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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (1769)4/20/2003 2:56:55 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Liveshot kerry is your typical Demofatcat. He wanted to SAY he was against Saddam,(with reservations)wink wink, but he did not want to do anything about it. Him and billybubba sat back for years and did nothing but talk.

Liveshot's views change which ever way the wind blows...no commitment except to be against George W. Bush and America. America's diplomacy is fine, who cares if the Frence and Germans are not happy? clinto just thought they were all his best buddies at the corner bar, so what? What did that get him?

We have no shortage of peacekeepers, the heck with the UN. We can throw them a few bones now and again, since we have proven them not only wrong, but ineffective in doing anything but being a debating society(which is what the Demoscats want). There is plenty of Iraqi oil to pay for much rebuilding. Things are going great, and I am glad kerry is left out of the loop. We don't need the EU either. Germans and French can go pound sand.

Kerry can moan all he likes, who cares.



To: American Spirit who wrote (1769)5/1/2003 7:57:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 10965
 
At The Turning Of The Tide
____________________________________
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 1 May 2003

One of my earliest memories of childhood is of sitting in front of the television watching a baseball game with my mother in our apartment outside Boston. The year was 1975, and the Cincinnati Reds were playing the Red Sox in what has gone down in history as one of the most remarkable World Series matchups ever. The Reds were winning the game I was watching that day, and I turned to my mother and told her I was rooting for them. I wanted to be on the winning side, and even at that tender age I could sense the aura of inevitable doom that cloaked our hometown team.

You can’t do that, she said. The Red Sox are your team. It is wrong to bail out on them because they are losing. You stand with your team no matter what. Besides, she finished, some day they will actually win this thing, and you’ll miss out on the celebration if you discarded them before that happens.

I’ve been a die-hard Red Sox fan ever since. I remember Bucky Dent the way some people remember Sirhan Sirhan. I was watching the World Series in a basement in Newton in 1986 when that ball skipped nimbly through the legs of Bill Buckner, and my friend was so outraged that he punched the low-hanging ceiling hard enough to dent the linoleum floor of the kitchen above us. I just sat there, numb and dumb, with ceiling tile dust in my hair and a sinking feeling in my gut. Later that night we were walking back from the store when we were accosted by an abysmally inebriated Sox fan whose whole world had been destroyed. He made us do pushups on the greasy blacktop of a gas station to offer some sort of atonement to a universe that had, once again, reached out to crush us. We were young and small, he was huge and drunk, and as my nose lifted and fell off that oil-soaked pavement I thought, somehow, that it all made sense.

In George W. Bush’s America, being even moderately liberal these days is like being a Red Sox fan. You know what needs to happen, you know what is right, and yet some cosmic force akin to the lingering shade of Babe Ruth always manages to ascend from purgatory and batter you into dust right at the moment when something good and great is within your grasp. If you do manage to get your lineup together - home run issues, grand slam arguments, All Star players - you will get completely outspent by the damned Yankees who are sitting in your division with more money than God and the will to use it. Baseball, like politics, has no spending limits.

And then, of course, there are the umpires. In baseball they wear blue and there is no appealing their decisions, even when a call is clearly wrong. I remember with writhing specificity the 1999 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox. A Sox player was charging for second base and Chuck Knoblauch swung a tag at him midway down the line. Knoblaugh missed the tag by a full three feet - there was a barnload of visible daylight between his glove and the Sox player - and the umpire called the Sox player out. No recourse, no appeal, and the Sox lost the series. The Yankees went on to annihilate the Atlanta Braves for their 216,339,102nd World Series title.

In George W. Bush’s America, the umpires sit in front of television cameras and work for major news networks. They look and speak like fashion models instead of journalists. They draw their paychecks from General Electric, Viacom, Disney, AOL/TimeWarner and Rupert Murdoch. There is no appealing the calls they make day after day and night after night, even when there is a barnload of visible daylight between their interpretation and the actual facts at hand. The people running this administration miss the tag with dreary regularity, and yet the media umpires seldom fail to pump their fists and yell, “You’re out!” They hide behind their masks, and all the shouting and dirt-kicking accomplishes exactly nothing.

