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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (23203)	6/11/2003 3:55:09 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27758

ABC's phony 'tell all' interview Brent Bozell (archive) URL:townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030611.shtml June 11, 2003 ABC and Barbara Walters ought to be investigated for false advertising. The promos that plugged that Hillary Clinton memoir-selling interview promised, again and again for two weeks, to deliver "the interview we've all been waiting for, and the book that tells all. Sunday, June 8. Nothing's off-limits." Since when have "we all" been waiting for this? "The book that tells all"? Hillary never tells all. "Nothing's off-limits"? ABC should be glad they didn't offer this interview by pay-per-view, because everyone would be entitled to a refund. Barbara Walters left almost everything of importance off-limits -- on purpose. In the first leaks, Hillary the author claimed she never suspected a thing about Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky, making Mrs. Clinton just about the only person on Earth not to suspect her womanizing husband. A tough questioner would openly display the incredulity Hillary's position demanded, and would ask Hillary if she was either a shameless liar or just amazingly airheaded. Instead, the media chose to replay the surreal soap opera of "Hillary, the Wronged Little Woman," and sold these dreary reruns as "bombshells." Why, for any other reason than hero worship, would the news media greet a book campaign so free of news with such salesmanship? Every "bombshell" in this book so far is cobwebbed and stale, at least five years old. Yet nobody's advancing that story. The entire national debate over the Clinton presidency suffers when overflowing empathy for the Clintons smothers the hard news questions -- and any attempt to get a straight answer. Walters only asked questions that would please the Clinton-loving Left. How could Hillary work with icky Tom DeLay and senators who voted to impeach her husband? She lamented that the poor Clintons were so hounded: "I can barely remember a week went by when one of you wasn't being criticized and investigated." Can you imagine ABC or Barbara Walters ever lining up a row of poor-dear questions for Newt Gingrich, who was also investigated routinely throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House? Or Ollie North? Or Clarence Thomas? Or anyone conservative? Walters couldn't even ask Hillary the questions that conservatives wanted answered. In 1998, Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton about Monica Lewinsky, and she responded in part by deflecting the question into how reporters should be looking into a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get her husband. Walters flashed past the controversy: "If I ask you straight up: Was there and is there a right-wing conspiracy to destroy your husband's presidency, would you today say yes?" Clinton agreed there is a "well-financed network," but it's not a conspiracy because it's in the light of day how conservatives "perverted the Constitution." Conservatives would have asked it very differently: "Since your husband admitted the sexual relationship, you know it happened. Shouldn't you have apologized for creating the myth of a right-wing plot out to get your husband? That wasn't true, was it?" But this is Hillary. From the very first Hillary Clinton interview on national TV in 1992, the news junkie fraternity has witnessed a parade of fawning interviews more fit for a monarch than the wife of a democratically elected president. It's a sad stack of so-called journalism, a parade of panderers and patronizers, flatterers and flunkies, a stuffed thesaurus entry under S for servility. If you laid them end to end on television screens in the Museum of Broadcasting, you'd have the most boring, nauseating display ever assembled. The vast majority of Hillary interviews over the years have been tightly controlled, taped and edited to perfection. Journalists will insist there are no ground rules in a Hillary interview, yet the range of topics covered is usually from A to Abacus. It seems essential to stress that she has a beautiful mind, and no one ever dares to ask a question that would crease a royal wrinkle. I'm fed up with those smarmy Clintonites in the press who ask over and over, always seemingly sincere in the question, "Why does Hillary Clinton drive conservatives up the wall?" They know the answer. It's not just her Garden of Sweden socialist politics that grate. It's how the powers of the political culture treat her like she's so special nothing she says has to be truthful, and anyone who questions her has a psychological problem with this strong woman who could be president. And, of course, should be. If this woman is so brilliant and so courageous and such a trail-blazer, when will she have the guts to act like a real candidate and sit for a live Tim Russert grilling on "Meet the Press"? She can't take the heat in the kitchen. But no one dares ask her to cook. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a TownHall.com member group. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Contact Brent Bozell \| Read Bozell's biography ON SALE! from Brent Bozell Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency Bozell assembles a mountain of evidence proving how the liberal media, especially the television networks, promoted the Clinton agenda, both during his campaigns and his presidency. Want to take action about what you have just read? Then write a letter to your Members of Congress or your local newspapers, who you can find by entering your ZIP code in the boxes below. Also make sure to tell your newspaper editors that they should carry your favorite conservative columnists! NOTE: Columns will not be automatically attached to the emails you send through this tool. Copyright 1991-2003

