SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (874)12/19/2002 11:27:05 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1604
 
Why Gore dropped out --- he never grasped one of politics' most important lessons

Bill Schneider

URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/1202/schneider.html

newsandopinion.com | Why did Al Gore decide not to run? He undoubtedly found out that a lot of Democratic activists and contributors didn't want to hear from him this time around. They think he blew it in 2000.



Gore was also suffering from the vice presidential problem. Being vice president is a great way to get your party's nomination. That's because the outstanding quality in a vice president is loyalty. Partisans control the nominating process, and they value -- and reward -- party loyalty.

But once a vice president is nominated, he discovers that most voters outside the ranks of the party faithful do not value loyalty As Richard Nixon discovered in 1960, and Hubert Humphrey discovered in 1968, and Walter Mondale discovered in 1984, and Al Gore discovered in 2000, voters don't want a President who's "loyal.'' They want a President who's his own man.

The only exception in 150 years: George Bush in 1988. Being Ronald Reagan's man turned out to be a pretty good image.

Nixon eventually did get elected, in 1968. But he had to wait eight years to "recover'' from being vice president. By 2008, Gore, too, may lose the vice presidential stigma. "I make this decision in the full knowledge and awareness that if I don't run this time . . . that's probably the last opportunity I'll ever have to run for President,'' Gore told CBS "60 Minutes,'' adding "Don't know that for sure, but probably it is.'' That's not quite as definitive as Nixon saying, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more'' after losing the race for governor of California in 1962.

Gore would have been the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination.

Prof. William Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University, has studied every contested nomination in both parties since 1980. Here's what he finds: "In seven of the ten cases . . . the nominee-to-be had opened up a sizeable lead over every other eventual candidate by, at the latest, one month after the preceding midterm election -- more than a year, in other words, before the start of the actual delegate selection activities.'' Which means, at this very point in the nominating cycle.

After the 1978 midterm, Ronald Reagan was the frontrunner for the 1980 GOP nomination. After the 1982 midterm, Walter Mondale led the field for 1984 Just after the 1994 midterm, Bob Dole was the Republican favorite for 1996. And right after the 1998 midterm, Al Gore led the Democratic field for 2000.

Same thing for George Bush the Elder going into the 1988 and 1992 Republican contests. And for George Bush the Younger going into 2000. In every case, whoever led the polls after the midterm ended up winning the nomination.

There were a few exceptions. But each of them was, well, exceptional. After the 1978 midterm, Sen. Edward Kennedy -- not President Jimmy Carter -- was the frontrunner for the 1980 Democratic nomination. But just before the first primaries, the hostage crisis in Iran put President Carter back in the lead. After the 1986 midterm, Gary Hart led the Democratic field for 1988 Hart proceeded to self-destruct. After the 1990 midterm, Mario Cuomo was the Democratic frontrunner, followed by Jesse Jackson. But neither of them ran in 1992.

It's not unusual for a candidate to come out of nowhere and pull off a surprise primary victory -- like Gary Hart in 1984, and Pat Buchanan in 1996, and John McCain in 2000. Didn't they gain what George Bush called "the Big Mo'' after he beat Ronald Reagan in Iowa in 1980? Yes, each of those candidates got momentum. But none of them got the nomination. As Mayer said in an interview, "I characterize momentum as a bit like a roller coaster ride. It provides a lot of excitement. But in the end, it pretty much takes you back to where you started.''

Mayer coined the term, "the invisible primary'' -- the period from the midterm election to the Iowa caucuses, when candidates struggle for money and attention before a single vote is cast. Does the invisible primary matter? You bet it does. Because nine out of ten times, whoever wins the invisible primary becomes the nominee.

Winning the invisible primary means two things: raising the most money, and becoming the frontrunner in the polls. Here are Mayer's findings:

"If one focuses on the last poll taken before the start of delegate selection activities -- meaning, in most years, in the last poll before the Iowa caucuses -- the candidate leading in that poll went on to win the nomination'' in nine out of ten contests. The exception: Gary Hart was the Democratic frontrunner just before the 1988 Iowa caucuses.