Baseball is, of course, only a game. There is an annual celebration of shock, heartbreak, rage and woe in Boston at the conclusion of every season. The lights go off at Fenway, the bags are packed and the bats put in storage. Red Sox Nation shrugs its shoulders and turns its collective focus to Foxboro Stadium, where a football team recently learned how to overcome the generational curse of assured failure. There is always some other team to turn to when Nomar and Manny and Pedro disembark for points south until April. Life goes on. No one is dead or broken or sick. No true damage is done.

This is not the case in George W. Bush’s America. The season never ends here, and the dead bodies are piling up in grisly snowdrifts. The lies are constant, and the ranks of the broken and the abused swell inexorably towards some awful critical mass. The war in Iraq - treated like a sporting event with bullets instead of baseballs - has cost us the lives of well over a hundred American soldiers, with more coming every day. The war cost all of humanity several thousand civilians, who were killed in their homes and their beds and on their streets. More come every day, mowed down by nervous troops or blown to pieces by unexploded cluster bomb ordnance that was scattered across Baghdad like malignant pixie dust.

The war has set in motion the creation of a fundamentalist Shiite regime in Iraq, akin to the one currently in control of Iran. The Bush administration is shocked, shocked that a clear majority of Iraqis prefer this form of government to the quasi-democracy we promised them, and are working overtime to prevent it. Thus, the irony: Bush spent blood and treasure to “liberate” the Iraqi people, and now that they have a form of it, Bush is bending over backwards to deny them the most elemental aspect of liberty - the right to self-determination and self-rule.

Never mind that the original cause for war, clarioned time and again by the administration, was the existence in Iraq of mobile chemical laboratories, drones fitted with poison sprays, 15 to 20 Scud missile launchers, 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas agent, 100 to 500 tons of other toxins including botulinum, mustard gas, ricin, sarin, and let’s not forget the 30,000+ illegal munitions. None of these terrors have been unearthed in Iraq after months of UN inspections, weeks of war, and more weeks filled with swarming American investigators tasked to locate the stuff.

American forces have interrogated dozens of Iraq scientists and officials as to the location of all this, and none of those interrogated seem to be able to point the way. In fact, they are denying any of the stuff is there at all. Now that Saddam Hussein, principle motivation for any obfuscation on their part, has been removed, what reason now do they have to lie about this?

But wait. Of course, it is all in Syria. Somehow the vast network of spy satellites that can read the time from space on a wristwatch of a man sitting in Central Park failed to see the massive convoy that would have been required to move all of this hastily across the border. That’s it. I get it now.

Has anyone heard the media umpires claim that Bush has missed the tag here? I haven’t.

Perhaps this sounds too gloomy. Are things really this bad? Is the state of the game so awful? Are we really being lied to this profoundly? Are the media umpires blowing it this conspicuously?

A writer named Kelly Kramer recently compiled a ‘resume’ for George W. Bush. In it, she listed his central accomplishments. Among them are:

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history;

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period;

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market;

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history;

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history;

In his first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs;

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history;

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history;

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history;

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed;

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans;

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest a sitting American President, shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind;

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history;

First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt;

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world;

First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation;

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States;

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history;

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission;

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board;

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations;

Biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation);

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history;

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1);

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history);

With a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years;

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability;

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea;

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts;

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts;

Failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive';

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months he has no leads and zero suspects;

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks he successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States;

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history;

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category straight down.

If you can believe it, this is an edited list. So it goes.

What does any of this have to do with baseball? This is serious stuff, as serious as anything this nation has faced in its history. With all of this happening, and with no apparent way to reverse or blunt this course, wouldn’t it just be easier to give up? Where do I get off making trite sports analogies in such a situation?

I do it because it is instructive when considering the next step. The issue here is a simple matter of volume, and of hope. The list above is abridged, and grows exponentially longer by the hour. People of good conscience cannot surrender the struggle against this rising tide with all that is at stake.

You have to capture the mentality of the Red Sox fan, as I have. You start every season and every game almost completely sure that you will be beaten soundly. You lick your wounds and dust yourself off and maybe cry a little into your pillow. But you always, always think to yourself - even after the Bucky Dents and the Bill Bukners and the missed calls and the fact that you are being outspent by your arch-rivals and the umpires are not doing their jobs - you always think to yourself, “This could be it. This could be the year.”

