Telecom Commission for Bush Supporters Only

[archeiron]

Any Kerry Supporters On The Line?
The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
By VIVECA NOVAK AND JOHN DICKERSON

Sunday, Apr. 24, 2005
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

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.

The White House admits as much: "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. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

From the May. 02, 2005 issue of TIME magazine

Discuss.

[pyrella]

What happened to: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?



Will be interesting to hear how this will be defended if at all. Election time is when partisanship should be a factor - something effecting our communications infrastructure should be as far removed from left/right side as possible, seeing as how it's something that benefits the country. You know, that place where all of us are. GJ on removing rifts between parties!

[nobody]

i think the real issue is how does the Bush administration know who they voted for or supported!? isn't that supposed to be anonymous? that is as justifiable as me being kicked out of the military b/c i voted for Kerry

[Xzion]

i think the real issue is how does the Bush administration know who they voted for or supported!? isn't that supposed to be anonymous? that is as justifiable as me being kicked out of the military b/c i voted for Kerry

if you havnt noticed, americas heritage and values of freedom mean little to the bush admin

[nobody]

i don't think it's just the Bush administration but US politics in general. i have no doubt in my mind Kerry would compromise our personal information, including voting habits, as readily as Bush. it makes me sick to my stomach that our personal information isn't very personal anymore.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Will be interesting to hear how this will be defended if at all.

RIF

"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

It's called honesty. Not always recognizable coming from a political group, I understand, but it is there.

[Lynks]

Honesty has nothing to do with it, and if you really think that, you really are on another planet. This is all about sweeping everyone that doesnt agree with him under the rug.

[Sionistic]

did any other presidents do this?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Honesty has nothing to do with it, and if you really think that, you really are on another planet. This is all about sweeping everyone that doesnt agree with him under the rug.

Dude. You are right. That is what they are saying. Again, hard to actually see such honesty, but they are telling you we only wanted people there who agree with us and will put a positive light on us.

[Lynks]

Yes, but dont you think that takes away from something? Its kinda like when (I forget who) wanted a seperate forum for dems and another for reps except this is on a bigger scale.

[Animale]

Just another example of how this administration is living in a fantasyland where nobody disagrees with them (because everybody who does is marginalized/ not listened to). This is a relatively minor example, but one that is indicative of the larger picture - suppression of dissent within everything the administration touches.

And for those who don't get it... suppression of dissent is NOT a good thing.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Just another example of how this administration is living in a fantasyland where nobody disagrees with them (because everybody who does is marginalized/ not listened to). This is a relatively minor example, but one that is indicative of the larger picture - suppression of dissent within everything the administration touches.

And for those who don't get it... suppression of dissent is NOT a good thing.

Animale

Nah. They are being called on their actions more so than others in the past. This is how I view most political, or even just any power structure. They want to be surrounding by people who agree with them and support them. It is no different than what pretty muich every single person does everyday of their life. They surround themselves with people like them, who hold things in common with them, who support them.

Break it down all the way to the wild kingdom. When is the last time you saw a few tigers, a few doves, a couple dogs, a few birds, some zebras all hanging out talking or drinking water together? Maybe in a Disney movie, but thats about all.

When given a choice, most people will choose to place themselves in an environment that gives them comfort. When pressured by public scrutiny most, nowadays, play the game of putting themselves in situations that will make them look good over what would make them comfortable.

In this case, while I may not condone it, I can certainly understand it. I almost respect it, for they have the courage in their convictions to admit it. I wouldn't lose one second of sleep over this issue. I would get concerned if they told all Democrat Congressmen and women to stay home for the next 2.5 years. Otherwise, this is yet anopther example of chaos causing propaganda.

[Animale]

But at least previous administrations had folks on their advisory councils who disagreed with them. From personal experience, I have observed the gutting of dissent from the Presidential scientific advisory council by replacing dissenting, knowledgable research biologists with social researchers who agree with the adminitration's positions. Not exactly a move made with scientific integrity in mind. This is yet another example of this, where knowledgable folks with differing conclusions/opinions are included or excluded from debate entirely due to those conclusions/opinions, not their abilities or expertise in the field at hand.

THAT is a big part of what's wrong with this administration in my mind, their refusal to listen to people who, quite frankly, know more about them on particular subjects just because they disagree with their conclusions. Putting on blinders doesn't make their positions any less real.

Animale

[Voronwë]

if you make financial contributions to a political campaign, that is a matter of public record due to campaign finance laws i believe. so that is how the Bush administration would know.

that being said, it is pretty similar in tone to a lot of other actions this administration takes. They aren't in Washington to mess around. This GOP machine didn't just win a few years ago and show up to party. This has been in the making for decades, and now that it is here, they are entrenching themselves.

[Winnow]

It's going to surprise the hell out of me if Democrats put up much of a fight in 2008. I'm sure it will look good in campaign speeches and on Larry King but I doubt they'll be able to lay the groundwork for a successful attempt at the presidency.

