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: calgal who wrote (3047)7/6/2003 12:31:38 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
A different Republican Party

By Tod Lindberg


 Historians will mark the administration of George W. Bush as the point at which the so-called social issues, long a galvanizing feature of American partisan politics, finally lost their sting. The Supreme Court's rulings upholding diversity as a compelling government interest and striking down the remaining state anti-sodomy laws join the early Bush administration decision allowing stem-cell research to go forward. The trinity (as it were) of decisionsleave those whose top priority has been the preservation of a certain traditional public morality now essentially voiceless in electoral politics. The Republican Party has moved on.
    Just to review the importance of the now barely remembered stem cell decision: The real political question here was whether the Bush administration would continue to accommodate the wishes of the pro-life movement within the GOP. Politically, it would have been both simple and expedient for a Republican administration to turn down stem-cell research altogether. The link between the research and its precondition, namely aborted fetuses from which stem cell lines can be cultivated, is obvious.
    The administration was cleverer than that. I don't know if it was Mr. Bush's intention from the outset to break the back of the pro-life lobby in the GOP, but that was the effect of his decision to allow research on currently existing cell lines but not on new lines cultivated from additional fetuses. Although the Catholic Church remained opposed, Mr. Bush won support for his decision from a number of evangelical Protestants who had for years been prominent in absolute opposition to abortion. He split the pro-life community, in effect ending its veto on party positions related to abortion. A pro-choice GOP vice presidential candidate is now conceivable, for example, something that has not been true for a generation.
    I think the two Supreme Court decisions will be similar in effect. They are not, to be sure, administration decisions. But that is not the point. The real question is whether the Bush administration and the Republican Party more broadly will continue to contest these issues or simply let them go.
    We should start with the composition of the Supreme Court itself. Seven of its nine members were appointed by Republican presidents. Three of those, of course — Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas — are consistently "conservative," whether one takes that term in the popular sense of right-leaning or more properly in the sense of embracing a constitutionally circumscribed view of what the Supreme Court should be deciding. But why aren't there seven conservatives on the court? The answer is that even staunchly conservative presidents have a very difficult time figuring out what their appointees will do once they get life tenure on the bench and final say on important matters of law and policy.
    Far be it from me to suggest that partisan politics has an effect on Supreme Court decisions. Nevertheless, it's a Republican Supreme Court. The divisions among its GOP appointees actually reflect what is for many conservatives the uncomfortable fact that, while their positions command majority support within the GOP, it's not unanimous.
    Second, the coalition politics within the GOP will shift as a result of the two decisions. In the case of gay rights, social conservatives long ago found it prudent to give up the public rhetoric of moral opposition to homosexuality. You can tell how true that is from the acute embarrassment felt within the party whenever one of its members breaches this understanding, as Sen. Rick Santorum did earlier this year. The only question fit for public debate, even in the eyes of those opposed to gay rights, was whether the Supreme Court as opposed to elected officials should be deciding on whether you can ban sodomy.
    Well, the court decided that it would decide. And that's that. It seems inconceivable that a future Supreme Court will reverse itself, and anyone urging such a course would thereby marginalize himself. Before the issue is settled, such positions may entail a measure of coalition support. Afterward, no.
    The same is likely true of "diversity." Diversity has actually been a settled issue in corporate America and the private sector more broadly for years: It doesn't really have any public detractors. Accordingly, again, conservatives narrowed the focus of their argument to the question of whether the government (and only government, the private sector being on principle free to make up its own mind) should embrace diversity at the expense of its traditional focus on the rights of individuals. Opponents pointed to the supposed social costs of doing so, and they drew some principled support. But that was then: Who now will stand up to propose that a future Supreme Court reverse itself and declare that diversity is not a compelling interest of government? No one with serious political ambitions within the GOP.
    Democrats will continue to run against Republicans as if the latter were still contesting social issues. But increasingly, Republicans will find it convenient to repair to a "principle" of pragmatism: These issues have been decided.
    

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030630-090739-6009r.htm



To: calgal who wrote (3047)7/6/2003 12:59:29 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Uncle Sam to the Rescue
URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91067,00.html

Thursday, July 03, 2003
By Neil Cavuto

So let me see if I have this right: Now the United Nations needs us. Not in Iraq, where it argued, we shouldn't go. But in Liberia (search), where it argues, we should go.

Liberia is a mess and needs to be stabilized, the U.N. says. Funny, Iraq was a mess but apparently didn't need to be stabilized, the U.N. said.

But why quibble over the details. The administration is indeed sending at least 1,000 G.I.s to Liberia -- maybe double that number down the road.

It’s part of a global peacekeeping force that needs some clout and we just provided it.

We could have bickered and dithered and ignored. We could have said, to hell with your request. But we didn't.

We could have ignored the desperate pleas from Liberians looking to end a civil war that's already claimed hundreds of lives. But we didn't.

