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

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (2504)	6/18/2003 1:37:41 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Democrats look for key issues to galvanize the voters in 2004 By Donald Lambro THE WASHINGTON TIMES Democrats searched for an election message yesterday at yet another party forum, urging a new attack on poverty, an across-the-board cut in Social Security taxes and a tougher posture on national security. A long line of Democratic lawmakers and presidential hopefuls presented their agenda-setting ideas before a daylong conference of the New Democrat Network, a centrist-leaning grass-roots organization that raises campaign money and endorses candidates. Although each had a different prescription for what ails their party, all of them agreed on one thing: Stop the political squabbling and focus on fashioning a new agenda and defeating President Bush. "We Democrats, whether we are moderates or liberals, must recognize that in recent years we have failed to articulate a clear and compelling Democratic alternative to the Republican mantra of tax cuts," said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. "Rather than finding common ground on our central values," Mr. Richardson said, "too often we have tried to survive through finesse and camouflage. We have not shown ourselves to the American people, and as a consequence, many Americans don't seem to know who we are." Ironically, despite his criticism of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, Mr. Richardson has enacted across-the-board tax cuts of his own at home to stimulate jobs and economic growth in his state and he urged Democrats to push a national tax cut: "Propose a partial income-tax credit for payroll taxes to help all families and to spur the economy," he said. In a major new policy initiative to jump-start his sagging campaign, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut proposed a new war on poverty. Declaring that "more than 8 million Americans don't have enough to eat," Mr. Lieberman said that as president he and his party should set a goal "to reduce the poverty rate to the lowest it has ever been in our history within four years — and then to go further — to cut the rate of poverty in this country by one-third in ten years." Mr. Lieberman said he would cut the poverty rate by "reinvigorating the economy with a growth and prosperity plan that works" to create jobs. His proposal includes expansion of the earned income-tax credit, ending the marriage penalty, and helping the working poor save money by increasing funding for child care and job training. But some Democrats urged their party to abandon its focus on the working poor and other class warfare rhetoric and reach out to the voters at large. "Nobody represents the middle class," said former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew, who is running for governor of Indiana. Instead of "fighting for the working poor," Democrats should just say "we're fighting for people who just work." Instead of constantly criticizing tax cuts, "we need to begin talking about putting money in people's pockets," he said. Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas suggested that "we have to be reasonable when we talk about taxes. We have to also talk about what the American people are going through to make ends meet." Freshman Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama sounded the same theme, telling the conference that "our party needs to talk about social mobility, not in terms of class warfare." Pollster Mark Penn said that while the Democrats had to overcome a number of weaknesses with voters, including a huge voter gap among male voters, they had a number of opportunities to win back the White House on issues like the economy, education and health care. Still, if the election were held today, Mr. Bush would defeat the Democratic candidate by at least 9 percentage points, largely because of the president's huge lead on "leadership ability," Mr. Penn said. But Mr. Richardson told the Democratic gathering that the party had to stake out a stronger position on national security, an issue that ranks third in Mr. Penn's survey of most-important voter concerns. "We need to show Americans that we understand and care about national defense," he said. URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030617-114826-4877r.htm

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (2504)	6/18/2003 2:05:51 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Re-post!!:) Political personas By Gary J. Andres Schizophrenic partisanship ran rampant among the Democrats in Washington over the past several weeks, like manic depression without lithium. Engaging in bipartisan cooperation on some issues, displaying vituperative rancor on others, they spent the rest of the tossing potential attacks up against the wall, waiting to see if anything stuck. Consider a few recent episodes. Nearly all the Democrats opposed the president's economic growth legislation. Yet, then they joined Republicans working together to accomplish a bipartisan victory on the global AIDS initiative.Yesterday, the House wrangled over a refundable low-income child-care tax credit along partisan lines while the Senate passed the bill 98-2. Is this the political equivalent of a bipolar disorder? Not exactly, but viewing their behavior as the three faces of partisanship helps make sense of Washington's confusing split personality. Partisanship's multiple