejudice based on face e.g. his face didn't fit, so we axed him.

Re:What next? (1, Funny)

provolt (54870) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341571)

I love your plan for making it stop. More periods. It's genius. See. how. much. slower. you. read. by. putting. in. extra. punctuation.

Keep. stickin'. it. to. "the. man.".

Re:What next? (3, Funny)

mrami (664567) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341577)

It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)

I did [urbandictionary.com] , and you're right! It fits with all three definitions!

Re:What next? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341645)

The IATC is something that's basically a job of the Presidential administration; some kind of foreign negotiations.

What justification do you have that anti-Bush people should be represented in the Bush Administration?

I'm not up on US politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341448)

I'm not up on US politics, is this a usual thing done by most parties when in government or is this something strange?

Re:I'm not up on US politics (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341503)

It's not really all that new, but this is on a scale that I haven't witnessed firsthand before. I mean you cannot tell me straight faced that Clinton didn't make any politically motivated appointments, but he stuck to mainly well political offices. The people removed in this case were clearly experts in the field and their knowledge and experience could have actually helped the committee make useful decisions instead of the usual monkey at a dartboard ones they will inevitably end up making.....

Re:I'm not up on US politics (5, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341547)

I'm not up on US politics, is this a usual thing done by most parties when in government or is this something strange?

Yes, this is a very strange thing to be happening in the United States.

It is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it seeks to punish individuals in their professions in a direct retaliation for participating in a political process.

This will lead directly to employers checking your history of political donations before they hire you. If you can't attend telecom standards meetings, we'll just hire someone who can.

Re:I'm not up on US politics (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341607)

I'm not up on US politics, is this a usual thing done by most parties when in government or is this something strange?

I'm still puzzled by Condi Rice's trip to Russia and former Soviet republics, critcizing the way their governments work, while the US seems to be slouching more that way every day. I wonder if I didn't miss a wink in her eye when she said those things.

Biting the hand that feeds (5, Insightful)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341449)

Sounds like Nokia isn't putting up with this. Their VP is totally correct- an international meeting on telecom is not a partisan matter.

Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.

Re:Biting the hand that feeds (2, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341541)

Quite correct -- essentially what the Bush adminstration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL there is a Democratic president! Sounds like a pretty good reason to donate heavily to the Democrats in the next election to me!
The only explanation I can find for the Bush administration's short-sighted behaviour is that these nut-jobs must honestly beleive that the world will end in a few years (Rapture/Armegeddon), so nothing they do matters anyway...

Re:Biting the hand that feeds (5, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341666)

Quite correct -- essentially what the Bush adminstration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL there is a Democratic president! Sounds like a pretty good reason to donate heavily to the Democrats in the next election to me!

No, that's not what they're saying at all. They aren't preventing all Nokia engineers from attending, just the engineers from Nokia who sent personal donations to the Kerry campaign.

This is a very frightening aspect of it- a donation to Kerry can hurt your chances of employment in the tech sector later on. One might imagine this will have a very chilling effect on non-corporate political donations in the next election.

The sad part is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341452)

this isn't even surprising.

Figures. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341453)

But I supported Kerry!

Anyone going to tell me.... (-1, Troll)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341454)

That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (2, Insightful)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341467)

He would have had the FBI investigate them first, if he behaved like the last Democratic-Party president.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (2, Insightful)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341479)

No - but they would have said that it was Kerry sticking it to those evil campaign-contributing corporations.

RTFA (5, Insightful)

Andrew Cady (115471) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341524)

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341536)

Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have - we can't know. Even if Kerry would have had the entire IATC lined up and shot, it hardly makes this administration's actions okay.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (5, Insightful)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341554)

Anyone going to tell me that Kerry wouldn't have done the same?

...what, would that make it somehow less sleazy in your mind?

I'll tell you. (2, Interesting)

Dragonfly (5975) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341556)

Kerry wouldn't have done the same.

Find me ONE other instance of a Presidential Administration (other than George W. Bush's) denying access to an event based on which political campaigns people contributed money to.

This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. More discussion from this morning's thread on Ars. [arstechnica.com]

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (5, Informative)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341559)

Yes. For instance, you may recall that a large number of career diplomats were hired or appointed under Reagan and Bush '41 and were not fired by Clinton.

Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.

Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (2, Insightful)

VidEdit (703021) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341581)

"That Kerry wouldn't have done the same? "

There is no reason to think Kerry would bump technical experts from a telecom delegation because of party affiliation. Bush is the man know for valuing loyalty above competence not Kerry. Just look at Bush's nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, or elevating Condi Rice to Secretary of State...etc, ad nauseam.

