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

To: calgal who wrote (1105)	5/26/2003 3:05:50 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

Why No One Shoots Straight on Guns Republicans have it both ways. Democrats are mum. And the gun lobby just gets stronger ( Emailed to me) When it comes to guns, politicians are figuring out what clay pigeons have known for a long time: it's safer to be a moving target. So it is that President Bush can win points with gun-control groups by sticking to his campaign promise to sign an extension on the assault-weapons ban when it expires next year, while House majority leader Tom DeLay can make the gun lobby happy by suggesting, as he did last week, that no such bill will ever reach Bush's desk. And Democrats can fuss and fume over how Bush and the Republicans are trying to have it both ways — while quietly breathing a sigh of relief at being spared a vote that would expose the party's own divisions on the issue. The pantomime will continue, for behind it lies a new reality: two years into the Bush Administration, the gun lobby is on a winning streak. Bill Clinton muscled through the most significant new gun laws in 30 years, including the 1994 assault-weapons ban and the 1993 Brady Law, requiring background checks for gun buyers. But gun groups got some revenge in the 2000 election, when they were credited with costing Al Gore at least three states, including his home, Tennessee. Most of the gains for the gun lobby have been quiet ones. Attorney General John Ashcroft has expanded the government's view of the Second Amendment, stating explicitly that it protects an individual's right to possess and bear arms — a departure from the longstanding view that this right was limited to state militias. Ashcroft has also proposed shortening the length of time the FBI is required to keep records of background checks. He wants it reduced to a single business day; the Clinton Administration required 90. And while the National Rifle Association wasn't pleased with Bush's statements in support of the assault-weapons ban, no one expects the President to lobby for it. At the same time, Bush has promised to sign the NRA's top priority: legislation that would shield gunmakers and dealers from lawsuits. Part of the reason for the gun lobby's success is that the political landscape shifted right after 9/11, when the nation lost its sense of security and gun sales soared. Whereas married women were long thought to be the constituency most sympathetic to new restrictions on guns, they were the group most supportive of allowing pilots to be armed in the cockpit, according to focus groups conducted by Republican pollster David Winston. Many Democrats are nervous about putting the gun issue on the front burner. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called upon Bush to pressure G.O.P. House leaders to bring the extension of the ban to the floor, but she conceded that Democratic leaders would be leery of strong-arming their own members on such a sensitive issue. "We would probably lose some votes," she said. When guns came up during the first debate among the 2004 Democratic presidential contenders earlier this month, the candidates — with the exception of Al Sharpton — were virtually silent. That's a significant change from the last presidential campaign, when Gore proposed licensing gun owners. Back then, whenever Bush was asked about guns, he contended that what's needed is not new gun laws but enforcement of existing ones. However, a study last week by Americans for Gun Safety — a relatively moderate gun-control group that does not support licensing gun owners or registering their weapons — found that the Bush Administration has done little better than its predecessor at prosecuting those who break gun laws. The group found that of the 25,002 federal firearms cases over the past three years, fully 85% were for violations of just two statutes — illegal possession by a felon or another prohibited buyer and possession of a firearm during a violent or drug-related crime. The remaining 20 major federal gun laws, which include statutes designed to keep weapons out of the hands of children, are rarely enforced. The Justice Department disputed the study, saying many prosecutions have been shifted to state and local jurisdictions, some of which have tougher penalties. It is on the enforcement issue that some Democrats think they may have found an opening to talk about guns again. But no one is very eager. Taking aim on the gun issue is one thing; pulling the trigger is another. time.com

To: calgal who wrote (1105)	5/26/2003 5:57:12 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 1604