"The leading money-raiser in the pre-primary campaign -- more precisely, the candidate who had raised the largest amount of money by December 31 of the year before the election -- went on to win the nomination'' nine out of ten times. The exception: John Connally had raised more money than Ronald Reagan by December 31, 1979.

Gore's decision not to run means the invisible primary becomes a real race -- a wide-open struggle to see who can raise the most money and move to the top of the polls by this time next year. "What it does is make sure there's no frontrunner,'' Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the first Democrat to get into the race this year, said. With no frontrunner, the invisible primary of 2003 will count more than ever.



To: calgal who wrote (874)12/20/2002 10:54:24 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Respond to of 1604
 
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray was in Vancouver on Wednesday challenging high school students to answer these questions:

What is behind terrorist Osama bin Laden's popularity in some parts of the world, and should the United States adopt his nation-building tactics?

Speaking at Columbia River High School, Murray, D-Wash., responded to questions from students, most about the war on terrorism or government spending for education.

Later Wednesday, Murray visited C-Tran headquarters and checked out a new bus.

Murray met at Columbia River with world history students and student government leaders. Across town, Hudson's Bay High School students participated via teleconference.

Murray concluded the session by challenging the students to consider alternatives to war.

"We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?," said Murray, who faces re-election in 2004. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty?

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Murray said she doesn't know where she comes down on that guns-or-butter question, and building infrastructure in Third World countries would "cost a lot of money, and we have schools here and health care facilities here that are really hurting."

Be 'better neighbors'?

"War is expensive too," she said. "Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us.

"It is a debate I think we ought to have."

Murray was in the minority when the Senate voted 77-23 in October to give President Bush authority to use military force in confronting Saddam Hussein. The state's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted for the resolution.

Murray opened Wednesday's event telling the students, "You'll be graduating into a world that is very difficult. … The economy is struggling. War in Iraq is a very real possibility in the short term" and could cost $200 billion even if it were to last only a few weeks.

The cost of waging war could result in cuts to domestic programs such as Pell grants for college students, she said.

Responding to a question about federal spending for schools, Murray said the Bush administration is backing off its pledge of support for the No Child Left Behind program.

"There are crises in every one of our schools in this country," Murray said, and cutting spending on education has long-term deleterious effects.

Visit to the bus barn

Later in the day, Murray spent 45 minutes at the C-Tran administrative and operations facility at 2425 N.E. 65th Ave. for a holiday potluck. Randy Frasier's Mountain View High School jazz and concert choirs serenaded her with holiday carols.

Afterward, Murray examined a new $312,000 Gillig coach, the first of several dozen that will replace 20-year-old GM buses that have racked up an average of 650,000 miles each.

Murray is on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, which funnels matching money to states and local agencies for buses and other transit programs. Eighty percent of the cost of new buses will come from federal grants, and the remainder from local C-Tran money.

columbian.com



To: calgal who wrote (874)1/11/2003 7:08:44 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Respond to of 1604
 
WHO IS JOHN EDWARDS?
An Unaccomplished Liberal In Moderate Clothing And A Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.

Edwards has become a captive of the trial lawyers and the left-wing special interests in Washington. He has lost touch with the average American. Clearly, he is not ready for 'prime time.'" (Marc Rotterman, "Way Out Of Touch," The [Raleigh] News And Observer, December 8, 2002)

THE FACTS ABOUT SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)

EDWARDS IS UNACCOMPLISHED AND "NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME"

• Short Of His Work To Protect The Interests Of Personal Injury Trial Lawyers, Edwards' Four-Year Record Is Devoid Of Accomplishment And Leadership.

• After Edwards' Lackluster Performance In May On NBC's "Meet The Press," Many Democrats Felt That He "May Not Be Ready For Prime-Time." (CNN's "Inside Politics," May 8, 2002)

• A Recent Research 2000 Poll Revealed That Edwards Would Lose North Carolina By 17 Points In A Hypothetical Presidential Matchup With President Bush. (Research 2000, Press Release, July 16, 2002)

EDWARDS ISN'T JUST BEHOLDEN TO PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL LAWYERS, HE IS ONE HIMSELF

• More Than 4 Of Every 5 Dollars Raised By Edwards For His Hard Money PAC, New American Optimists, Have Come From Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.

