Bush! Crony Jobs

"Apply" now to secure a lucrative career both decrying and luxuriating in the spoils of Big Government! No experience necessary! Don't miss your chance to suckle greedily at America's soon-to-be-bankrupt bureaucracy teat!

Apply Here!

I was wondering how to signed up for those high paying jobs we keep hearing about. Well here it is, no skills or qualifications are required. All you need to do is make a substantial contribution to the RNC and youll be on your way.
.

My, my that was a pretty good link, I am still laughing, but we all know that these people like DeLay cronies that got jobs after helping him get the donations for the Republican party.

I wonder if these people were also in a group that help pay their way to the white house.

Let indict them and find out where they got their money.

Here's a gal who's been with the organization for a while. WaPo made mention of her in today's news on the Plame investigation.

Bio


Jennifer Millerwise Dyck
Director of Public Affairs

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck was named Director of Public Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in January 2005.

Before joining CIA, Mrs. Millerwise Dyck was Deputy Communications Director for Bush-Cheney 2004.

She served as Deputy Assistant for Communications and Press Secretary to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2001 to 2003. During the first 10 months of the Bush Administration, she was Assistant Press Secretary in the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

Before joining the Bush Administration, Mrs. Millerwise Dyck served as a Regional Press Coordinator for the Republican National Committee's Victory 2000. Prior to the campaign, Mrs. Millerwise Dyck was the Press Secretary for Congressman Porter Goss (FL), she served under Ari Fleischer at the House Ways and Means Committee, and on the staff of Senator Spencer Abraham (MI). She earned her degree in Business Administration and Political Science from Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

And now she's a spook.

Those are some serious credentials, I think she's knows what they expect--how to stonewall and prevaricate with the best of them whilst keeping the true agenda under wraps?

We shall see what Fitzy thought of her...

In the case of Millerwise, she talked with the prosecutor more than two years ago but never appeared before the grand jury, according to a person familiar with her situation.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by psyopswatcher]

This cliche is old, trite, corny and TRUE!

"We got the best government money can buy"

I hope no one here is under the impression that cronyism, or nepotism, only happens among the republicans!
People have been giving jobs and perks to friends, relataives and benefactors for hundreds of years.

en.wikipedia.org...

As I recall as far back as the administration of US Grant that was one of the big complaints or issues in many history books on the subject. How many relatives and friends got government jobs. We are talking what the ...1860s to 1870s or so. It happens no matter what party is in office. I am astonished at the gullibilty of people to think it is only the "opposition " party ..not thier party.


Thanks,
Orangetom

To say the least I am laughing my butt off at everyone defending the current administration from a parody. Not only are the Bushies corrupt, they have no sense of humor.
.

Politics by its very nature lends itself to corruption..no matter who is in office. It is a type of officially sanctioned "whoredom" . It is so corrupt it gives real whores a bad name. This is a known quantity no matter what the party. You should already know this before getting on the bandwagon with the popular rhetoric. Its called original thought..outside the standard boxes or settings. Many people hear something often enough they tend to believe it and get on the bandwagon. This type of politics is similar to a "feel good religion."
When I hear the same rhetoric over and over ..I often come to the conclusion that it too is canned and planned like a script. Most reading from the same script. Little thinking going on.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Amused

A .....without Muse...thinking without thinking Amuse


Think it through!

Thanks,
Orangetom

Orangetom,
The color of my stripes is "libertarian", so I am easily amused by both republicans and democrats. My laughter is completely non-partisan.
.

Originally posted by df1
To say the least I am laughing my butt off at everyone defending the current administration from a parody.

When someone says that both parties are guilty of nepotism and cronyism, it doesn't mean the person is defending the Bush administration.
So, who are you laughing at

Let's face it, politics corrupts.............

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
When someone says that both parties are guilty of nepotism and cronyism, it doesn't mean the person is defending the Bush administration.

Saying, "no big deal, the democrats do it too" sounds like either a defense of the administration or a defeatest resignation to an unchangeable reality.

Let's face it, politics corrupts.............

And here we have it again, another tired defeatest resignation.

So, who are you laughing at

Well now Im not sure whether to laugh or cry. I would laugh if this was a defense of the Bush administration, but you tell me it was it not. So I suppose I will cry over your defeatest acceptance of the political nepotism and cronyism involved in U.S. politics.
.

Oh please don't cry!

Here's one darn good reason to put your FOG's and COW's* in high places...

Most of the Times piece was devoted to the question of whether Fitzgerald would issue a report if he declines to indict anyone. In the old days--that is, when there was an independent counsel law--independent counsels were obligated to issue final reports detailing what they had uncovered and explaining any decisions not to prosecute. Fitzgerald is not an independent counsel but a special prosecutor, appointed in 2003 by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey because Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself. With the independent counsel law expired, there can no longer be independent counsels. Consequently, Fitzgerald is not required to file a final report.

But can he produce such a report if he would like to? As the Times notes, there is a debate among legal experts as to whether he has the authority to do so. Fitzgerald has obtain much of his information through the grand jury process, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. Some lawyers believe Fitzgerald could issue a report, especially if requested by Congress; others think Justice Department regulations would prohibit that. But you can guess how the political appointees at the Justice Department would interpret the regulations. And would any Republican leaders of Congress ask Fitzgerald for a report? With the Bush administration and congressional Republicans not keen to have a full accounting, it could be difficult for Fitzgerald--if he wants to produce a report--to win a tussle over how to read the regulations. As for whether Fitzgerald wishes to issue a final report, his office has declined to comment on this matter (or any other matter).

The Nation

Moot though if they do indict. Oh well, there's always Roberts-Meirs on the SC...

ditto SCOTUS: "But you can guess how the political appointees at the Justice Department would interpret the regulations."


* * * * *

FOG - Friends of George
COW - Cronies of W

Intresting that you are libertarian. I agree with much of thieir program though I do not associate with the party. I do not associate with the Republicans either ...though I am conservative. To me the Republicans are just anti Democrat.. and many of thier policys are liberal. The Democrats ..not much use for them either. I got tired of thier whining and "victimization " techniques long ago. "He played on our fears!!"
Also not much use for what passes for news in this country either.
The two partys are just using the public influence every election time to maintain power/fiefdom for their masters. Any device will do as long as the public doesnt catch on. Even in some instances third party candidates.
I am of the opinion that Jesse Ventura was never supposed to win..it was a fluke..a mistake ..the party was merely for the purpose of swinging votes away from the Republicans. After Jesse won the party split ...telling me I wasnt far off the mark. As I recall it was called the Reform party or such.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
the Reform party or such.

The Reform party was nothing more than the Perot party. Perot first blew up the party when it looked like he was going to be competitive against Clinton and Bush the first, then blew it up again when it started looking like Ventura was going to seize power of the party by popular demand. I doubt he ever intended on it being successful. It seems to me that he wanted to use the Reform party to influence the policies of the 2 major parties, nothing more.
.

that is pretty much what I think too..making me ask who is pulling Perot's string to get him to pull this off. I just dont think he was acting independently.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by whaaa
This cliche is old, trite, corny and TRUE!

"We got the best government money can buy"

Try changing curreny before the next government is bought.