You do it because you want to be there at the turning of the tide. The Boston Red Sox have not won a championship in 85 years, and there is no sense today that they have a prayer of winning one any time soon. Yet the stands in Fenway Park are filled, night after night, to capacity. The crowd cheers and hoots and prays and comes back again and again. In its own small way, this is the very definition of hope. When that day does dawn, when some October night in a time to come absorbs the victory roar of people who have watched great-grandfathers and grandfathers and fathers live entire lives and die unfulfilled, when the Boston Red Sox finally win that championship, it will have been worth every moment of pain and disappointment.

That’s just baseball. This is America. Keep your head in the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available at silenceissedition.com from Pluto Press. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

truthout.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (1769)5/25/2003 8:37:49 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Military Record May Gain Role in 2004 Presidential Race

washingtonpost.com

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page A04

Since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a candidate's military service has seemed an issue of the past, one that intrigued the news media but not necessarily the voters, who in the past three presidential elections rejected war veterans in favor of candidates who managed to avoid combat at the height of the Vietnam War.

But perhaps for the first time since Dwight D. Eisenhower rode his World War II service into the Oval Office in 1952, candidates for the White House today must face the possibility that -- for an electorate scarred by terrorism and coming out of war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- military service has taken on a new relevancy.

Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) -- the only one of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with battlefield experience -- has made his military record a centerpiece of his campaign. President Bush put the issue of military leadership at front and center earlier this month with his showy landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln -- complete with flight suit emblazoned with "commander in chief." The dramatic images surrounding Bush's on-deck address to the troops that day made it abundantly clear that the president -- who spent the Vietnam War stateside in the Texas Air National Guard -- will flaunt his military leadership in his bid for reelection.

According to a Washington Post survey, 29 percent of Americans say that when considering a candidate for president, it is "extremely" or "very" important that the person has served in the military. Among Democrats, that rises to 31 percent.

The value of a candidate's military service in the survey fell well behind such characteristics as "honesty" and "connecting with average Americans," traits that have resonated with voters for some time. Nonetheless, Democratic candidates are paying close attention to how Kerry's strategy and message will resonate in this post-Sept. 11, 2001, environment.

The day after Bush's speech, Kerry met with veterans in South Carolina and pointedly noted that his military experience makes him qualified to take on a wartime president.

"I don't have to sit in the Situation Room and be taught everything. . . . I learned a lot on the front lines," he said.

In a later interview, Kerry was blunt about his strategy. "If the president is going to wear a flight suit on deck, I have one to match, so to speak," he said. "If we want to make those comparisons, I think it can become dangerous territory for them. If he can talk to the troops, I can talk to veterans. And my experience is a little more real."

Asked how his Vietnam experience makes him more qualified than his rivals, Kerry said, "I ask better questions [on national security]. I know what I'm looking for. I have a better sense of consequences."

A review of military and selective service records for the other Democratic candidates showed that most of the contenders received the medical, marriage or student deferments common for the middle class of their generation. But today, as they face a fearful electorate, they all emphasize their national security experience. The first debate among Democratic candidates opened with posturing and sparring over who has been stronger on national security matters.

"I am sure you have heard me say that no candidate in 2004 will get elected who is not strong on defense," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said in an interview, reiterating his message during the debate. "I both admire and appreciate anyone who went to serve our country. It's a part of their life experience, just as the civil rights movement is part of mine," added Lieberman, who received deferments because he was a student, and then later when he became a father. "But the more relevant factor is what your experience has been as a public official in national security matters and what decisions you have made. I am the only candidate that supported both the Gulf War in '91 and this war against Saddam [Hussein]. It says a lot about whether you are willing to use American muscle to secure our values and protect our security."

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who served in the Missouri Air National Guard, came out early in favor of using force in Iraq as necessary for the protection of the United States, and has steadfastly defended his support of Bush on the war. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who drew attention for his criticism of the war, goes on at length on his Web site about his experience with homeland security at the local level. Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) has drawn on his experience as a former chairman of the Senate intelligence committee to oppose the war.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) also voted against using force in Iraq, and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration on the topic. But in a recent interview he noted that he is from a "family of military service," with his father and two siblings having served. He also said that he was "very disappointed" when he was classified as ineligible for military service because of a heart murmur. "We need to expand the definition of service to one's country," he said. "All service is honorable."

