Texas state law requires a second copy be kept in Austin. Wonder if those will mysteriously disappear, too.
This whole issue, while unimportant from a policy standpoint, is important from a basic honesty standpoint. Much has been made about Bush being a born-again Christian, but he seems unable to be honest about his past. I’m all for people turning a new leaf in their life. I would hope that most others in this country would be too. The thing I don’t get is that now that he’s convinced everyone that he’s an honest, upstanding Christian (man, I can’t even say that without laughing), he should just be honest. “Yes, I was addicted to drugs and did cocaine when I was younger. Yes, I didn’t fulfill all my service requirements with the National Guard. I’m terribly ashamed about those things. They’ve been a strong motivation for me to get on the right path, to be closer to Jesus. I’m not proud of what I’ve been, but I’m proud to be who I am.”
Fundamentally, this is the problem most people had with Clinton. He got on national TV and lied to our faces about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Bush, of course, is doing the same thing but is lucky that the government isn’t spending $30 million to get to the bottom of this. In other words, it’s OK for Bush since he hasn’t been caught (yet).
So, I’m happy the AP is doing this. We should’ve had a thorough accounting of this during the 2000 campaign, to be honest. It seems ridiculous that they’re finally getting to doing their job after four years.
July 16th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
Since I am still at status 0 and have no posting ability. I will make my case here:
Why is it that Whoopi Goldberg can say and do anything she wants and yet, the company who signs her check is not allowed to do the same?
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/212784p-183225c.html
Now, I agree she has the right ot free speech. She has a right to make a living. But doesn’t the company have the right to free speech as well?
The chose to let someone else speak for them. If the RNC had anything to do with it, shame on them for interferring but I think the heads of Slimfast’s parent company has given MEGA bucks to Kerry. So I don’t think it was all politics.
People boycott products all the time. Think of advertisers who dropped from Stearns radio stations, the boycotts of FOX Tv when they aired “Married with Children”… etc.
The company has an image. Most companies try to protect their image and no one knocks Whoopi’s right to free speech but when the impact of that action has the potential to cost an employer millions in profits, shouldn’t the employer have the right to terminate the employment of the individual.
And trust me, I am not against good pun and humor. I still think David Letterman saying on late night TV back in 1988 “It’s the first time in my life I can proudly say I am a Bush supporter…” was such a great line… among the many others he had during that campaign.
I just get fed up with people who believe free speech is a one way street. And just wondering if I am off base on this or not.
July 17th, 2004 at 12:04 am
Couple of things, Doug: You’re never going to have posting privileges here as far as new posts are concerned.
The proper “free-speech” and all-perspectives thing to do is to put up your own blog and offer links to that. There are numerous free services out there, including Blogger.com, typepad.com, and others. Some of them advertise via google on this site.
As for Whoopi, no one is saying that they’re not allowed to fire her. The issue is that the boycott of SlimFast came because of a “Bush/bush” joke that wasn’t even that bad. It’s pretty thin-skinned.
As for donors to the various campaigns, get your facts straight, Doug:
Slim-Fast is a unit of Unilever. Unilever executives have donated $3,000 to Bush and $1,250 to Kerry for 2004’s campaign. Slim-Fast founder F. Daniel Abraham, who sold the company to Unilever in 2000, is a major donor to Democrats and has given $2,000 to Kerry this year.
Execs at Unilever at best can be said to have no organized voting goal, since they are giving to both, but they have given more to Bush. The founder of SlimFast (no longer an exec with the company, thus irrelevant to the decision to pull Whoopi) was/is a Democratic donor.
This is from http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-07-14-goldberg-slimfast_x.htm . (see, look, a source!)
Finally, firing her or not firing her isn’t a “free speech” issue… it’s a freedom to conduct business and make contracts with whomever you want issue. (not constitutionally guaranteed? any lawyers want to comment?)
July 17th, 2004 at 10:33 pm
Wow! don’t know what I did to be classified as “never going to have posting priveleges as far as new posts are concerned” status. But that’s cool. I can live with it.
I can agree, as I did before that if the RNC had anything and I mean anything to do with Whoopi being fired, then shame on them.
Wrote the post late last night and all I was trying to say, regardless of free speech rights, is that yes she has every right to say whatever she wants and they have every right to employ who they want.
As far as slimfast is concerned… I was looking at the guy you mention, F. Daniel Abraham, and i used the term “I think” when referring to his donations because with kids and all 2G is a lot to part with, non-deductible.
Anyway, and Whoopi hasn’t been the only one this has applied to in this case, I just find it hard to believe that people feel they can do what they want but get all upset when someone lese levies a consequence (regardless of whether the consequence is percieved as right or wrong) for that action.
Peace Out.
July 18th, 2004 at 2:12 am
Abraham hasn’t been the owner of SlimFast since 2000. So, it doesn’t really matter what he does when it comes to Whoopi, now, does it?
As for posting privileges, it has to do with a number of things, but mostly the types of things you’ve posted… they basically boil down to, “well, see this: what do you have to say about THAT” type of challenges…
that and the presumption of “offering balance to the argument” is pretty annoying in and of itself.
third, your contributions have been to either redirect discussion (bringing up Laci Peterson in a discussion about a abortionist saying that abortionists deserve death) or to pull old discredited crap out from Republican PR releases.
For example, the MoveOn crap. They didn’t submit the ad and they didn’t keep the ad on their site. You want to know where you got the stupid link from? Did it ever occur to you to just go check MoveOn’s site? Or their PR? Here’s a link for ya:
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040712/12jul2004153137.html
And that’s my problem so far… just look up the damn stuff before spreading the crap around even more…
July 18th, 2004 at 9:21 am
1) abraham… got it. agreed in the last post that a mistake may have been made.
2) Thought I agreed the statement about abortionists disagreeing was wrong. Peterson was just a question about a relatively timely topic…
3) I don’t read Republican Press Releases. I read about 10-12 papers a day. 4 locally for work and about 6-8 national sites for relevant information to policy and the budget process so I have a jump on the changes in the non-profit world. Have a pretty relevant handle on different things.
4) “offering balance to the argument” can change that. All you had to do was ask. It was just pointing out that the world is not all black and white… but the request was made for a name change and I will honor the request.
Peace out
July 18th, 2004 at 9:25 am
SORRY above…point 2 is supposed to read… Thought I agreed with you the incredulous statement made by the Republican running for Senate about abortion doctors being put to death was wrong… My mind moves faster then my fingers….sorry for the error.