Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 03:35:46 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History
| | |-+  Alternative History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Westman Timeline Pt. I
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 40 Print
Author Topic: Westman Timeline Pt. I  (Read 69172 times)
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: January 02, 2011, 05:44:19 pm »
Ignore

I also like how Westman is a Progressive Rock fan, but he can't get off insulting Led Zeppelin like that. It's just not right. I mean, next thing he'll be insluting the Doors, Blue Oyster Cult, Jefferson Airplane, and God knows what else.

Also, I have a YES album in my signature.

Where does Westman himself insult Led Zeppelin?
He does insult Rolling Stone magazine for "crappy writing", but I don't see any Led bashing.  Carl, Westman's number 2 guy, however does get in an argument with the camera guy about who is better Led Zeppelin or Yes.
Scott Westman himself, however, I don't think I've written a post where he insults Led Zeppelin (at least in this thread).  If anything he is a 70's rock addict who probably has a hidden statue of Jimi Paige in his closet that he sacrifices baby goats to.

Carl, however, is pretty vocal about the superiority of Yes to almost any other band on the planet.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: January 02, 2011, 06:03:34 pm »
Ignore

I also like how Westman is a Progressive Rock fan, but he can't get off insulting Led Zeppelin like that. It's just not right. I mean, next thing he'll be insluting the Doors, Blue Oyster Cult, Jefferson Airplane, and God knows what else.

Also, I have a YES album in my signature.

Where does Westman himself insult Led Zeppelin?
He does insult Rolling Stone magazine for "crappy writing", but I don't see any Led bashing.  Carl, Westman's number 2 guy, however does get in an argument with the camera guy about who is better Led Zeppelin or Yes.
Scott Westman himself, however, I don't think I've written a post where he insults Led Zeppelin (at least in this thread).  If anything he is a 70's rock addict who probably has a hidden statue of Jimi Paige in his closet that he sacrifices baby goats to.

Carl, however, is pretty vocal about the superiority of Yes to almost any other band on the planet.

Okay, I got Carl and Westman mixed up. I thought that Westman was the one insulting Led Zeppelin.

Still waiting for a stright answer on the Han question.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: January 02, 2011, 06:21:31 pm »
Ignore

I also like how Westman is a Progressive Rock fan, but he can't get off insulting Led Zeppelin like that. It's just not right. I mean, next thing he'll be insluting the Doors, Blue Oyster Cult, Jefferson Airplane, and God knows what else.

Also, I have a YES album in my signature.

Where does Westman himself insult Led Zeppelin?
He does insult Rolling Stone magazine for "crappy writing", but I don't see any Led bashing.  Carl, Westman's number 2 guy, however does get in an argument with the camera guy about who is better Led Zeppelin or Yes.
Scott Westman himself, however, I don't think I've written a post where he insults Led Zeppelin (at least in this thread).  If anything he is a 70's rock addict who probably has a hidden statue of Jimi Paige in his closet that he sacrifices baby goats to.

Carl, however, is pretty vocal about the superiority of Yes to almost any other band on the planet.

Okay, I got Carl and Westman mixed up. I thought that Westman was the one insulting Led Zeppelin.

Still waiting for a stright answer on the Han question.

Okay, it is an 1980's version of Han.
I like to include tons of fictional versions of other posters to keep my penis ego from becoming too large.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: January 02, 2011, 06:37:55 pm »
Ignore

Here's to hoping the story of Han Phan goes well!
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: January 10, 2011, 08:33:05 pm »
Ignore

Thanks a lot.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: January 10, 2011, 08:45:44 pm »
Ignore

Now that you're apparently active, bump so you can see this.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: January 10, 2011, 08:55:24 pm »
Ignore

Now that you're apparently active, bump so you can see this.

For only like 20 more minutes dude.
I have to meet some people somewhere at 8:30 (not making this up)
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: January 10, 2011, 09:02:50 pm »
Ignore

Now that you're apparently active, bump so you can see this.