Transcript: Sen. Joe Lieberman on Fox News Sunday URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87763,00.html Sunday, May 25, 2003 Following is a transcribed excerpt from Fox News Sunday, May 25, 2003. TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Today on Fox News Sunday, a crucial Israeli cabinet meeting on the fate of President Bush's Middle East peace plan. [...] The cabinet of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon approved President Bush's so-called road map to peace in the Middle East. [...] Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in the Middle East. U.S. SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Good. SNOW: First, there is conversation now about a possibility that the president will get together with Abu Mazen, the Palestinian prime minister, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Should he do that before he has some agreement in hand? LIEBERMAN: Yes. My reaction to that is, "About time." I mean, the Bush administration has effectively been disengaged from the ground in the Middle East, and when that happens, nothing good will happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We're indispensable there. They need us because we're the only one they trust. SNOW: So, the president needs to go there even if only to broker disagreements between the two men and come home empty-handed? LIEBERMAN: Well, that's you know -- that's the risk of trying to be a peacemaker. But the obvious fact is that it's not going to get better between Israelis and Palestinians unless the United States is there. It's gotten worse over the last couple of years. There's a moment of opportunity here. As you know, Tony, the Israeli cabinet, this morning, did approve the process of the road map. They haven't approved a road map. It seems to me is that what they have approved is the destination, which is peace with the Palestinians. And they've effectively agreed to get in the same car with the Abu Mazen and the United States. But it's not going to get to peace by that particular road map. SNOW: The other person involved here is Yasser Arafat. American policy is, "Don't talk to this man." Do you agree that the United States should not be speaking with Arafat? LIEBERMAN: Yes, I absolutely agree. I mean, Arafat's leadership of the Palestinian cause has hurt the Palestinians and their aspiration to have a state. He has repeatedly missed opportunities to achieve a better life and an independent state for the Palestinians, and right now he's an obstacle. The coming to power of Prime Minister Abu Mazen is a hopeful step. I know him well. But the question is whether Arafat will let go. And, of course, the most important question is will Abu Mazen effectively declare war on terrorism? Once he does that, I think the Israelis will respond, and we will press them to respond. But that's the first step that has to occur. SNOW: Meanwhile, there are some diplomatic obstacles. Yesterday, or the day before, Secretary of State Colin Powell was sitting side by side with Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. Secretary Powell made the point that we don't want people talking to Yasser Arafat. What I want to do is show you at a tape of subsequent comments by Secretary Powell, followed by comments by Dominique de Villepin. LIEBERMAN: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES: We have made our position well known since last June that we would not be dealing with, and we felt it was important for us to have a new interlocutor representing the Palestinian people. DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER: Now, I will be meeting, as you said, with Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen. (END VIDEO CLIP) SNOW: So here, you have, once again, the French poking their thumb in the eye of the United States. Is it time for the United States to say, "Enough of this quartet nonsense. We are the chief broker of peace in the Middle East"? LIEBERMAN: Yes, because the Israelis -- you know, you need two parties to make peace. The Israelis will not make peace with the quartet. The Israelis don't trust the Europeans when it comes to the peace -- don't trust the United Nations. So we're it. And when the French foreign minister continues to meet with Arafat after the United States has correctly said that Arafat is an obstacle to peace and we will not meet with him, that does nothing but make it harder for there to be peace in the Middle East. And I do think we've come to a point where we have to say to the French, "Come on, face the facts, get with it. You are not being a good ally of ours and you are not being an effective proponent of peace in the Middle East if you continue to foster Arafat's illusions that he is the power; that won't work." SNOW: There also are reports that French passports were found in Iraq, presumably for use by fleeing members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Has France actually not only been less than an ally, but, in some cases, an enemy of American policy? LIEBERMAN: Well, I'm hesitant to go that far based on those stories. We ought to look at them. I was very offended, leading up to the war against Saddam -- which, as you know, I supported -- that the French not only took a position against that, which they have a right to do, I thought it was the wrong position, but they went out and lobbied in the United Nations, in the Security Council, for other nations not to join with us. I remember the trip that Prime Minister Villepin took to Africa to lobby some of the nations there. That was not the act of an ally. And we -- it is in our interest, and it is even more in the French interest, to get our relationship back on track, even acknowledging occasional differences. But the French had not taken any of the steps that would make that easier, and it's unfortunate. SNOW: The Washington Post is reporting today that the administration is contemplating a change in policy, forgetting the notion of engaging the government of Iran, and instead seeking regime change. Is that the proper goal? LIEBERMAN: Yes, I think so. I've actually been saying that for quite a while, that we've got to begin to look at Iran the way we looked at the Soviet Union for a long time, which is the people are on our side. Every poll says that. Every time they get a chance to vote, the Iranians vote for reform. There is a small group of extremists at the top of the Iranian government, very much like the small group of