We could have been vindictive and said to the French and Germans, who led this request by the way, "You didn't do diddly for us, we ain't doing diddly for you." But we didn't. No, we recognized the greater good by doing some good. So it’s Uncle Sam to the rescue… again.

You know, there are a lot of people who criticize this country, but we're always there when they need this country.

Yes, we do a lot of things wrong, but when everything hits the fan, we do one thing right: We calm, protect and save people.

Sometimes I wonder why we do anything for fair weather friends, who hate us one moment and then dizzily come running to us the next.

Then I look back in our history and I realize the answer: It’s because we've done the exact same thing before, time and time again.

That’s not bad for a country the world loves to hate, until the world is too scared to move.

Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.



To: calgal who wrote (3047)7/6/2003 1:06:10 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Bush Nets Record Returns in Fund Raising
Sat Jul 5,12:51 PM ET Add White House
URL:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20030705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_the_fund_raiser

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - First comes the advance work by White House political adviser Karl Rove, followed by several phone calls and letters from big-time money-raisers known as "pioneers." Then, finally, is the visit from President Bush (news - web sites), who brings along his folksy humor but often leaves before dinner is done.

AP Photo



George W. Bush's recipe for record fund raising has been honed to precision since his first campaign for Texas governor in 1994, when he raised $16 million.

Now, he is on the way to taking in a predicted $200 million or more for next year's presidential primaries, even without a GOP opponent.

The businesslike Bush relishes the cheers and applause of donors. At a $3.5 million fund-raising dinner in Los Angeles late last month, the president thanked the crowd repeatedly for its standing ovation, but also flashed an "all right-already" determination to get on with his speech. After 20 minutes of talking, there were 10 minutes of handshakes. Then it was out the door and to Air Force One.

In most appearances, Bush mixes in joking references to his family. At a San Francisco area luncheon in late June, Bush told the crowd of roughly 800 that he wished first lady Laura Bush had accompanied him.

He said he planned to see her later at their Texas ranch. "She will be the lump in the bed next to me since I get in at 1:30 in the morning," the president said.

Bush's style has changed since his days as governor, but it still smacks of a "kind of a laid-back Texas style," sort of that of a "good ol' boy," said William Bokovoy, a Houston real-estate investor who helped raise money for Bush's first gubernatorial campaign and is now a presidential donor.

"I think he speaks a lot better now. His syntax has certainly improved," Bokovoy said. "He certainly has acquired a statesman's presence."

For many donors, substance is more important than style, Bokovoy said. "They look at his policies more than they do whether the man has a Hollywood personality," he said.

The groundwork for a Bush fund-raiser is laid weeks ahead of time.

Rove often goes into a target state in advance to rally the lead organizers. Much of the money is raised by Bush's "pioneers," volunteer businessmen who collect at least $100,000.

This election, Bush created a new class of fund-raisers called rangers, who solicit at least $200,000 each. At least a half-dozen people have raised enough since Bush began his campaign in mid-May to earn the new designation, a Republican official said.

The volunteer fund-raisers spend days and sometimes weeks working their lists of prospective donors before an event.

Glen Holden, a former U.S. ambassador, said he started raising money for Bush's Los Angeles fund-raiser three weeks before and had raised $144,000 for the $2,000-per-ticket dinner.

"I just have a long, long list, and I first send them out a letter, and then I get on the telephone and start calling them," Holden said. In the letter, "I tell them that I think our president is doing a wonderful job and so many people agree with the way I feel, and this is the kickoff for his campaign, and I think all of us should show we're behind him in the very beginning, and this is a good time to start."

Holden first raised money for Republicans 40 years ago as finance chairman for the Oregon GOP. After moving to California, he raised money for the campaigns of Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and Bush's father, the 41st president.

Such longtime Republican fund-raisers are the backbone of Bush's network. Many are family friends or associates.



The fund-raising deal is closed when Bush arrives for an event. But unlike his famously gregarious predecessor, Democrat Bill Clinton (news - web sites), Bush does not spend hours working a room. Instead, he usually sticks to a schedule.

At the California events, he spoke for about 20 minutes and then shook hands for about 10 minutes before he left. Donors ate as the president did his work, but Bush passed on the food.

Those who raise enough in political donations typically are invited to have their photos taken with the president at small receptions before the fund-raisers. Most donors — those who simply give $2,000 to attend the fund-raiser — do not get near him unless they are seated closely enough to the podium to be in range when Bush shakes hands.

The crowd interaction is hardly natural. A bodyguard typically moves in tandem with Bush, standing behind him with a hand on his back, as television sound men follow along with microphones lowered on booms.

Peter Pfendler, a rancher in Sonoma County, Calif., who attended Bush's San Francisco area fund-raiser, was among those to shake Bush's hand after his speech. Bush chatted, picking up on references people made to his parents, Pfendler said.

As for Pfendler, "I was just a guy in the line," he said with a smile.