This is just another example of the Bush administration's partisan extremism. It is really, really hard to believe Bush hasn't been taken to task to live up to his "I'm a uniter not a divider" claim. While the parent can debate if Kerry might have done the same thing to the delegation, one point is not debatable: This was clearly not a move to "unite" the US.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (1)

A Commentor (459578) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341620)

Not likely:

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.


It made the news because it's not how it was handled in the past.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (1)

Zach Fine (12869) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341631)

sure. "Kerry wouldn't have done the same." You happy?

Kerry's campaign folk did not screen every attendee to his speeches to make sure they didn't support the other guy. But many Kerry supporters were screened and shut out of events Bush's campaign stops. Evidence points to the idea that no, Kerry didn't have the same problem with dissenters that plagues the current administration. I'd venture it's a good bet that "Kerry wouldn't have done the same".

In any case, why are we talking about Kerry at all? Let's concentrate on the matter at hand, which appears to be an administration that exhibits severe tunnel-vision and squelches dissent.

-Z

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (2, Insightful)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341646)

Anyone going to tell me That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?

Rather stupid generalization if you ask me. 'Because Bush would do it, of course Kerry would do it too'. Not likely. It's Bush and Co. that have the history of weeding out individuals that it deems 'unfit' for discussion of public matters. Just look at thier Social Security 'TownHall' meetings.

Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (3, Insightful)

marick (144920) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341671)

RTFA:

"anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say."

Sounds like an unprecedented abuse of power. Somehow, I suspect Kerry would have been a bit more of a pushover about the whole thing and left things as they were before.

Welcome to America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341457)

You are Free to do what we tell you.

You are Free to do what we tell you.

- Bill Hicks

Change of personnel (2, Interesting)

bfizzle (836992) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341461)

There was a time when a change in political parties ment that the whole staff of the government changed... all the way down to mail clerks.

Fascists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341466)

'nuff said

Excellent! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341497)

This is a fantastic development. Thank you slashdot! We've almost purged the country of traitors..

It's the president's prerogative (1, Insightful)

hanshotfirst (851936) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341499)

He didn't keep on Clinton's cabinet members when he was first elected either. He's not appointing any judges that fundamentally disagree with him. Before you rant on in the lastest bash-Bush thread, ask yourself honestly: is this any different?

Would Kerry have kept Bush supporters on the same panel? I have to think not likely.

Judges/Advisors != Engineers (5, Insightful)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341598)

America needs to pick the most qualified, most brilliant engineers it can to represent at these meetings. You can be the most qualified person in the nation on telecom, but if you supported Kerry, you dont belong according to the WH. It not even like this group manages aid or something, they fucking design specifications.

Politics is beyond ugly, its now officially fugly.

Re:It's the president's prerogative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341627)

Would Kerry have kept Bush supporters on the same panel? I have to think not likely.

The article consists of about a screenful of text. Read it. Please. Pretty please?

Re:It's the president's prerogative (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341685)

Would Kerry have kept Bush supporters on the same panel? I have to think not likely.

history, as well as the article, suggests otherwise. Nice theory based on opinion with no facts to back it up though!

RTFA!!!

No it isn't. (5, Insightful)

Dragonfly (5975) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341690)

Before you rant on in the lastest bash-Bush thread, ask yourself honestly: is this any different?

It is, and here is why: Members of the Cabinet, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. are all offices that the President is given the power to fill by the Consitution (provided the Senate gives its consent).

Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.

President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.

In other news . . . (1, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341514)

The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.

Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work? Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements? It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.

Is that what these meetings are really about? (4, Insightful)

BlabberMouth (672282) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341663)

Is this diplomatic work? I think you are stretching this quite a bit. These individuals actually represent the companies they work for, i.e. Nokia, Qualcomm, and not the "United States" at these meetings. No fair minded person thinks these individuals speak for the U.S. Government. It is one thing to reward those that support you, but it is another to punish those that do not. That is not a democratic process.

Re:In other news . . . (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341665)

Ding ding ding!!! You're guilty of false analogy!

Cardinals disallowing non-catholics as pope is like Americans disallowing non Americans as President (example: Governator).

Partisan politics is not the same thing.

Call me nutty... (4, Funny)

PainBreak (794152) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341519)

But who would want bipartisan support on the same committee? Democrats at the same table as Republicans? That's just crazy talk.

Kerry would've done the same thing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341538)

Kerry's campaign spokesman Chad Clanton made an obvious threat against Sinclair Broadcasting after they announced they were going to air an anti-Kerry documentary.

Chad Clanton [newsmax.com]

"I think they're going to regret doing this," the Kerry spokesman warned before adding - "They better hope we don't win."

Big freakin' surprise. Political parties and politicians reward people that support them and punish people that go against them. Oooh! It's Bush so it must be evil!