communists at the top of the Soviet Union, who will not deal with us. Of course, the Iranians even are more detached from us, and more extreme than the Soviets were. And I think what -- we want to have a policy that looks for the Lech Walesas and Vaclav Havels of -- and in some senses the Gorbachevs -- of Iran, and encourage them in every way we can. SNOW: Do you believe Iran is ripe for a regime change? LIEBERMAN: Well, yes. I mean, I think it would be in the interest of the world, and most particularly of the Iranian people, to have a regime change in Iran. I'm not suggesting military action by us, but Tom Friedman of The New York Times, I believe, said recently -- or a while ago that there's no nation in the world where the government is more anti- American and the people are more pro-American than Iran, and that's the equation we have to flip. SNOW: Senator, let me race through a series of issues here. Homeland security: There is concern that the administration is trying to bottle up a September 11th inquiry, an 800-page report. Do you think administration concerns about publicizing the president's daily security briefing and all that are legitimate, and is there some way to work those out, or do you think there's a stonewall going on? LIEBERMAN: Well, I think, when it comes to September 11th, that the administration ought to open up all the information that it has, because we've got to find out -- and that's why John McCain and I fought for the commission that now exists. The administration fought us on that commission all along the way, I couldn't understand why. Finally, it got adopted. They tried to underfund it. We fought for more funding. Now that funding is there. Now they're resisting turning over information to the commission that the joint congressional inquiry came up with. I think that's a mistake. We're not going to be able to say that we're doing everything possible to prevent another September 11th-type terrorist attack unless we know everything that happened before September 11th. We haven't really held anyone accountable, and there were tremendous failures, in intelligence, and perhaps other parts of our government, that we have to correct. And so the only way to do that -- this is, the truth will make you free. And until we get all the information, we won't know the truth. So the administration right now looks like it's stonewalling, begrudging cooperation, that ought to end. Everybody gains from letting the truth come out. SNOW: Congress passed an interesting tax cut this week. It's a tax cut that has expiration dates for various parts. Some expire in 2004, some 2005, some 2008. If you were president, would you allow those tax cuts to expire, and taxes to go back up in the years 2005 and 2008? LIEBERMAN: Well, it depends where the economy is at the time. I mean, of course, you'd rather -- and it depends which taxes. There are some middle-class tax cuts that naturally you'd like to keep in place. There's other tax cuts that I think are extremely wasteful. I mean, this administration essentially has one fiscal policy, and it hasn't worked. They have drained the national treasury, the national bank account, and the economy is still in stagnation. Even after it was clear that the latest Bush fiscal proposal was going to pass, the markets yawned. I mean, these folks are making a bet. They're basically doubling a bet that they made in 2001 that they thought would help our economy grow that hasn't helped our economy grow, and the problem is they're betting our money. We're going into the greatest debt in the history of our country. It's coming out of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Our kids and we are going to have to pay it back. This administration -- this is a... SNOW: I constantly hear it's coming out of these trust funds. There are plenty of other ways that the government could do it, including cutting spending. Surely you're not saying that if this is written into law; nobody has said that it will come out of those trust funds. LIEBERMAN: No, but the fact is that this president and this Republican-controlled Congress are not cutting spending. They're actually increasing spending, and depriving the government of revenues. And when you do that, you put the nation on a course to a kind of bankruptcy, which all of us will pay for. The real crying outrage of this fiscal program that has just passed is that we need a stimulus right now. The president has pushed through this $350-billion minimum-cost program. Only $60 billion will be spent this year on tax cuts. We need $150 billion this year, and no more after that for a while. SNOW: Sir, we've got about a minute, and I want to ask you a question, because I know you want to talk about this. LIEBERMAN: Yes. SNOW: There is some controversy about whether Tom DeLay got improperly involved in Texas redistricting. What is your concern? LIEBERMAN: Well, you had a local political dispute about redistricting. The Democrats went to Oklahoma to avoid being forced to vote for a plan they didn't want to vote for, and now we have evidence that the local -- the state police involved the Homeland Security Department at a time when those resources really should have been devoted to homeland security. You've got Tom DeLay now admitting that he called the FAA and the Department of Justice. This smells, and I'm going to ask Andy Card of the White House to get into this this week, to examine any contacts that any federal officials had with federal departments... SNOW: Do you think there's a possible federal law violation? LIEBERMAN: There could be a federal law violation. There could be a misuse of federal resources and an abuse of power. I want to know whether anybody at the White House was contacted by Tom DeLay, or anybody in the Texas Republican Party, to get involved in this. This is a local political dispute, at a time when the nation was heading toward a code orange security alert. We ought not to be spending our security resources basically trying to get a bunch of Democrats to come back and do what Republicans want them to do in Texas. SNOW: OK. Senator... LIEBERMAN: That's wrong. SNOW: Senator Joe Lieberman, I know that you have a health-care plan. I hope you'll come back and talk to us about it at length. LIEBERMAN: I do. It's an attempt to try to cure some diseases that afflict 100 million Americans every year. SNOW: Senator, thanks for joining us today. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Tony.