For only like 20 more minutes dude.
I have to meet some people somewhere at 8:30 (not making this up)

Still. "Thanks". If you have any memory of earlier today, you should know. Yeah. I'm in trouble.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: January 12, 2011, 04:25:04 pm »
Ignore

You're Welcome, Cathcon:

April 14th, 1981:


Senator Scott Westman (D-MT) is walking out of the Senate when he is ambushed by press reporters.
Reporter: Senator!  Is it true that President Crane has tapped you to be the pointman for his tax cut policy?
Westman: All we did was play golf and eat jellybeans.  I'm sorry I don't know what else to tell you?
Reporter: Senator please.
Westman: I'm not giving any details until it is final, m'kay?  What do you expect George Lucas to give away the plot of a Star Wars film or some other crap like that?
Reporter: Senator, is it true that you have been dating Caroline Kennedy?  Your late colleague Ted Kennedy's niece?
Westman smirks.
Westman: Who do you think I am a Rockefeller?
Press chuckles.
Reporter: Well sir I mean it kind of looks like you were taking advantage of a friend's death
Westman: to score with his niece?  (chuckles)  I could see how people could come to that conclusion.  Relax Miles (puts hand on reporter's shoulder) I only took her out to a few local steakhouses and stuff to you know get to know each other better.
Miles: So what is your impression of the young Miss Kennedy?
Westman chuckles
Westman: I was so smitten with her I might even make her an intern next summer (laughs).
People around Westman laugh.
Female Reporter: So how about those openings in your office......Senator?
Westman gives her a confused look and then grins from ear to ear.
Westman: Oh well.........would you like to meet me in my private office Miss Virginia?  You look like the kind of girl who is good with......figures.
Virginia: (laughs) Oh Senator, you are a riot!
Miles: Is this live?  IS THIS A LIVE FEED!?  VIRGINIA WHAT THE F***!  CUT IT OFF CAMERAMAN!!! CUT IT OFF!!!!!  CUT THE MOTHERF***ER OFF BEFORE I KICK YOUR A..........
Camera turns off.
CNN news comes back to news man Ron Burgundy.
Burgundy: MILES WHAT THE F***!
Camera tech: Ron, we are live.
Burgundy: Sh*t!  Well.....it seems as if we had some technical difficulties with our pal Stu the Camera Boy.  In other news, Gene Simmons just had another plaster caster made of his groinal area.  The rough draft is estimated to cost around well......more than any of you will ever make.  And now....here's Dan Rather.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 04:29:23 pm by Mecha In Name Only »Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: January 12, 2011, 06:08:10 pm »
Ignore

You're Welcome, Cathcon:

For:
A) My sarcastic 'thank you',
B) Using something I said in a post (taking advantage of friend's death)
C) Update,
D) All of the above?
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: January 12, 2011, 07:49:33 pm »
Ignore

You're Welcome, Cathcon:

For:
A) My sarcastic 'thank you',
B) Using something I said in a post (taking advantage of friend's death)
C) Update,
D) All of the above?

D it is Wink
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: January 12, 2011, 08:29:12 pm »
Ignore

I'm going to have to re-read this timeline in the future just to learn Westman's pick-up lines. Wink
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: January 15, 2011, 03:33:29 am »
Ignore

Scott Westman Interview 1995:

The early eighties were a very tumultuous time to be a Democratic Senator or House Representative.  After the Election of 1980 the Democratic Party went through an era of disillusionment.  With the destruction of the dominant New Deal/Progressive wing, much like what had happened to the conservative pro-tariff faction of the Republican Party during the administration of FDR, there was a general feeling in the country as well as in Congress that nobody knew what the Democratic Party stood for anymore.  While the Republicans had suddenly become dominated by a coalition of libertarian moderates, the so-called Moderate "Reform" Party was dominated by moderate/liberal former Republicans, and the Constitution Party had begun attracting a wide tent of right wingers from former Dixiecrats to hawkish Republicans.  The Democratic Party, as it has been for the past one hundred and fifty years, was a big tent of progressives, liberals, Southern moderates, and libertarians.
The defeat in 1980 was the beginning of the next political shift in American politics and the end of the New Deal era.  Progressives were still the strongest faction in the party, however they no longer held the majority status to influence the overall party direction like they had in the past.  As a result many people started asking what the Democratic Party would stand for in the future due to the turmoil between these conflicting groups.
To this day I have felt a certain responsibility for the events that transpired: maybe if I didn't run in 1980 the party wouldn'tve been reduced to a superminority status in the Congress and other "events" that occurred afterward.  I admit, it was a mistake to take such a strong stance against my own party during an election year to make a statement of disapproval of the ticket.  I believe my record since then as a faithful party member is testament to the fact that I have matured in my career.
However, if there is one thing I don't regret it is my voting record in the US Senate during that time.  I believe that, no matter what party doctrinaires of that time will say, that my record reflected the will of the people of Montana, a voting bloc more dear to me than that of New Deal ideologues who had been running the party for decades.  But as surely as the Jacksonian era had to come to an end, so had the Roosevelt era of dominance.
But while the progressives needed to be taught a lesson we still had to acknowledge that they were a vital part of our coalition.  Problem is we didn't have any unifying figure after the death of Ted Kennedy to keep the factions together.
Enter Tobin MacMahon, our Senate Whip.......
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 08:55:39 am by The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels »Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: January 15, 2011, 12:17:18 pm »
Ignore