• Nearly Every Penny Donated To Edwards' Soft Money PAC Since Early 2001 Has Come From Personal Injury Trial Lawyers. (Jim VandeHei, "Trial Lawyers Fund Edwards," The Washington Post, September 3, 2002)

• Edwards Consistently Caters To Personal Injury Trial Lawyer Interests By Fighting Tort Reform And Facilitating The Initiation Of Lucrative Lawsuits Against American Companies. (Editorial, "Tort Terrorism," Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2002)

EDWARDS PROFESSES TO BE A SOUTHERN MODERATE, BUT
VOTES LIKE A NORTHEASTERN LIBERAL

• Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package.

• Edwards Voted Against A Ban On Partial-Birth Abortions.

• From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time And Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

• In An Interview With Robert Novak For The American Spectator, Edwards Even Claimed That He Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position He Has Taken While In Congress. (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

EDWARDS IN DEPTH

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: UNACCOMPLISHED
AND NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME

Edwards Lacks The Accomplishments And Demonstrated
Leadership Needed To Be President

In June Of 2001, The Washington Post Highlighted Edwards' Lack Of Accomplishment In The Senate. "[Edwards'] role in the legislative battle of HMO regulation gives him something he badly needed, which was an opportunity to grab hold of a big issue and develop a record in the Senate, a crucial building block for someone who showed great promise but not many accomplishments during his first two years." (Dan Balz, "The Rights Time, The Rights Place," The Washington Post, June 30, 2001)

Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg Claimed That Edwards Needs To Display Leadership Ability And Not Just Talk About It. "After watching Edwards, I learned that the United States needs to 'show leadership' in the war against Afghanistan. I know it, because Edwards repeated that mantra as if it had been programmed into his brain. Voters clearly want 'leadership' from their leaders, but repeating a phrase like a trained parakeet does not make someone a leader. . . . Edwards is right, of course, that voters want to elect someone as president who displays leadership qualities. But that means Edwards needs to display leadership ability, both in the Senate and by proposing ideas and grappling with tough choices, not by regurgitating some phrase that Bob Shrum probably told him to use." (Stuart Rothenberg, "Golden Boy Edwards Needs to Do More Than Promise To Lead," Roll Call, May 9, 2002)

Political Strategist Ed Rogers Discredited Edwards' Leadership Abilities. "[A]n accomplished figure who has been well regarded within his party, and has been acknowledged by his peers to be a leader. John Edwards is none of that." (CNN's "Crossfire," January 2, 2003)

One Of Edwards' Constituents Criticized The Senator For Having No Accomplishments. "We have one liberal, Sen. John Edwards, who extols his own accomplishments, even though he has none except for being a multi-millionaire ambulance chaser. Edwards says he's a small-town man from North Carolina who relates to the little people. Hogwash." (Tom Freeman, Letter To The Editor, "Public Schools Weakened By Democratic-Supported Unions," The Asheville Citizen-Times, November 18, 2002)

In Late 2002, Cox News Service Noted The Lack Of Major Legislative Accomplishments During Edwards' Four-Year Senate Tenure. "The freshest of the fresh faces is Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a 44-year-old former trial lawyer who has been dubbed 'the next Bill Clinton' by The New Yorker and 'a perfect politician' by Vanity Fair. But Edwards is up for reelection to the Senate in 2004, and may have to decide between a Senate or White House run. Republicans back home aren't likely to want to let him do both. Edwards is sponsor of a Patients Bill of Rights bill in the Senate, but has no major legislative accomplishments thus far." (Scott Shepard, "Democrats Face Major Obstacles In Trying To Regroup After 2002 Election Disaster," Cox News Service, November 8, 2002)

• Even Edwards' Most Notable Legislative Efforts Have Done Little But Protect The Financial Interests Of Personal Injury Trial Lawyers. "A lot of this debate [over the Patients' Bill Of Rights] now centers around that, caps on liabilities, limiting liabilities. Part of the problem there is that John Edwardsand others don't want any capson liabilities." (Congressman Charlie Norwood, NBC's "Meet The Press," August 5, 2001)