personalities are: Tactical obstruction, strategic cooperation, and experimental attack. Examples of each were on display over the past several weeks and will continue, albeit in different proportions, as the campaign season unfolds over the next 18 months. Tactical obstruction manifests itself principally in the Senate, and it could produce massive legislative gridlock. Now that the budget process and its special legislative procedures for the economic growth package are behind us, literally every bill and executive or judicial nomination could take 60 votes to pass. Under the Senate's rules, legislation requires either unanimous consent or 60 votes to invoke "cloture" and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote. Democrats, however, will not adopt this procedural, scorched-earth approach on every issue. Instead, they will carefully select filibusters and delaying tactics. Part of the reason for this is due to Republicans laying the predicate for "obstructionism" with voters last fall and continuing this year. However, on measures that energize the Democratic base, such as deterring judicial nominations or further tax cuts, continued opposition to simple majority rule will likely continue. Yet, using obstruction as a sole tactic has its limits. Democrats simply cannot block everything and not pay a political price. Strategic cooperation is an antidote to those charges. It is the second face of partisanship and emerges where Democrats believe it is in their interest to cooperate in passing legislation or allow confirmations to proceed. The current debate over Medicare is a good example. As recently as last week, before the Finance Committee reached an agreement on Medicare reform, many Republican insiders thought Senate Democrats would ultimately filibuster and force a 60-vote threshold on Medicare-prescription drug legislation. Yet, both Democratic leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, indicated last week that they were not inclined to use the filibuster to block this legislation. Why? Say hello to strategic cooperation. "They don't want another 'homeland security' issue hung around their necks," an Administration official said. Because of the political popularity of Medicare, opposition is tricky. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to exploit the issue in the last two election cycles without success. Therefore, when it comes to Medicare, enough Democrats in the Senate will choose to cooperate, paving the way to passage. Finally, experimental attacks will continue as the third face of partisanship. When using this tactic, Democrats raise a series of charges against Republicans and the president to see what sticks. Most recently, Democrats such as Bob Graham, Florida Democrat, attacked the president on faulty or misleading intelligence reports regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the war on terrorism in general. In the Democrats' world, the president may be unbeatable unless they can inflict a chink in his national security armor. Attacking him on WMD is an attempt to locate a political soft spot in an otherwise full metal jacket of the commander in chief. Experimental attacks on the domestic front will seek to exploit weakness in the economy or promote populist, anti-business themes. A popular salvo insinuates Mr. Bush is too cozy with corporate interests. Presidential contender Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, told the Wall Street Journal last week that President Bush's performance on taxes has been a "complete capitulation to corporate interests." Expect this tactic to accelerate in the months ahead. No doubt, certain individuals and relationships in Washington could stand to benefit from some therapy. Yet, the recent trends where lawmakers alternate between cooperation and conflict are not evidence of a growing political psychosis. They are contours of partisanship that help explain legislative behavior and electoral strategies in an often schizophrenic political age with Democrats struggling to find a rational approach to a popular Republican president. washingtontimes.com

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (2504)	6/19/2003 12:48:09 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10965

CAMPAIGNS OF TOMORROW Hillary 2008 Yes, she's running for president. Is that good for the Democrats? BY MICHAEL BARONE Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT There is not much mystery about the political ambition or political strategy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wants to be president. She ran for senator in New York in 2000 because the job would make her a more plausible candidate for president and because she preferred being a senator to being a former first lady. She journeyed methodically to all 62 counties in New York on a "listening tour" and learned about the special problems of upstate New York. Upstaters, like most Americans, love to be visited by celebrities, and her travels enabled her--as similar travels enabled Robert Kennedy in 1964--to win a near-majority in usually Republican upstate, which, together with her big majority in Democratic New York City, resulted in a solid statewide victory. In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has proceeded shrewdly and methodically. She has worked hard, avoided the spotlight, raised large sums for fellow Democrats, and worked on a bipartisan basis with many Republicans. Just last Thursday she held a press conference with Montana Republican Conrad Burns, a former farm