Dear U.S.A. (1)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341549)

Go fuck yourselves. I'd rather be a shy, stable, quiet Canadian than crushed under the boot of a corrupt corporate pseudo-government any day. Why did you bother in 1776? You'd be a lot better off if you were still under the crown. I'm surprised you managed to get your shit together long enough to abolish slavery, although that was mostly motivated by economics, and not common morality.
Nice country you got there.

This should keep telephones from turning GLBT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341555)

God forbid these phones should fall under liberal control. They would start screeching hate at our troops and talkin porn to our kids.

Well duh. (1, Interesting)

crimoid (27373) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341574)

'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that

Sorry, this isn't a Bush thing. This is a political thing. Every Administration does something like this to a certain degree. I'm not saying that it is the right thing to do, rather it just happens.

Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.

Re:Well duh. (1)

robertjw (728654) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341616)

Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.

And many other problems as well. Sign me up for that one.

Slashdot presents a good argument in favor (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341597)

Just reading Slashdot presents an excellent argument for doing exactly what Bush has done. Why should the US send people that have such a bitter hatred for the president? Such inherant negativity can only be detremental to productive meetings.

Mind you, I don't know if the people removed were quite at that point but it's not hard to imagine. The poision runs deep here on Slashdot.

I'm more of a libertarian myself so don't even start in on me. I'm just calling it like I see it, and have seen first hand what bitter negativity can do in a group. For something like this the people need to be on the same page.

There was a word for that sort of behavior (1, Insightful)

rscrawford (311046) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341601)

Back in my day, there was a word for governments which would do things like prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard at inernational conventions, or preventing opposing government officials from having substantial say in government affairs. Seems to me the US spent a lot of time making sure folks like that stayed on their side of the Iron Curtain.

Gosh, what was that word again?

Gotta tell you, between this sort of thing and nutjobs like Frist and DeLay, I've never felt more disenfranchised from my own nation. I used to be proud of America, even under other Republican presidents; the current administration has turned our nation into a joke of democracy.

Just try and put a positive spin on this, trolls.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341606)

Banning opposing sides at media appearances, town halls, press conferences, corralling protesters, censoring media...

I love America, but phuck USA, Inc.
When's this place going to balkanize anyway?
I'd rather call myself a Cascadian and stop getting hate when I travel.

Re:Just try and put a positive spin on this, troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341623)

Great, when are you leaving? You gotta sneak into Canada you know. Be brave, like the people sneaking here!

Another Prime Example... (1)

spawnofbill (757153) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341624)

...Of Bush thinking that because 51% of americans voted for him, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Re:Another Prime Example... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341653)

You mean, another prime example of Kerryistas thinking that just because they got 40% means anyone has to give a shit about them.

A first! (2)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341625)

I am not surprised at all by the Bush Administration's decision, which is obviously politcal. What I AM surprised about is that they openly told the truth about their political filtering. Hmm..., maybe this is a trend?

Naaaahhhh....

ArsTechnica has a good post... (5, Informative)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341628)

Here [arstechnica.com]

Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.

facist (2, Insightful)

h311sp0n7 (773094) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341639)

Not to sound redundant but I'm surprised GW doesn't have a little military outfit he totes around in. Hat, tiny dog, and all. What's next the Texas goose-step. Facism in its finest form. We're not publically executing those representatives or our own citizens yet, but I doubt that's far behind.

It's representing the country, not the admin... (2, Insightful)

dm (8144) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341642)

The "call us nutty" spokesman got something wrong: these committees are to represent the country not the administration. Administrations come and go, but the national interest is pretty continuous.

I Dont Know Anyone Who Supported Kerry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12341647)

...just people who voted agaist Bush.

Liberal whiners!

Dissenter from the true faith=heretics. (1, Flamebait)

dameron (307970) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341670)

The risk of dissent against the current administration far outweights any value "experts" or "scientists" can bring to the table. Republican zealots have faith in the current leadership, literal faith, belief without reason, and facts that contradict the party line must be false.

People who disagree with the party line must be purged (even if they're highly valuable Arabic translators or CIA operatives) and those who tow the line are rewarded beyond their level of competence (Rice, Bolton).

We see this in how they treat science regarding stem cells, reproductive rights, evolution, and the environment. They routinely squash or discredit government funded science that contradicts their orthodoxy. Considering that they they're fighting long established scientfic and political reality (evolution and Marbury vs. Madison come to mind) it shouldn't surprise anybody that they'd exclude some telco paper pushers who might upset their love fest.

Of course one day reality will assert itself and they'll have to face the music. I'm just hoping it doesn't cost a few million lives.

-dameron

In other news... (1)

siyavash (677724) | more than 8 years ago | (#12341696)

The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.

Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work? Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements? It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.

--
I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. This post is a mere observation and not legal advice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...