Ralph Nader Criticized Edwards' Lack Of Legislative Accomplishment. "John Edwards was a very good trial lawyer and talks populism in a fresh though not very specific way. . . . But has he introduced or supported fundamental reform legislation on health care, labor rights, consumer protection, military-budget reform, corporate crime (one of his specialties as a tort lawyer bloated corporate welfare hundreds of billions of dollars), access to government by ordinary citizens? No, instead he has been very cautious letting his new style and fresh looks lead the way rather than what he could have done, proposed and articulated for a deeper democracy." (James Fallows and Ralph Nader, "Who's An Anti-Semite?" Slate Magazine, April 30, 2002)

In March Of 2001, The [Wilmington] Morning Star Criticized Edwards' Weak Record. "Our junior senator is smart, charming, a smooth talker, nice looking, and a progressive Southern Democrat. And did we mention smart? But his only experience in politics is two years in the U.S. Senate. He's built a solid record on TV talk shows, but not a solid record of legislative accomplishment - yet." (Editorial, "Let Sen. Edwards Learn His Trade," The [Wilmington] Morning Star, March 7, 2001)

Many Feel Edwards Is Simply Not Ready To Run For President

Political Columnist Robert Novak Noted That Many Democrats Were "Appalled" By Edwards' May Performance On NBC's "Meet The Press." "The same Democrats who had been enchanted by Edwards were appalled. But even with a firmer grip on issues, the first-term senator faces an uphill climb. John Zogby's poll of Democratic voters shows Edwards eighth out of eight hopefuls with 1 percent, well behind Gore in first place with 46 percent." (Robert Novak, "Who'll Stop Gore In '04?" Chicago Sun-Times, May 9, 2002)

Edwards Is "Getting A Little Above His Rais'n'" With His Presidential Run. "My first instinct is to ask, isn't Edwards getting a little above his rais'n'?" (Rob Christensen, "Edwards' Rapid Rise," The [Raleigh] News And Observer, May 12, 2002)

Political Commentator Charles Cook Questioned Whether Edwards "Is Ready For The Big Stage." "Edwards, a former trial lawyer who specialized in suing on behalf of injured children, can expect to raise enormous amounts of money from trial lawyers around the country and among party activists seeking a younger and fresher face compared to the balance of the field. The key question is whether he is ready for the big stage." (Charles E. Cook, "Ladies And Gentlemen, Start Your Engines," The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2002)

CNN's Robert Novak Said That Edwards' May Performance On NBC's "Meet The Press" Revealed That He "May Not Be Ready For Prime-Time." "John Edwards of North Carolina, Judy, has been the flavor of the week for several weeks as the coming guy for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's good looking, articulate. He's new. But he really may not be ready for prime-time, because our old friend Tim Russert really led him down a lot [of] cul-de-sacs on tough questioning. Senator Edwards is kind of used to the provincial questioning he gets on the campaign circuit, stumbled on a lot of things. For example, he said he thought that the Taliban were coming back in Afghanistan, but he was against U.S. troops. He was against tax cuts, but he didn't want to go with Teddy Kennedy -- a very confused performance. That's just not me saying that. I have talked to a lot of Democrats, very disappointed. They still think Edwards is a real comer, but he has got to really work on his answers when he gets into the political big-time." (CNN's "Inside Politics," May 8, 2002)

Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg Argued That Edwards' May Performance On NBC's "Meet The Press" Illustrated That He Has "A Long Way To Go" To Win The 2004 Democrat Nomination. "Everybody seems to be talking about Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) these days. The hotshot magazines are all writing about him, and he isn't having any problems getting face time on television. But if the freshman North Carolina Senator really wants to emerge as his party's nominee in 2004, he needs to acknowledge the obvious: His appearance on NBC News' 'Meet the Press' last weekend showed that he has a long way to go to beat out House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and former Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic nomination." (Stuart Rothenberg, "Golden Boy Edwards Needs To Do More Than Promise To Lead," Roll Call, May 9, 2002)

More at web site..
gop.com