This is CBS News May, 5th, 1981
Here is your host Dan Rather:

Rather:
 Good evening America, I am Dan Rather and this is CBS News.  Tonight I have a special interview with Tobin MacMahon, the Senate Minority Whip, of Virginia.  Most of you already know about the story of his immigrant roots, about his success in the financial field.  Well today he has agreed to sit down with us and give us his take on what is going on in Capitol Hill.  How are you doing Senator?
MacMahon: I'm fine Dan.
Rather: Recently your company, the Happy Clam Resorts, just opened up a new resort in Baku, Azerbaijan Republic.  This would make it the first American resort opened there since before World War I.  What made you decide to open up a new resort on the Caspian?
MacMahon: Well mostly the opportunities I saw in boosting business in the young Azerbaijan Republic.  With it's independence from the Russian Republic we saw an opportunity to tap the untouched market.  It's just now gotten to the point where western businesses are comfortable setting up shops in the former Soviet Union.
Rather: Why do you think this is?
MacMahon: Well it's been 10 years since the Soviet Union dissolved under internal pressure and in those years since there have been very few American businesses eager to set up shop here.  I think to many it was the perceived weakness of the economy due to decades of a Communist economy.  It is kind of hard to make a smooth transition from that kind of economy to a free market capitalist one.  When I was in charge of the Happy Clam I always kicked around the idea of setting up a few resorts around the Caspian Sea, however the market was so unstable back then me and my advisors always feared a huge loss.  I'm glad that my wife Diane was ambitious enough to carry on my vision.
Rather: So you were 36 when you stepped down as the owner of the Happy Clam in 1971, a company you started when you were 29.  In your stead the company unanimously elected your wife, Diane Banks MacMahon, 26, as the head of your company.  Considering that your wife was barely out of college at this point do you think it was a wise decision to let such a young and inexperienced professional take over?
MacMahon laughs
MacMahon: Well she probably wasn't the most experienced lass in the world at that point Danny.  But she is my wife and I trust her a lot more to make the right decision than I do anybody else.  I was delighted to see that the people I worked with saw the kind of natural genius comes from me beautiful wife.  Call it sentimentalism, but it has worked so far for me.
Rather: Were you kind of shocked at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1971?
MacMahon: Not really no.  Frankly I'm shocked it managed to survive at all after all wars and battles it lost against us.  Stalinist communism was a failed ideology and for good reason.  Did they really think that the people would stay oblivious forever?  Defeat after defeat against the forces of capital yet remain confident in the inevitability of world revolution?  Or the attractiveness of the western market stealing scores of Soviet citizens year after year?  As it regards the victory of the West over Communism William Westman was right: the spread of free enterprise and capital in post war Europe is what helped us beat the Communists.
Rather: You know Democrats seem to be evoking the name of William Westman a lot in national debate.  Why is that?
MacMahon: Well because Willie, as I like to call him, embodied the very best of liberal philosophy.  He was a staunch believer in the free market and in Civil Rights and liberties.  He believed that low taxes and low tariffs brought out the best in the American economy.  He believed that all children had the right to a fair and decent education.  He believed that the corporate exploitation of workers of low wages and long hours was inhumane.  He believed that the best US foreign policy was actively seek friendship first and only conflict if the conflict has been brought to our doors.  He believed that corporate punishment was an outdated means of criminal punishment and sought instead to endorse legislation that sought rehabilitation over retribution.  It is in this vein that I consider him the epitome of modern liberalism.
Rather: Funny considering that William Westman, both during his time and after, has generally been considered a conservative Democrat who opposed almost all of the New Deal once he was in office.
MacMahon: It is true that William Westman was indeed an opponent of the New Deal, but that necessarily doesn't mean one is anti-liberalism does it?  I mean he supported FDR's push to lower tariff rates throughout his presidency and supported his law establishing a minimum wage for American workers.  I believe William Westman even supported FDR's push to create a public healthcare option in 1940, yet scant mention of that exists in History textbooks and classes.  All too often this history is left out due to the interests of the previous establishment.  Right now what we Dems need to focus on the most is remaking the wide coalition that has maintained this party since our birth in time for the next time Congressional election come.
Rather: So what do you think about Edward Kennedy's replacement in the Senate Ed Markey?
MacMahon: Oh he is a handsome lad no doubt.  I feel confident that he will be able to retain Edward's seat come election time.
Rather:Given that Kennedy died on April 1st, 1981 that would make the election sometime between August 25th-September 9th, 1981 according to Massachusetts law.
MacMahon: I know, not the best time to have an election.  Needless to say turnout might be a problem, especially if a well known Republican like Edward Brooks or William Saltonstall wins the nomination.
Rather: Saltonstall?  Really?  He seems to be more interested in becoming President of the Massachusetts Senate than pursue higher office.
MacMahon: He's too much like his old man.  Unlike other Republicans he is very popular amongst the working class base that the Massachusetts Democratic Party relies upon.  He has a Harvard accent but a South Boston face.
Rather: That's quite an honest observation Senator.
MacMahon: Well, I don't want to give the impression that we are overconfident.  That would be a tragic mistake..
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: January 17, 2011, 01:51:25 pm »
Ignore