radio broadcaster, in support of their E9-1-1 bill. She is an overwhelming favorite to win re-election in New York in 2006. Rudolph Giuliani, who could defeat her, has shown no interest in serving in the Senate. And in all the time that senators have been popularly elected, no incumbent Democratic senator from New York has ever been defeated. Sen. Clinton has made no move to run for president in 2004; evidently she has calculated that she and other Democrats have little chance at beating George W. Bush. Of course she denies that she has decided to run in 2008, and she will surely say that whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2004 has a real chance of being elected. These untruths are not evidence of special mendaciousness but harmless white lies required by the conventions of American politics. Of her ambition there can be little doubt. The most sensitive and convincing (though not friendly) portrait of her, by the late Barbara Olson in "Hell to Pay," shows a woman determined to wield political power from her days in college and law school. She has been working toward this goal for 35 years now. She is not going to give up when the highest prize seems within reach.But does the Democratic Party want to tie its fortunes to Sen. Clinton? Polling suggests she is in a strong position to win the Democratic nomination. When she is included in polls for 2004, she routinely wins between 40% and 45% of the votes, far ahead of any of the declared candidates. Most likely those numbers will be about the same at this stage in the 2008 cycle. Democrats in recent years have been eager to ditch defeated nominees--the able and widely respected Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis with his 46% of the vote, Al Gore with his popular vote plurality--and a defeated 2004 nominee is unlikely to get a second chance. But Democrats have been stubbornly faithful to the Clintons. In 2008, some lesser-known candidate could come out of nowhere in the caucuses and primaries and overtake her. But it doesn't seem very likely. As a general-election candidate, she is less than a sure thing. In an ABC News poll 53% said they did not want her to run for president. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed her trailing George W. Bush 53% to 40%. Her enthusiasts might dismiss this as due to Mr. Bush's current strength, but the fact is that 100% know her and 60% are not supporting her. She ran 5% behind Al Gore in New York in 2000; if she ran 5% behind him nationally, she would win 43% of the vote--not enough to win absent a second Perot candidacy. She remains one of the most polarizing figures ever in American politics. In 14 Gallup polls taken between December 1999 and June 2003, the percentage expressing negative feelings about her has ranged between 39% and 53% and averages 45%--very high negatives, far higher than any Republican nominee is likely to have going into the race. This makes it hard for her to maximize the Democratic vote in a year when the Democrats will not be, as they were in 1996 and 2000, the incumbent party in a time of apparent peace and apparent prosperity. And in those years the Democratic presidential candidates won only 49% and 48% of the vote. Many Democrats, focusing on Bill Clinton's job ratings from 1996 through 2000, take the view that the Clinton presidency was overwhelmingly popular. But Mr. Clinton's personal standing after the Monica Lewinsky affair became public was overwhelmingly negative, and his wife (despite her widely disbelieved claims in her recent book that she believed his denial of involvement with Ms. Lewinsky) carries some of that baggage. Moreover, much of Mr. Clinton's popularity was due to the perception that he was a "third way" Democrat, supporting free trade, welfare reform and Social Security reform. But since he left office, Democrats have almost unanimously rejected those stands; it is as if the "third way" never existed. Sen. Clinton does claim from time to time to be a "third way" Democrat, and perhaps she will construct a "third way" platform for 2008. But in her previous period of sway over public policy, when she was superintending the administration's health-care financing bill in 1993 and 1994, she took quite a different course. The consequences for her party were disastrous. When Mr. Clinton took office in 1993, Democrats had big majorities in both houses of Congress and among governors. They lost those majorities in 1994 and, except in the Senate for 18 months, have not got them back. Democrats would be unwise to give up entirely on their chances in 2004; as the Clintons showed in 1992, great turnabouts in politics are possible. But if 2004 turns out as most people suspect, Democrats must decide if their psychic investment in the Clintons, and in Hillary Rodham Clinton as an icon of feminist success, justifies nominating a candidate with her electoral weakness. Democrats exulted when Bill Clinton seemed to be paying no price for his personal shortcomings in the 1992 and 1996 elections, and in the impeachment controversy. But nothing in politics is free; there is only some question about when you pay the price. Democrats may end up paying the price for Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater and Travelgate, in 2008. Mr. Barone, a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report, is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and co-author of the Almanac of American Politics (National Journal). URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003646