To: calgal who wrote (23203)	6/11/2003 3:56:05 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27758

The New York Times and the Tax Cut Bruce Bartlett (archive) URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20030611.shtml June 11, 2003 Conservatives everywhere were celebrating last week with the announcement that Howell Raines was forced out as executive editor of The New York Times. Raines had pushed the paper yet further to the left and had done so in ways that were intended to be as irritating to conservatives as possible. So his forced resignation over the Jayson Blair scandal was as sweet for them as Richard Nixon's 1974 resignation from the presidency was for liberals. But if any conservatives thought that the Times was going to stop being a thorn in their side, they quickly got a wake-up call on the child tax credit. David Firestone, its congressional correspondent, jumped on this story almost before the ink was dry on the new tax bill and made it an issue they had to deal with. In brief, the story is this. The version of the tax bill that passed the Senate included a provision that increased refundability of the child credit, which is being raised from $600 to $1,000. Under current law, the credit is refundable for those with an income tax liability less than the credit to which they are otherwise eligible. But refundability is limited to 10 percent of a taxpayer's earned income above $10,500. It is scheduled to rise to 15 percent in 2005, and the Senate would have speeded up that increase to this year. The House had no such provision. House and Senate conferees were all willing to raise the refundability limit in the final legislation but were derailed by one senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio). He and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are those principally responsible for shrinking President George Bush's original tax plan from $725 billion to $350 billion. As their price for voting in favor of the budget resolution, which was necessary to get a tax bill through the Senate, they extracted a personal promise from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, that no bill larger than $350 billion would come out of conference. Based on Grassley's promise, Snowe and Voinovich supported the budget resolution. But it turned out that there was some misunderstanding by Grassley on what he had promised. He thought that the $350 billion cap applied only to the tax cut; any spending provisions included in the legislation would be on top. This was important because $20 billion in aid to the states was necessary to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and there was $10 billion in spending for the refundable portion of the child credit and other provisions of the tax bill. Grassley and everyone else involved in negotiating the final tax bill thought that a $350 billion tax cut with an additional $30 billion in spending was permitted under the agreement. But at the last minute, Voinovich let it be known that he would vote against any bill whose total cost exceeded $350 billion. This meant that $30 billion had to be cut somewhere. The conferees were in a tough position because the state aid absolutely had to be included, lest Sen. Nelson's vote be lost. Sens. Snowe and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) made it clear that they were going to vote against the conference report even with the refundable child credit, which they supported, as they had done on the earlier Senate version of the bill. Consequently, Voinovich was in the driver's seat. Conferees had no choice but to accede to his demands because his was the deciding vote. Among the provisions that got dropped was the one that would have speeded up the increase in refundability of the child credit. The critical point is that if Snowe or Lincoln had stepped forward at this juncture, the child credit refundability speed-up would have been retained. Either one could have substituted for Voinovich and been the 50th vote, allowing Vice President Dick Cheney to provide the margin of victory. In fact, they could probably have gotten a lot more if they had played their cards right. Nevertheless, both voted "no." The next day, Snowe and Lincoln were outraged to find that the child credit refundability increase was not in the bill that was sent to the president for his signature and have led the charge on its restoration. With The New York Times hyping the issue daily, Senate leaders quickly moved a bill making more of the child credit refundable, which passed by a 94 to 2 vote on June 5. The House likely will go along. This episode teaches two things. First, don't underestimate The New York Times. It is still capable of setting the national agenda. Second, senators who want provisions in tax bills should vote for them. If you vote against a bill, you shouldn't expect to get anything out of it. Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a TownHall.com member group. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Contact Bruce Bartlett \| Read Bartlett's biography The best of Buckley! Save 62% on The William F. Buckley, Jr., Collection! These four books by the guiding spirit of the modern conservative movement are retailed at $106 - but you can own them now for less than $40! Books included in this collection are God & Man at Yale, Spytime, Elvis in the Morning, and Buckley's latest, Getting it Right. Want to take action about what you have just read? Then write a letter to your Members of Congress or your local newspapers, who you can find by entering your ZIP code in the boxes below. Also make sure to tell your newspaper editors that they should carry your favorite conservative columnists! NOTE: Columns will not be automatically attached to the emails you send through this tool. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1991-2003