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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50)	8/24/2000 12:17:42 AM
From: James West	Respond to of 10042

well said!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50)	8/24/2000 12:24:31 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Well it is clear what your opinion is. I [ and about half of Americans ] would beg to differ. <<Is he pro-choice?>> I have no problem with one changing one's mind ......He is currently pro choice ........So am I <<Is he pro-control?>> He is enough on this difficult issue to satisfy me. <<Is he anti-smoking?>> I don't care....Americans should take responsibility for their own actions <<Is he for the poor?>> I don't quite know what this means.....Being a landlord of a dump is not necessarily evil <<Is he free of any conflict of interest with "Big Oil"?> Owning stock in an oil company does not disqualify him from the presidency IMO <<Is he "pro" military defense increases? >> The military is bloated and needs to be scaled down in the post cold war period IMO. <<Is he for welfare reform?>> Your argument only addresses the democratic failures over the past half century......Clinton went a long way to address these failures. Welfare reform is not the simple issue that both sides make it out to be. <<Is he for securing Social Security against further governmental deficits? >> Clearly I believe he will do a better job here than his opponent who's tax cuts will result in over stimulation of the economy resulting in higher interest rates as well as destroying the surpluses...........The debt should be paid off first and foremost IMO <<Is he pro campaign finance reform?>> This issue is not one of real concern to me but I don't think the Republicans should have the gall to bring it up given their past history. You have left out the most important issue to moi Is he pro environment? Compared to GWB he is 'Earth First' itself.... And so am I! So you see Algore gets my vote every time

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50)	8/24/2000 2:09:07 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

Here's an example of a STARK DIFFERENCE between Gore and Bush: washingtonpost.com Republicans Pull Unaired Ad Attacking Gore By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 24, 2000; Page A01 The Republican National Committee, in a last-minute reversal, yesterday withdrew a harsh television ad that attacked Vice President Gore by using misleading excerpts from a six-year-old interview. Bowing to objections from George W. Bush's campaign and Bush advisers at the RNC, party officials took the rare step of yanking an ad they had already delivered to 350 television stations. The ads were to begin airing today. The spot shows a stammering Gore maintaining that President Clinton has never told a lie. Although the ad seems to suggest that Gore is deliberately overlooking Clinton's repeated statements denying his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, the footage in the ad actually comes from a Gore interview conducted in 1994, well before the president had even met Lewinsky. The tag line is a version of the refrain – used often by the Bush campaign – that "Al Gore will say anything to get elected." The ad is revealing because it was produced at a time when Bush is insisting that the presidential campaign should be about policy differences and not personal attacks. The Texas governor regularly vows to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House, but insists that he is not trying to tie the vice president to the scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment. "We do think Al Gore's lack of credibility is an issue that can be discussed in this campaign," a Bush campaign official said yesterday. "But when we question his credibility, we want to do it in a credible way. The ad was out of context because the interview was not dated." A Republican Party official said: "There are people who were uncomfortable with it. One of the concerns they had was that it would be misinterpreted. The question was whether the controversy it would kick off would be productive." But the aborted ad shows that the Bush campaign and GOP strategists still believe that Gore, who staunchly defended the president, can be tarred by the issue. They were careful yesterday not to rule out future attacks on the vice president's personal credibility. Gore campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani described the episode as "an indefensible ad debacle," saying: "This is just the latest indication of disarray in the Bush campaign." The interview with Gore was conducted by NBC correspondent Lisa Myers days before the 1994 election. She was asking Gore about his attack on Oliver North, then the Republican Senate candidate in Virginia, as a "despicable, pathological liar" over North's role in the Iran-contra affair. But the exchange about North, which lasted for several questions, was edited out of the RNC ad, which begins with an open-ended question about the veracity of Gore and Clinton. Myers: But if the charge is lying, can you say that neither you nor President Clinton has told a lie in your political career? Gore: I – None spring to mind, I'll tell you that. And I'll – let me say again – Myers: And President Clinton has not uttered a single untruth in the last two years? Gore: Uh, not that I have heard, absolutely not. And again, Lisa, let me say that – Myers: Not a single one? Gore: Yes . . . Myers: Never told a lie? Gore: Well, look, ah, Lisa, um – Among those raising objections were officials of Victory 2000, the newly created Bush wing of the RNC. "If there was agreement that this was a good ad, you'd be seeing it," said a party official who is not part of Victory 2000. Some Republican strategists were also concerned that NBC was not asked for permission. NBC says it does not allow its news footage to be used in political ads. Both the RNC and the Democratic National Committee are spending millions of dollars, financed by unregulated "soft money" donations, to promote the candidacies of Bush and Gore. While no party committee would air an ad to which the candidate objected, the legal separation allows the candidate's campaign to deny responsibility for a particularly aggressive party ad, although the distinction would be lost on most viewers. In contrast to the harsh tone of the RNC spot, Bush is running two positive ads on education this week, while Gore is airing a biographical ad that also describes his views on health care, education and welfare reform. Asked about the decision to withdraw the planned ad, RNC spokesman Clifford May said, without elaborating, "No decision has been made to run any ad this week." © 2000 The Washington Post Company