The scariest thing for democrats is that it looks like Kerry is going to try and run again. Ouch.

[Voronwë]

that would be a complete unmitigated disasster.

i htink the fact that Dean is the head of the DNC signals that they know they needed a radical change in redirection. and by radical i dont necessarily mean that as a statement of Dean's politics, i just mean, the guy is kind of a maverick, he is from outside of the Democratic establishment, etc.

Who knows, Dean may completely run them into the ground. I know the right wing propagandists love to make fun of him and are predicting just that, but they may be surprised. At the very least, the DNC got rid of McAufliffe and probably had a major restructuring.

which was desperately needed.

[pyrella]

Will be interesting to hear how this will be defended if at all.

RIF

"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

It's called honesty. Not always recognizable coming from a political group, I understand, but it is there.

That's the line I think would be interesting to hear being defended. This isn't about people surrounding themselves with friends and yes men, this about the infrastructure of our country - regardless of political ties. I think they need to add science to the separation of church and state.

[Aabidano]

This administration isn't any different than others in this regard, just more secretive about it. When caught they shrug it off and move on with their agenda rather than raising a stink.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I dunno about that PY. Way too many things could fall under the realm of science and go completely un-regulated. A lot of people would lose their lives in the name of science. The same people who would initially be for this idea would have to then be against it after they see how many people die in the name of science.

[Nick]

What are you talking about exactly?

People seem to have little problem believing Bush's batphone to god theory, and it has killed thousands in Iraq.

I don't see what specific point you are raising here.

[Marbus]

And for those who don't get it... suppression of dissent is NOT a good thing

I coulnd't have said it better Animale.

What do you right wingers not get? No other President's do this kind of crap and Bush and his cronies do it ALL the time and you guys think nothing of it... Having people who disagree with you while in power close by is what has kept most presidents honest but Bush believes that he is preordained by God and thus all his actions are good and just... he dosen't need anyone to disagree with him.

70% of Americans and most of the House and Senate have all told Bush that his SS reform is crap and they don't want it yet he is flying all over the US wasting OUR money to push HIS plan because why? because HE thinks it's a good idea... the man who bankrupt what 2, 3 or was it 4 corporations?

ANY good leader knows there are certian rules you just don't break. One of those of course is always have people around who are willing to disagree. NO one is perfect, you might just learn something. The second of course is never get involved in a land war in Asia...

Anyway, he has already proved his disdain for the American public once this month by signing that Bankruptcy bill. It dosen't matter that most of these Bank should be brought up on charges of predetory lending which is WHY so many "middle class" people declare bankruptcy or the fact that inflation is rising again with no end in sight... Bush, like Michael Jackson, lives in his own little world where there and reality will never meet... and just think some of you guys actually helped put him back in office... disgusting. Can you not see where is loyalities lie?

I liked Bush in 2000, I WANTED him to be a good President but he wasn't, he did nothing in 4 years except get the big head... these next 4 years will be very bad, hopefully in 2008 we will still all be here chatting so you can apologize to those of us who saw the light back in 2004.

Marb

PS - Personally I would LOVE to be one of Bush's advisors. I do feel that at the core he is a good man and a good person. He just needs a good dose of reality because he has had TOOOOOOO many yes men over the years filling his head with nonsense. Maybe someone close to him will bring him around before it's too late. At this point, that is what I have to pray for at least.

[Xzion]

Honesty has nothing to do with it, and if you really think that, you really are on another planet. This is all about sweeping everyone that doesnt agree with him under the rug.

Dude. You are right. That is what they are saying. Again, hard to actually see such honesty, but they are telling you we only wanted people there who agree with us and will put a positive light on us.

honesty? thats a joke right?

how about bush's "town hall meetings" that consist of only bush supporters and not a the other 50+% of the country that despise the man

how about his attacks on the media and his promotion of censorship in all aspecs, are these acts honest?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Honesty has nothing to do with it, and if you really think that, you really are on another planet. This is all about sweeping everyone that doesnt agree with him under the rug.

Dude. You are right. That is what they are saying. Again, hard to actually see such honesty, but they are telling you we only wanted people there who agree with us and will put a positive light on us.

honesty? thats a joke right?

how about bush's "town hall meetings" that consist of only bush supporters and not a the other 50+% of the country that despise the man

how about his attacks on the media and his promotion of censorship in all aspecs, are these acts honest?

In reference to the town hall meetings, if there wasn't mass media attention on organizations of people who supported and financed people to go to Bush campaign events and disrupt them, I would say him doing that was totally uncool. However, that is not the case. Look at the whole picture young grasshopper.

In reference to the attacks on media and promotion of censorship in all aspecs, LOL. That is your small minded perception. Tighten up your outlandish broad scoped allegation and maybe I could answer it a little better.

[Sylvus]

In reference to the town hall meetings, if there wasn't mass media attention on organizations of people who supported and financed people to go to Bush campaign events and disrupt them, I would say him doing that was totally uncool. However, that is not the case. Look at the whole picture young grasshopper.