US Congress 1981:

As a matter of compromise the Republicans and Constitution Parties struck up a "coalition deal" over Congressional leadership.  The Constitution Party could appoint a Majority Whip and a President Pro Tempore, however the Republicans would retain control over majority leader status in both houses.  Many pundits agree that if it weren't for the friendship between Republican leader Mark Hatfield and President Phil Crane, the deal would've never been possible.  Moderate Reform Party and Liberal Party members chose to caucus with the Democrats in opposition to what they considered to be a "corrupt alliance".

US House:
Speaker of the House:
Gerald Ford (R-MI)
House Majority Leader: Jack Kemp (R-NY)
House Majority Whip: Jonathan Geiger (C-TX)
House Minority Leader: Jonathan Debs (D-CA)
House Minority Whip: Thomas L. Diorgianno (D-IL)

US Senate:
President of the Senate:
Jesse Helms (C-NC)
President Pro Tempore: James O. Eastland (C-MS)
Senate Majority Leader: Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR)
Senate Majority Whip: Paul Laxalt (R-NV)
Senate Minority Leader: Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)
Senate Minority Whip: Tobin MacMahon (D-VA)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 12:56:38 am by Mechaman »Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: January 17, 2011, 02:05:49 pm »
Ignore

So Gerald Ford sticks in the House? Also, I was dissappointed that Kemp agreed to be on D'Israeli's ticket, though I still like him being in the Congressional leadership.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: January 17, 2011, 05:03:47 pm »
Ignore

So Gerald Ford sticks in the House? Also, I was dissappointed that Kemp agreed to be on D'Israeli's ticket, though I still like him being in the Congressional leadership.