To: calgal who wrote (1105)	5/27/2003 11:43:15 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 1604

May 27, 2003 Balancing liberty and security URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030526-104007-5926r.htm By Paul Rosenzweig How ironic that the war on terrorism we've been waging since September 11 — a war meant to ensure our safety — should itself inspire fear in some Americans. Yet cries of "Big Brother" materialize whenever we hear about new government programs meant to enhance our security, such as increased information-sharing under the Patriot Act or the Total Information Awareness program. Some critics have even suggested that such measures could eventually lead to a totalitarian state. Many won't go that far, but they admit they're concerned. When Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before Congress in March, Rep. Jose Serrano, New York Democrat, told him: "Some of the policies the [Justice] department has proposed to combat terrorism are deeply troubling, and I fear some officials are so intent on fighting against terror that they forget what we are fighting for." A healthy mistrust of government is commendable. Indeed, one could argue that such skepticism has helped the United States remain a free nation for well over two centuries. But fears of a police state are overblown. We're merely witnessing a recurring pattern in American history. Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago recently outlined some of this history in an address to the Supreme Court Historical Society, and what he said shows how the pendulum between liberty and security swings as circumstances change. In 1798, the United States was in a state of undeclared war with Napoleon's France. To combat pro-French political views, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to prohibit the publication of "false, scandalous and malicious writings" against the government. It was, in effect, an effort to suppress political criticism of President John Adams, his policies and his administration. When Thomas Jefferson replaced Adams as president, he pardoned all those who were convicted under the act, which is today widely regarded as a stain on American liberty. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus eight times, and the military imprisoned as many as 38,000 civilians. In 1866, a year after the war ended, the Supreme Court ruled Lincoln's acts unconstitutional. Today, they are considered an excessive but necessary response to a wartime crisis. Indeed, some believe that, had Lincoln not acted, anti-draft riots might have ended the war with the United States divided. During World War I, federal authorities acting under the Espionage Act prosecuted more than 2,000 war opponents. Though the Supreme Court initially upheld the law, over the next half-century it overruled every one of its World War I decisions, repudiating the excess of that wartime era. Finally, and most notoriously, was the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Under an executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, more than 110,000 people of Japanese descent were forced to leave their homes in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. Most were detained in camps scattered around the West, where they were penned up behind barbed wire and watched over by armed guards. Years later, the government offered an official apology and reparations to each of the Japanese-American internees. The historic path of the pendulum teaches useful lessons: First, the American system is resilient. Significant events like September 11 alter the balance between liberty and security, but the pendulum always returns to center as the threat diminishes. Second, the arc of the pendulum's swing is not nearly as great as it once was. For example, two Americans, Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi, are being detained as part of the war on terror. But both men have exercised their habeas right. That's a far cry from Roosevelt's wholesale internment of an entire population group or Lincoln's suspension of the writ. The watchful eye of the courts, Congress, the press and the public insures this trend will continue. Third, history shows that we have been — and at times should be — willing to adjust the balance between liberty and security in times of crisis. We must, of course, be cautious. But not so cautious that we're immediately prepared to accept apocalyptic claims that American liberty is failing. Paul Rosenzweig is a senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

To: calgal who wrote (1105)	5/27/2003 11:44:14 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 1604

Lieberman Leads Poll of Michigan Democrats URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87858,00.html Tuesday, May 27, 2003 DETROIT — Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (search) holds a lead over rival presidential candidates among Democratic voters in Michigan, according to a recent poll. The EPIC/MRA poll, released Sunday, showed Lieberman garnered 27 percent to Rep. Dick Gephardt's 19 percent. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was at 15 percent. The other six candidates - Florida Sen. Bob Graham, former-Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, Al Sharpton of New York, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun - were in single digits. The survey of 400 voters was conducted May 18-22 and had an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points, The Detroit News reported Sunday. One in five Michigan Democrats is undecided. "At this stage, it is a name recognition game, and Lieberman is well-known in Michigan where the Gore-Lieberman ticket won in 2000," EPIC/MRA pollster Ed Sarpolus said. He said views could shift during the heavy campaigning expected before Michigan's Feb. 7 Democratic caucuses. The caucus vote will determine Michigan's selection at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (search) in Boston. In a separate EPIC/MRA poll (search) of Democrats, Republicans and independents, 48 percent said they would vote for President Bush. Forty-one percent said they would vote for "the Democratic candidate for president." The error margin on that poll was plus or minus four percentage points.

