Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (13036)	2/29/2000 9:57:00 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Church Bingo By: Scott Shuger E-Mail This Article Sign Up for Free E-Mail Auto-Delivery The WP and NYT lead with John McCain's speech yesterday attacking the leadership of the Christian right. "We are the party of Ronald Reagan not Pat Robertson," McCain is quoted as saying. "We are the party of Abraham Lincoln not Bob Jones." USAT's front is dominated by a big takeout on the GOP party war but the lead is the Treasury Department's new determination to target illegal corporate tax shelters, a story that the WP off-leads and the NYT fronts. The LAT lead is that INS field agents initially objected to helping the LAPD fight gangs by detaining illegal immigrants, a practice the LAPD is prevented by city regulations from engaging in directly. McCain's speech is the paper's top national story. The speech is in the number 2 spot in the WSJ's world-wide news box, topped only by Austrian right-winger J”rg Haider's resignation from the leadership of his party, a story that USAT also fronts, but that the others stuff. The papers all report that McCain's speech, coming as it did in the heart of religiously conservative Virginia, was lions' den stuff, but only the Post notes that McCain was actually speaking in Pat Robertson's hometown. The immediate tactical point of the speech, the papers agree, was to keep George W. Bush mired in an association with the most unreconstructed of the religious right, while the strategic point was to attract moderates in crucial non-Southern Super Tuesday states. The LAT says the speech was a "enormous gamble" in that in many states Christian conservatives cast a third of more of the GOP primary votes. The paper quotes an unnamed senior Bush advisor's reaction: "This is more than just a throw of the dice....This is a little bit of a burning down of the Republican Party on the way out." Although McCain also condemned Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan in his remarks, none of the papers mention that in their headlines. A WSJ commentary wonders when the press will ask Bill Bradley and Al Gore to disavow Democratic extremists like Sharpton. slate.msn.com

To: Bill who wrote (13036)	2/29/2000 10:20:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769667

>>It's clear that he is not as good a liar as Clinton, even though his lies seem to be as frequent. And despite years and years of practice. Al Gore's problem with the truth It may seem that Vice President Gore has taken the clue from his boss when it comes to finessing the truth. However, the fact is that Mr. Gore was lying long before he ever teamed up with Bill Clinton. Indeed, during Mr. Gore's ill-fated 1987-1988 pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, his own staffers twice admonished him in writing to tell the truth now that the national media was following his words. His press secretary told Mr. Gore his image "may continue to suffer if you continue to go out on a limb with remarks that may be impossible to back up." Later, his communications director told Mr. Gore in a memo, "Your main pitfall is exaggeration." Mr. Gore fibbed when he told the Des Moines Register that his stint as an investigative reporter at the Nashville Tennessean "got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." In fact, as the newspaper acknowledged, nobody went to jail. For years Mr. Gore greatly exaggerated the danger he faced in Vietnam, where bodyguards were assigned to protect him. He lied when he claimed that Harvard professor Erich Segal used him and Tipper as the models for "Love Story." And Mr. Gore, of course, lied when he asserted that, as a congressman, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." In fact, the Internet was created years before Mr. Gore entered Congress. Mr. Gore lied when he claimed to be a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. As it happens, Mr. Feingold wasn't even in the Senate when Mr. Gore represented Tennessee there. Mr. Gore lied when he said it was he who "found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal" and "had the first hearing on that issue . . . that started it all." In fact, President Carter had declared Love Canal a disaster area months before Mr. Gore's hearing. "I live on a farm today," Mr. Gore tells people, when, in fact, he resides at the Naval Observatory. Mr. Gore has repeatedly lied about his evolving position on abortion. Mr. Gore doesn't just lie to reporters or during debates. During his 1996 speech before the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Gore brazenly lied to a national audience about the impact the 1984 smoking-related death of his younger sister had upon him. "That is why until I draw my last breath I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking," Mr. Gore declared, conveniently forgetting that the Gore family continued to grow tobacco on the family farm for years after his sister's death and for decades after the surgeon general's 1964 warning about smoking. Indeed, Mr. Gore accepted thousands of dollars from tobacco political action committees after his sister died, and in 1988 he bragged to North Carolina tobacco farmers about his wonderful experience farming tobacco. The man who introduced "no controlling legal authority" into the political lexicon has not shied away from lying about his role in the 1996 campaign-finance scandal. Mr. Gore's office insisted the political shakedown at the California Buddhist temple in 1996 was not a fund-raiser but merely "community outreach." Later, as evidence mounted, the afternoon was described as "political outreach." Still later, it was a "finance-related event." Mr. Gore also apparently lied when he said he did not know that the money he raised from his White House telephone calls was divided into both hard- and soft-money accounts. Memos and notes later surfaced contradicting Mr. Gore. "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?" Bill Bradley asked Mr. Gore at the Jan. 26 debate between the two. The best thing that can be said about Mr. Gore's refusal to answer Mr. Bradley's highly pertinent question is that he has not added still more lies to his mountain of mendacity. washtimes.com