IRL Ford always dreamed of becoming the Speaker of the House.  Here he accomplishes that goal.  I thought him being House Speaker would put an interesting spin on what's going to happen in Congress over the next four years.  Namely how a moderate Republican like Ford will handle the alliance with the conservative populist (as you will see the Constitution Party does not necessarily believe in the free market in all circumstances) Constitution Party and the growing libertarian faction of the Republican Party.
Kemp agreed to be the Vice Presidential Candidate on D'Israeli's ticket as a "reconciliation candidate" to try to keep conservatives on the Republican ticket.  D'Israeli's extremism, however, would prove too much to keep the conservative Republicans on board and as result they would vote en masse for the Constitution Party ticket.  If it weren't for the influx of conservative Republicans voting Constitution Party because of the presence of Phil Crane we might be talking about President Beauregard D'Israeli now.
Actually truth be told since it was the success of D'Israeli which caused the moderates and the conservatives to flee the party in the first place it would probably have been President Philip Crane (Republican) in office instead Wink
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: January 17, 2011, 06:01:52 pm »
Ignore

Well, I'm glad Ford finally accomplished his goal. I'd expect that the Constitution Party would be anti-Free Trade (something I don't fully trust), and also somewhat Populist on things like Wall Street.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: January 17, 2011, 06:06:29 pm »
Ignore

Well, I'm glad Ford finally accomplished his goal. I'd expect that the Constitution Party would be anti-Free Trade (something I don't fully trust), and also somewhat Populist on things like Wall Street.

Exactly.
I think you'll be surprised by how pro-free trade the Democratic Party is in this timeline compared to the two more conservative parties (Republican and Constitution).
« Last Edit: January 17, 2011, 06:38:17 pm by Mecha Mussolini »Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: January 17, 2011, 06:36:05 pm »
Ignore

August 9th, 1981
White House Dining Room
7:41 PM:


Seated at the east end of the massive dining room table were President Philip Crane, his wife Arlene Catherine Johnson, his brother Republican Senator Daniel Crane of Illinois and his wife Diane Crane, and Democratic Senator Scott Westman with his daughter Brea Westman and his girlfriend Caroline Kennedy.  The course for the night is broiled Maine Lobster, of which President Crane is a big fan.
Pres. Crane: So Dan.......I heard you've been a little busy planning legislation with your pages at your apartment lately.  How is that going?
Westman: Oh really tiring I must say Phil.  I went over to his apartment a few nights back and man he has got something crazy planned.
Daniel gives Westman a "what the hell you doing?" look.  Westman knew exactly what Daniel was really doing.  He knew exactly what it was like to be the man in that situation, and so he was going to do all he could to avoid suspicion going on to Daniel Crane.
Daniel: Oh yeah we're planning this bit of legislation.
Crane: With your pages?
Westman: Yes Phil.  Your brother figured that it would help his pages in the world of politics to be intimately involved with the legislative planning process.  What kind of legislation are you guys working on again Dan?  Prison reform?
Daniel Crane chuckles, very funny asshole.
Daniel: It's drug reform actually.  It's a bill to decriminalize marijuana.
Crane: You truly are the bleedingheart liberal in the family.
Daniel: Phil, y'know that alcohol is a way worse drug than marijuana could ever hope to be yet the latter is illegal.  Why is that?
Crane: Oh it just seems that way because it is illegal and not many people use it.
Westman laughs.
Crane: What so funny Scott?
Westman: Oh this whole philosophy that if something is illegal people will refrain from it completely it's just......retarded.
Crane: Well it's easy for you to say.
Westman: Well yes it is actually.  I've smoked dope more than anyone else in this room.  Trust me it's easy as hell to get some and smoke it IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACES.  Hell Phil, I smoked some reefer right before I got here, didn't I Brea?
Brea blushes.
Brea: Yes he did Phil.
Westman: Little lady you can't just call the President Phil!  This is only the first time you have eaten dinner with him.
Brea: I'll use first names with whoever the hell I want to......Scott.
Westman: (sigh) Iím a failure of a father.  Anyway Phil you invited me over here for a reason and I know it probably isnít just a random social call.
Crane: Yes, Iíll get right down to it.  As you know Iíve been planning tax cut legislation since the Ice Age.  Well Iím ready to lay the gauntlet down.  With the year already half over we must push forth this legislation before January.
Westman: And you want me to propose it.
Crane: I want this to look as tripartisan as possible and what better way to get a Democrat to propose the legislation?
Westman: Okay man, but youíve got to understand somethingÖ..I may be pro free market I may be for lower taxation but I am not a puppet who will promote any conservative bill of your choosing.  I will support this bill as long as the following conditions are met:
1) That the income taxation on the upper income bracket is set to 38%, no more no less.  At this present time we need to encourage economic development as much as possible but still have the tax bracket high enough to gather government revenue.
2) That the tax rate will be progressively lowered over a period of 4 years.  Seeing as how the income tax on the upper class is 78.15% this year that means the tax rate should be lowered 40.15% on the upper income levels by 1985.
3) There is no increase in income taxation on the lower and middle classes.  In fact, I would also like to see significant decreases in taxation to these income levels.
4) A great reduction in the tariff rate of at least 50% to encourage trade and thus bring in more government revenue.  This last one will probably be the hardest due to the strength of the protectionist lobby in recent years, even amongst fellow Democrats.  Ideally me and a good number of my fellow Democrats would like to see the day where tariffs are abolished and a variety of taxes to fund the government.
If you can satisfy 3 of these four I will be glad to push it for you.
Crane: I donít think my fellow party mates would be too pleased to have an entry about low tariffs in this tax cut bill, but other than that yeah I think I could do this.
Westman: Will do.  But what I want to know Phil is that out of all the liberal/moderate Democrats you couldíve approached for thisÖ.why me?
Crane: BecauseÖÖ.I NEED YOU.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: January 17, 2011, 06:36:36 pm »
Ignore