In reference to the attacks on media and promotion of censorship in all aspecs, LOL. That is your small minded perception. Tighten up your outlandish broad scoped allegation and maybe I could answer it a little better.

What good does it do when President Bush spends your tax dollars travelling the country to speak to groups of people who already agree with him? Have you seriously not seen the clips of people like "I don't know much about your Social Security reform plan, but I support you 100% with whatever you want to do... Praise Jesus!"

In my opinion, if he's just setting these up so people will give him handjobs and he's not hearing the opinions of the 49.999% of the country that didn't vote for him, he might as well just stay in the White House and save a few bucks.

[Voronwë]

the point of them is to get local media to cover them, and to a lesser extent national media, so they are staged publicity events.

Bush comes to Des Moines, Iowa to hold a "Social Security: Town Hall". This gets all the regional newspapers and television news stations to send their News Max Super Center 5000 News Truck with Giant Crane Radar (tm) - cause they didnt buy it simply to cover MEGAStorm 2002 and ICE AGE 2000...anyway they wheel over the news van, and get a package of video for the local news cast.

basically Bush doing these guarantees the local stations and papers are going to cover it. For one, they don't have anything else to run on the local news. I mean they can run the package about Retirees being scammed tomorrow, you know?

Yeah, if Bush says something stupid it will get picked up by the news outlets and The Daily Show will make fun of it, and maybe Jay Leno too. Oh no, how bout this: Don't be such a p-u-s. Or maybe even give this a shot: don't say stupid things. Don't blatantly lie about things. etc.

Fact of the matter is, i think it is a sad endictment of the lack of respect the adminstration has for the American public.

If the President truly were the man of the people that he claimed to be, he wouldn't need such an infrastructure (not talking about security) to insulate him from them.

Plus does it really help the president make better policy to not have his ideas challenged? the answer is an obvious "no".

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It's a publicity stunt. They all are. The debates, the town halls, the rallies, the interviews with "experts" on all the media outlets (yes, including FOXNEWS).

[Aruman]

Honesty has nothing to do with it, and if you really think that, you really are on another planet. This is all about sweeping everyone that doesnt agree with him under the rug.

If I was a manager, and had a meeting dealing with something like this, I would want to keep people with their own agenda that has nothing to do with the discussion out of the meeting.

I think it's smart personally, and yes, it is honest.

[kyoukan]

yes because your shitty little imaginary middle management meeting is a perfectly valid comparison to federal politics at the presidential level.

[Lohrno]

If I was a manager, and had a meeting dealing with something like this, I would want to keep people with their own agenda that has nothing to do with the discussion out of the meeting.

That might be a valid point if they were doing it in a non partisan way. Basically they're telling people "Bush supporters only get to make the new standards for the industry." Or was there something I've missed?

[Tenuvil]

Fact of the matter is, i think it is a sad endictment of the lack of respect the adminstration has for the American public.

If the President truly were the man of the people that he claimed to be, he wouldn't need such an infrastructure (not talking about security) to insulate him from them.

Plus does it really help the president make better policy to not have his ideas challenged? the answer is an obvious "no".

one would think rational discourse, argument (in the didactic sense) and intelligent discussion of diverse ideas would be best for all in the long run...oh wait, this is AMERICA! Other thoughts and ideas were banned 21 years ago!

[Zaelath]

I wish I could understand your arguments, but I've lost my bleating to english dictionary =(

[Aruman]

If I was a manager, and had a meeting dealing with something like this, I would want to keep people with their own agenda that has nothing to do with the discussion out of the meeting.

That might be a valid point if they were doing it in a non partisan way. Basically they're telling people "Bush supporters only get to make the new standards for the industry." Or was there something I've missed?

After that bull that went on during his State of the Union speech, I can't really fault him.

IMO the Democrats brought it on themselves, and politics being what they are, the Democrats will probably see more of this sort of thing happen during the remainder of President Bush's term.

I'm not saying I think it is the right thing to do, but not completely unexpected.

[Aabidano]

That might be a valid point if they were doing it in a non partisan way. Basically they're telling people "Bush supporters only get to make the new standards for the industry." Or was there something I've missed?

This is just a political move, standards take so long to shift that things started in the Clinton administration are just now getting implemented. Politicians can rant and do anything they want, industry will chug along until they go away or find something new to bicker over.

All this sort of thing does is distract the public from everything else that's happening.

Look, a new scandal! we're at war, running out of oil and have no plans for alternativesSee the silly monkey?

[Kargyle]

As has been said so many times before, our government is supposed to be about the people. All of the people, not just the ones that voted for Bush. The idea has always been that you let opposing view points into councils, policy debates etc. in order to represent the voice of the people that did not support the President. By only allowing Bush supporters access to policy, the president, etc, the administration is doing a grave disservice not just to the democrats, but to the entire country. Bush has basically said, "If you didn't vote for me, your opinions and your ideas do not count." The government still has a responsibility to represent the voice of the people that lost the election, and this administration has done the opposite.