Freedom Lovers Against Bush
Hi, I'm David Wallace, I began this site.
Why:
It came upon me rather slowly.
I've voted for quite a few Republicans, yet watching the Florida
election bothered me. Something seemed
wrong with the Bush team's position. Hand recounts in close elections are standard in America. In fact, many Republican politicians owe
their victories to hand recounts. Yet,
suddenly, surprisingly, the Bush people were against them. For a long time we heard that hand recounts
were "subjective", "prone to human error", with people
trying to "divine the intent of the voter". Actually, it doesn't take much "divining" to see a hole
and disputed ballots go to a judge. Yet
the Bush people stuck to this new concept of no hand recounts.
Then, suddenly, a
reporter destroyed their credibility.
Bush had signed a hand recount bill into law in Texas. So hand recounts are a good thing after all. Without missing a beat, the Bush campaign
changed their argument. Now we heard that unlike Texas, Florida has no
statewide standard, so we shouldn't do a recount. But there was plenty of time to establish a statewide standard
and do a recount, even if new law had to be passed. The governor of Florida, at his brother's request, would call a
special legislative session and pass a new standard. In the past this sort of thing has been done in less than a day,
which would have left more than enough time for a recount. For the sake of the country and the
legitimacy of the presidency, why wasn't this done? Bush has never answered this question.
I was left with
the feeling that winning is more important to this man than the democratic
process. The typical, accepted,
standard process of hand recounts was successfully subverted. I feel we've lost a little of our freedom.
So I began to
ask, who is this George W. Bush? Is he
just misguided, bad advisors, what? I
began to dig and I haven't liked what I've found. That has lead to other questions, such as, where is the
media? And, why didn't we hear about
this during the campaign?
Who is Bush:
A con man takes your money, telling you it's a good
investment. You lose your money. He gets rich. In the following article I found myself asking: “Was Bush's behavior morally
equivalent? Should he profit while
loosing everyone else's money?”
Long but well worth the read, Gail Sheehy does an excellent
personality profile. If you want to go
right to the money part do a find in page on “bodacious”.
Profiting at taxpayer expense? When Bush and partners bought the Texas Rangers baseball franchise for 83 million, they knew its value would skyrocket if a stadium were built. But they didn’t want to pay for it. Bush’s role was to talk the Arlington government into paying for the stadium with taxpayer money. He was successful. After the stadium was built he and his partners sold the franchise for 250 million, tripling their money. Arlington has increased sales taxes to pay for the stadium.
This takes four short articles:
Bush's Home Run: A
Critical Look at the Governor's Baseball Deal
The Purchase:
How the Son of the Vice President Bought a Team
The Push for
the Stadium and the Land
The Sale: Hicks
pays for the team and the land
So where has the media been in all of this. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one
wondering. Eric Alterman is an MSNBC
reporter:
Why The Media Silence On Bush’s Shaky Business Ethics?
So I have begun this site and this organization. To get the word out about Bush and to send
the Republican party a message, that candidates like Bush are not
acceptable. The best way to do that is
to elect as many moderate democrats as possible to the house and senate in
2002. Presidential “coattails” tend to
be very significant in “off year elections” like 2002. We hope to make Bush’s coattails as negative
as they deserve to be.
Coming soon:
Freedom Lovers Against George (FLAG) or
Freedom Lovers Against Radical Extremes (FLARE)
Whichever, this page will document where in the country effort is
most needed and thanks to the internet anyone can help.
Join us by email. Just use
“Join” as the subject and send: Join
Emails us without joining:
I am a
Democrat