So, Eastland did not retire in 1978?

No, he decided to stay a bit longer and be a pain in the ass.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: January 25, 2011, 07:48:41 pm »
Ignore

August 14th, 1981
United States Senate:

Scott Westman (D-MT):


Ladies and gentlemen of the US Senate it is with great honor that I present before you the 1981 Economic Recovery Act.  Under this act income taxation will be lowered across the board, with the most notable decreases to those at the top of the income bracket.  Under my proposed act income taxation on the lowest classes will become almost now existent by 1985, when their rates will have been lowered to .025%, the same as it was in 1928 under President Coolidge.  Middle income brackets will also experience a great decrease in income taxation.  The upper bracket see a total income tax reduction of 40% in that same amount of time.  In 1985 the income tax on these upper class citizens will be 39.85%, half the brutal rates they have now.  In addition tariffs on over 2,500 consumer items will be reduced by 60%, leaving the US with an average tariff rate of 6.2%.  These cuts have been proposed because the tax burden in this country has become so heavy that it has become oppressive to the growth of our free enterprise economy................
there are some of you out here who may see this tax bill as something that will lead to an enormous increase in national deficit.  To those critics I say you are wrong.  Once this Congress slashes the military budget which has so drained our economy these past few decades we can begin the process of paying off our deficit.  Legislation that will encourage greater trade between our nation and others will also bring forth more tax revenues to fix our budget deficit.
This bill is not perfect, but it is better than what has been proposed in the past.


Scott Westman leaves the podium to thunderous applause.  The Senate version of the 1981 Economic Recover Act would pass August 25th, 1981 with 62-34-4.  Most of the support for the bill came from libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats.  The opposition came from progressive New Deal Democrats, moderate Republicans, and a good number of protectionist Constitution Party members who opposed the tariff reduction clause Westman put into the Senate bill.  The tariff clause wasn't put into the original version of the bill and was put in by Scott Westman to garner support from liberal Democrats (who favor free trade).

President Phil Crane, against strong opposition from his own party, would sign the act on August 26th, 1981.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 07:54:15 pm by Kirk & Madsen 101 »Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: January 25, 2011, 09:41:10 pm »
Ignore

September 22nd, 1981
CBS News:

Rather:
Also today the long awaited Energy Deregulation Bill finally went through the US Senate.  The Bill, introduced by Scott Westman in April 1977, just three months after he arrived, would do away with oil and gas subsidies and send that funding towards alternative energy.  Westman has proposed the legislation every year since then only to be rejected overwhelmingly by Constitution and Republican Party members, but those of his own party as well.  It wasn't until earlier this year after a private dinner with Senator Beauregard D'Israeli of Wyoming did he get the bilateral support he needed.  The modified bill, which would eliminate all but 25% of current oil and gas subsidies while diverting the rest towards the development of alternative fuels, passed overwhelmingly through the chamber with tri-party support from the Constitution, Democratic, and Republican Parties.  The bill passed with 84 "aye" votes, making it the most popular bill passed so far in the 97th US Senate.  This evening Senator Westman accepted a special dinner function at the White House where the President is expected to sign the bill.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: January 25, 2011, 10:47:05 pm »
Ignore

Newsweek Magazine
Late September issue
Title: Like a Phoenix from the Ashes: How Phil Crane Saved Scott Westman's Career.