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50)	8/24/2000 2:10:44 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

LET THE DEFENSE DEBATE BEGIN BY DAVID H. HACKWORTH Democrat Joe Lieberman says we have "the best-trained, best-equipped, most-powerful fighting force in the history of the world." Republican Dick Cheney says this isn't true. Which party's vice-presidential candidate is right? Is Cheney yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's not even a whiff of smoke? Is Lieberman saying the theater's sprinkler system is in perfect shape when it's a rusted-out disaster waiting to happen? Meanwhile, are you and your loved ones enjoying the show, sure that all's safe and that our kids "over there" are ready with the right stuff for the Main Event? In every election in my memory, we've had some kind of military gap. In 1952, it was the "bomber" gap. In 1960, the "missile" gap. In 1980, the "our-forces-have-collapsed" gap. Now, two decades later, we have the "are-we-ready-or-not" gap. Has Lieberman, a man touted for his character and integrity, been conned by the Pentagon or his speechwriters? I hope for the security of our country and his reputation that this isn't the case. But from my periscope, I see that more than 20 percent of our fleet can't get under way unless they cannibalize parts and people from combat-ready ships that will then become wharf queens. I see Air Force squadrons without the parts or the right training to be fit to fight. I see Army maneuver units that can't win against a play enemy at training centers and who'd lose against a class enemy on a killing field. Then, too, thousands of noncoms and officers from all the services give me new intell daily. These are the idealistic leaders who haven't been co-opted by a sick system. They're the heroes of our nation, the fine folks who man our ships and planes and serve on point duty in dangerous places all over the globe. These members of the Thin Red Line know the truth because, when you are the first to die, you are the truth. And today the truth is that a Desert Storm brigade led by a Jim Hollingsworth-like leader could whip any division in the U.S. Army on a slow weekend and then clobber the rest of the divisions -- one at a time -- from Monday to Friday. In 1998, Defense Secretary William Cohen apologized to the Senate about America's lousy state of military preparedness. Since then the Pentagon propaganda poets have been chanting that people numbers are up and readiness is improving. But setting aside the standard snake oil, if it is improved, it's only marginally and mainly on paper. For example, the Army is filling up its hollow divisions -- two divisions that were declared not-good-to-go last year by their brave and honorable generals, probably at the cost of their careers -- with fodder that normally brings up the rear! On the readiness charts, these units look lean and mean. But dragooned former clerks and drivers don't become shoot-and-scoot riflemen or first-round-hit tankers in a few months. Only in riots do sheer numbers sometimes win fights. Trained, motivated and well-equipped warriors with great leaders -- the kind of good people who are leaving our armed forces in historic numbers -- win battles. Not readiness reports with fudged scores. I'd rather lead 10 trained, gung-ho, well-equipped warriors then a herd of don't-want-to-be-here pretenders plunked into units just to make everything look OK. At Thermopylae, 300 Spartans chopped down 10,000 supposedly fit-to-fight Persians. If Cheney can prove what he said, he owes it to America to challenge his political rival. Getting this debate out there where we citizens can judge the facts for ourselves should help us all -- including Lieberman -- get at the truth. Congress and the media have both skirted this issue. It's time they also examined our readiness with at least the same energy and focus they brought to the Lewinsky/Clinton maneuvers. And before you paint me automatically into the Bush-Cheney corner, let me tell you I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm an American first and foremost, an Independent who's borne witness at a dozen killing-fields where the body bags were filled. What I've learned -- up close and personal -- from these horror shows is that on the battlefield second place means too many Purple Hearts and tombstones. Our forces must be the best. And not just on paper. *** hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 5210, Greenwich, CT 06831. © 2000 David H. Hackworth Distributed by King Features Syndicate Inc.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50)	8/24/2000 6:45:31 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

<<Well, not when his momma's trust, for which he is executor and primary inheritor, has anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million worth of Occidental Petroleum (who's corporate activities against Indian tribes in Colombia were one of the primary "issues" that the protesters in LA demonstrated against). And especially not when it was his and Clinton's personal intervention resulted in the SALE AND PRIVATIZATION "of the Elk Hills oilfield in Bakersfield, California to Occidental petroleum, the largest privatization of federal property in US history".>> You remember back when that happened I said it was stupid or just plain wrong to sell US resources at or near an all time low prices? I was only half right, It was JUST PLAIN WRONG! It was though very smart(for the buyers) but CROOKED!!! Yes, Clinton & Gore are CROOKS!! There I've said it! FUC*IN CROOKS!