To: calgal who wrote (1105)	5/27/2003 11:47:14 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1604

Parties Have Difficulty Tapping Potential Talent Tuesday, May 27, 2003 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87845,00.html WASHINGTON — An embarrassing recruitment problem could trouble Republicans next year — the inability to find willing and able candidates to run in key U.S. Senate races in 2004. Some potential candidates publicly nudged by the White House in the last few months have declined to run, leading Democrats to charge that despite his seemingly limitless popularity, President Bush may not necessarily have the power to direct recruits into political battles. GOP hopes have faded in Illinois since former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar (search) said he would not run to fill the seat being vacated by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who last month announced his retirement after only one term in office. Bush, as well as White House political advisor Karl Rove (search) and members of the GOP leadership, reportedly unsuccessfully put the hard sell to Edgar. “You never want to say no to the president,” Edgar told reporters May 9 as he did just that. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (search), R-Wash., also turned down the president’s request to run against Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. According to reports, Bush’s desire to see Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez run to fill Florida Sen. Bob Graham’s seat also was quashed. “It has all played out very publicly and it has all failed very publicly,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Spokesman Brad Woodhouse. “They really should be doing better.” But Republicans and some political observers balk at speculation, saying it is too early in the campaign season to cry disaster for the GOP. “The candidate to some extent has to be willing and has to be coaxable — some people are coaxable and some are not,” said Stu Rothenberg, political analyst and author of the Rothenberg Report. “There are a lot of question marks, but it doesn’t strike me that there is any new systematic problems.” Dan Allen, spokesman for the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that some of the GOP’s most successful candidates in the 2002 campaign, including Sens. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and Jim Talent, R-Mo., didn’t officially announce their candidacy until the fall of 2001. "We’re working closely with leaders at the state level to find out who's interested in the races and working with them to recruit the best candidates," he said. “We’re not waving a banner. We didn’t do that in the last cycle and we’re not doing it now.” Allen pointed out that Democrats have their own share of recruitment problems, especially in key states that have been targeted as “up for grabs” by the polls. Those include Alaska, where Democrats hope to take on GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski (search), appointed last year by her father Frank Murkowski, who left the seat to run successfully for governor last year. So far, Democrats have yet to convince their best bet, former Gov. Tony Knowles (search), to enter the race. In Georgia, where Democratic Sen. Zell Miller has announced his retirement, no Democrat has tossed a hat into the ring. Republicans there are gearing up for a tough primary between conservative Rep. Mac Collins and moderate Rep. Johnny Isakson. Party officials and analysts agree that the South and West are likely battlegrounds in 2004, and say Democrats will have a tougher time defending their 48 seats against the Republicans' 51 because they will have to defend 19 seats up for grabs while Republicans have to hold on to only 15. States where Democrats and Republicans are having trouble recruiting include: — North Carolina, where Democratic Sen. John Edwards is running for president and has not yet decided whether he will run for reelection. So far, no one has officially announced a bid for his seat, though former Clinton chief of staff and unsuccessful 2002 Senate candidate Erskine Bowles has set up an exploratory committee. On the GOP side, Reps. Bobby Etheridge and Richard Burr are also considering runs. — South Carolina, where 81-year-old Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings said this week that he will retire if Democrats can find a viable candidate to replace him. The Bush administration is reportedly recruiting Rep. Jim DeMint to run. Two other Republicans, former state Attorney General Charlie Condon and Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark McBride, have also expressed interest in the seat. — California, where Republicans are racing to find someone to run against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, whom some have speculated is vulnerable following tepid initial campaign fund-raising reports. A number of California House Republicans — including Reps. Mary Bono and Chris Cox — have shown interest but have not announced. — South Dakota, where the GOP is hot to challenge Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Republican John Thune, who narrowly failed to win the Senate seat held by Democrat Tim Johnson in 2002, could take a second shot. — Arkansas, where Republicans are buzzing about a possible challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln's bid by former GOP Rep. Asa Hutchinson, now an undersecretary to the new Homeland Security Department. So far, Hutchinson has denied such rumors. Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee has also been mentioned as a possible challenger.