Earlier in the year, Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group for MSNBC in New Hampshire among 20 Democrats and independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary. Luntz said that "Kerry started the evening well behind Lieberman," but that after the voters viewed video clips of all the Democratic presidential candidates speaking about national security, a shift occurred. The evening ended with the group favoring Kerry over Lieberman, 16 to 4.

"Kerry's discussion of the war was credible because of his background," Luntz concluded. "Military service enhances credibility. You don't think of someone as presidential when they are talking taxes. You do tend to think of them as presidential when they are talking about national security."

Kerry's promotion of his record has been particularly frustrating for other Democratic candidates, some of whom think he is overdoing it and believe their own careers in public service are somehow being diminished because they did not see active duty.

"You have to be careful how you play that card," said former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), a World War II veteran who lost the presidential election to Clinton in 1996. "People are going to know you're a veteran. You can't get up and pound your chest."

The issue has become so competitive that a whisper campaign is raising questions about how Dean (who is even with Kerry in New Hampshire polls) received a medical deferment at the height of the Vietnam War because of an unfused vertebra, but then went on to spend the year after his graduation from Yale skiing in Aspen, Colo.

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, who believes the question is being circulated by one competitor, said of Dean, "His view is, 'Look, I went in, got a physical and was rejected, and then I went on with my life.' "

Political experts generally agree that while having military experience can be an asset, not having it is not a liability.

Mike Murphy, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, said the Arizona Republican's history as a prisoner or war during Vietnam was a source of curiosity and admiration in that race. But when it came down to it, Murphy said, people were far more interested in where McCain stood on issues that affected them, such as the economy and Social Security.

"It does help as a credential in the sense that it shows that the candidate has done something other than politics, that he has a breadth of experience," Murphy said. "But it's hardly a sole determinant."

The real issue today, experts say, is whether the nation -- after two wars and a terrorist attack in the past 20 months -- will care as much about Bush's war leadership or Kerry's service record next year. Former president George H.W. Bush certainly will be the last World War II veteran to be elected president, and given the historic antiwar sentiments of the baby boomers, military service has not been an issue for years. While the news media made much of the fact that Clinton seemed to avoid the draft and of the younger Bush's motivation for enlisting in the Texas Air National Guard, both were elected president over veterans.

"Clearly, since 9/11, national security has risen in importance as an issue, and candidates are responding to it in many different ways. The symbolic value of military service is one of those ways," said Stephen Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "But when it comes to appraising a candidate's suitability to be president, does military service actually make a difference? Clearly the answer would be no."

Kerry's military service has long played a role in his political career, although not always by his choice. He enlisted in the Navy and began service right after graduating from Yale. Over the years, he has generated numerous media events with veterans and has made available photos and video footage of his time as skipper of a swift boat in the Mekong Delta.

But Kerry's vocal opposition to the war after his return from Vietnam left him open for criticism from political opponents who portrayed him as an opportunist. This skepticism was further fueled in 1984 when the Wall Street Journal reported that during a 1971 antiwar protest in Washington, in which veterans symbolically tossed away their medals, Kerry discarded only his ribbons and someone else's medals -- and kept his own at home.

While rivals for the Democratic nomination today openly express admiration for Kerry's military service, some Democrats privately believe he may be playing into the White House strategy of deflecting attention from important domestic issues, such as the economy.

"If one's campaign is clothed only in the garments of the military, then it is fair for people to ask: 'What about jobs and health care and education and retirement?' " Kucinich said.

Kerry said that while he believes domestic issues remain critical, "these are different times. . . . America has been attacked, and people want to know above all that you're going to keep them safe."

As he told combat veterans a few weeks ago in South Carolina, "the sound of machine-gun fire, the bombs bursting, the sight of wounded, are always with those who have served. I think being tempered by war, as President Kennedy said, is a valuable experience as you lead a country as commander in chief."