Contributions by John Krakow Jr.

It is often said that in politics that the best way to get your agenda passed is to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  Over the past nine months President Philip Crane has proven this correct, as the past two major pieces of legislation passed: an economic reform act passed in August and most recently an energy subsidization bill, both efforts that President Crane advocated were both proposed in the US Senate by Democratic US Senator Scott Westman of Montana.  Also in the past nine months Senator Westman has been invited to the Crane White House a total of 36 times.  Thirty four times.....since January 20th.  That averages out to four times a month he has been invited to dinner at the White House.  During President Reagan's last term in office from 1977-1981 Scott Westman was invited to the White House a grand whopping total of 19 times.  That is no mistype.
Since January Senator Westman and President Crane has struck up a pretty cozy friendship.  Various press agencies report seeing the two men playing golf.  When pressed on the matter Crane said that he and Westman have been golf buddies since May, playing the green almost every week (excepting bad weather).  Westman, Caroline Kennedy, and his 17 year old daughter Brea are frequent guests at White House dinners, along with the President's brother Daniel Crane (R-IL) and his wife Diane.  While Westman is different ideologically from Crane it is apparent that the relationship between the two men is stronger than it was between Westman and Reagan, his party's own president from 1973-1981.
So far this friendship seems to have yielded success for both.  Sources on the inside say that President Crane personally tapped Senator Westman, a member of the Democratic Party, to push his tax cut legislation through Congress.  Westman would accept on the condition that a tariff reduction clause would be put into the language of the tax bill and that taxes on upper income brackets be reduced to 39.85% by 1985 instead of 28% by 1986 as the President originally wanted.  News that the tax cut bill would have a 60% tariff reduction clause included in it would depress Constitution support for the bill but would explode with Democratic support that was originally opposed to the bill.  President Crane, who originally jumped ship to the Constitution Party last year from the Republican Party in protest of the nomination of Beauregard D'Israeli as the Republican candidate, is finding out that there is more to his new party than meets the eye.  In meetings with fellow party members he often gets into verbal spares over issues of trade, an issue that Crane is pro free trade and a majority of Constitution Party Congressmen oppose free trade.
It seems that recently President Crane has gone to finding as many other party allies as he possibly can.  Scott Westman, Democratic of Montana, seems to be one of his top cross party allies.  In the past year alone Westman has introduced 5 pieces of legislation, all of them passing Congress and getting the signature of the President.  President Crane even signed the Drug Reform Law, legislation introduced by Westman that would greatly weaken the federal government's authority to interfere in state law enforcement matters regarding drug laws.
But if it seems like the President is the sole beneficiary of the partnership don't forget Scott Westman's situation as US Senator.  Nearly eleven months ago Scott Westman was caught in one of the worst personal scandals to ever befall a US Senator.  He didn't break any laws but his relation ship with one Calpernia Weils, a transwoman from LA, had a nasty affect on his ticket's performance in the presidential election.  Even months after the election many political pundits had declared that 1983 would be "the year the Westman died" and rumors surfaced that Westman wouldn't run for re-election.  However, since the death of his close friend Edward Kennedy at the hands of a deranged gunman Scott Westman seems to have entered a new mental high lately, churning out legislation after legislation that has won wide support in the US Senate.  Already Scott Westman has passed the two most important legislation efforts since the establishment of the US Public Healthcare System with the endorsement of the US President.  There is very little reason for this writer to honestly believe that after his recent successes Westman is going to retire.  Scott Westman's approval ratings on March 13th in his homestate were in the mid 30's, after the passage of the Energy Deregulation Bill his approval ratings were 62.19% amongst Montana residents.  He is not going to retire next year he will run for re-election.  Not only will he run for re-election but, in spite of all the controversy, his chances of winning the race against a Republican and a Constitution Party candidate is increased (not to mention that there are few differences between the Montana GOP and the Montana Constitution Party).
I now it is not the part of an objective journalist to make such statements, but I will: Come January 3rd, 1983 Scott Westman will be entering the chambers of the US Senate for his second term.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 10:49:52 pm by Kirk & Madsen 101 »Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13722
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: January 26, 2011, 12:33:24 am »
Ignore