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane, researcher Madonna Lebling and staff writer Laura Blumenfeld contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (1769)6/4/2003 4:15:05 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Respond to of 10965
 
Wife's Fortune Out for Kerry's Campaign

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

story.news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - John Kerry has concluded that federal law bars him from tapping any of his wife's vast Heinz investment fortune for his presidential campaign, removing an arsenal of cash that some Democrats hoped he could use to counter President Bush (news - web sites)'s fund-raising prowess.

Teresa Heinz Kerry's holdings have been estimated at $550 million or more, putting her among the 400 richest Americans on Forbes magazine's list last year.

Federal campaign law stipulates that assets solely under the control of Heinz Kerry, including those reported on Kerry's recent Senate disclosure form, can't be used for the Massachusetts Democrat's presidential campaign, campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Bush is expected to raise a record $200 million or more for his re-election bid. Kerry raised about $7 million from January through March, the most recent figures available.

Kerry reported investments valued at about $700,000 to $2.4 million. Two of his advisers, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Kerry has several million dollars — they wouldn't specify further — of his own money he could tap during the primary or if he wins the Democratic nomination.

"Senator Kerry is a man of some significant wealth who could make, if he chose, a sizable investment in his presidential campaign," Gibbs said. "I do not believe we have ever left anybody with the impression that we would be spending several hundred million dollars."

The Massachusetts senator is mum about what assets he hasn't reported and has not yet disclosed income tax returns traditionally released to the public by most presidential candidates. Kerry hopes to release the returns at some point, Gibbs said.

In the past, when asked whether Kerry would tap the Heinz fortune for the race, the Kerry campaign has said it might use it if the couple faced personal attacks.

Experts said the decision not to tap his wife's fortune erases any perception that the vast personal fortune elevated his candidacy, particularly among donors, by making him a more attractive Democratic rival to the well-funded Bush.

"The big impact is if he could have simply spent two or three times as much as any of his opponents on the primary that would have given him a huge advantage in a divided field," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Washington-based Campaign Finance Institute. "That won't be his situation now."

The Senate financial disclosure form Kerry filed last month details the wealth of Heinz Kerry, the widow of Pennsylvania Sen. John Heinz III of the Heinz food dynasty.

But the report gives only sweeping ranges of investments' value; income and assets for Teresa Heinz Kerry were at least $210 million, with several investments identified only as worth more than $1 million.

The same report shows Kerry with investments valued at about $700,000 to $2.4 million, including two investments he holds with his wife: a painting worth $250,001 to $500,000 and bank accounts worth $50,001 to $100,000.

Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) officials said that while they couldn't make a formal ruling unless they get a request, their initial reading of the law was that Kerry couldn't use his wife's assets for his presidential race. They noted, however, that they examine all details in a particular case before reaching a formal conclusion.

Under the federal rules, a spouse is limited to the same $2,000 individual donation limit as other campaign contributors. Heinz Kerry cannot transfer money or other assets to Kerry for the purpose of influencing a federal election. For example, if Kerry were to use gifts from her to help finance his race, he would have to show they were part of a pattern of giving that predated his candidacy.

In most cases, Kerry could use half the value of any jointly held property on the race. One exception is joint bank accounts, which the FEC has traditionally let candidates tap in their entirety.

The Senate disclosure form doesn't list any of the homes Heinz Kerry or Kerry own. Heinz Kerry has said she owns at least four — in Pittsburgh, Nantucket, Mass., the Georgetown section of Washington, and Idaho. Kerry and Heinz Kerry own at least one house together: a $7 million residence in Boston.

An Associated Press review of property records did not identify any residences that listed Kerry as sole owner.

Gibbs declined to comment on the couple's real estate or other possessions, including whether any of Heinz Kerry's property has also been put in Kerry's name.

It's too late for Heinz Kerry to transfer assets to Kerry that he would then use in his campaign, said Larry Noble, a former FEC general counsel who is now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group.

"I think it would be virtually impossible at this point for him to show it's unrelated to the campaign," Noble said.

Though Heinz Kerry can only give $2,000 to Kerry's primary campaign, her wealth could still find its way into the race.

For example, she could give a large sum to an outside group that could spend the money on Kerry's behalf; the group's expenditure would have to be independent of Kerry's campaign. Heinz Kerry also could pay for ads on her behalf if she feels she has been attacked in the race.