October 9th, 1981
Senator Tobin MacMahon's office:
MacMahon is on the phone

MacMahon:
(in a folksy Irish accent) Oh yes my dear I would love to have you at the Senate Chambers for a tour and interview.  Yes your time is very special to me.  What was your name again?  Oh Kaelin?  Oh Kaitlin.  Oh why thanks for the compliment Kaitlin.  See you dearie.
MacMahon hangs up the phone before banging his head on the desk.
MacMahon: (neutral accent voice) Sh*t.  Third one today.  It's amazing what having a "handsome" voice can do to a man.
Senate Minority Leader Lloyd Bentsen looks back at his Whip and chuckles.
Bentsen: It sounds a hell of a lot more attractive than mine Toby.  Though I have had a few ladies make passes at me while I was giving an interview.  TO THEM.  I mean you know how jealous my wife can get sometimes.
MacMahon reaches into the mini-refrigerator behind him and pulls out a bottle of Finnegan's Irish Ale and offers one to Bentsen.
MacMahon: Here you go mate, have a real drink.
Bentsen: No thanks Tobs, I have a busy day ahead.
MacMahon: Alright suit yourself.  You know I have to say that so-called "light beer" pisses me off.
Bentsen: No surprise.
MacMahon: I mean bloody hell man I come over to this country with a pack on my back and only $240 on hand and I go to this bar and this lass behind the counter offers me a Miller "Lite".  I was so disgusted.  This whole light beer bullsh*t.  And idiot American fratboys drink away at this stuff like it's golden.  For chrissake!  In my home country boy not even the women would touch this piss it's so gawddamn emasculating.
Bentsen: And people wonder why the Irish have a reputation for "heavy" drinking.
MacMahon laughs
MacMahon: Any way yeah I have to be careful about how friendly I get with women around here.  I mean Diane she's the most beautiful woman in the world.  I remember the day I first met her.  She was on Spring Break with some friends and she was staying at my resort.  Yes that's right man, MY RESORT!  She was so young and beautiful, she still is, all of 21 when I met her.  I don't know what she saw in me man.  I mean a beautiful girl like that seeing a 31 year old white man staring at her I mean she could've had any guy in the world.
MacMahon picks up a picture of a beautiful African American woman in her white wedding dress.
MacMahon: The first few years were hard man.  People staring at us walking down the beach man like they were watching a science experiment gone awry.  We were just minding our own business, trying to pretend like the stares weren't there.  But they were.  It wasn't that long before then that Manheim V. Virginia passed, relationships like the one I had with Diane weren't the norm.  Not by a long shot.  A thirty one year old paddy skin man and a twenty one year old hot chocolate black woman walking down the beach, holding arms, kissing each other.......god it's enough to make a man go crazy.  And now we got our three children...........I think I am going crazy.
Bentsen: Urr welcome to America?
MacMahon laughs.
MacMahon: You know when I first sent a photo of me and Diane together my parents thought the waitress was my fiance and not Diane. (chuckles) Another time when Diane picked up our first born everyone thought she was the nanny.  Awkward I tell you, awkward.
Bentsen: Alright lover boy, let's talk about this abortion bill.
MacMahon: I guess we have no choice, just like the fetus has none.
Bentsen: Not even in cases of rape?
MacMahon: It should be a state's rights issue, but if it were up to me I would ban it except for life of the mother.
Bentsen: Okay man it's just you don't know how risky illegal abortions are.
MacMahon: If a woman wants an abortion they can get it in another state.  But not in my state, not in Virginia.  That was a victory last week I tell you.  You want an abortion you'll have to get it in North Carolina.
Bentsen: Aww forget it.  Let's talk about the death penalty bill.
MacMahon: Here we go again.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 40 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines