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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (423855)	7/7/2003 3:17:26 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>not to mention how many Republicans were elected after that due to his own actions... Clinton definitely hurt the democratic party...

To: PROLIFE who wrote (423855)	7/7/2003 4:30:10 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030706-104811-5676r.htmt column, I suggested George W. Bush would likely win an overwhelming victory next year, given the weakness of the Democratic field. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru agrees, but makes the important point this prospect is not necessarily good for conservatives. The prescription drug subsidy bill before Congress is a good example why this is the case. The conventional wisdom among political professionals has long been that candidates run at their party's base during primary season and toward the middle during the general election. This means Democrats run to the left and then to the right. Republicans do the opposite, running first to the right and then pivoting leftward. This is clearly what is going on in the Democratic Party, as the most leftward candidate, Howard Dean, has most of the momentum right now. This stands to reason since only the party's most ideologically committed members are even paying attention to the candidates at this point. The danger for the Democratic Party is that John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman will divide up the mainstream vote, thereby making Mr. Dean a genuinely viable candidate for the nomination. The result for Mr. Bush is that he could possibly win the biggest victory in history without having to work very hard for it. One would think such a prospect would embolden him to stand firm on conservative principles. Since he doesn't need to move to the left to win, he can afford to stay comfortably on the right. The irony is that he is doing exactly the opposite. Because the Republican rank-and-file is so happy with Mr. Bush over his delivery of tax cuts and their desire to support him in the war or terror, he doesn't need to move rightward to secure the base. This has allowed him to position himself for the general election — moving leftward toward the center — at an early stage of the campaign. The prescription drug subsidy bill is Mr. Bush's signature issue in this triangulation maneuver. By supporting such legislation, he deprives Democrats of the one issue on which they might win next year. Unfortunately, Democrats like Ted Kennedy know how badly Mr. Bush wants a prescription drug bill and are driving a hard bargain. As with the 2001 education bill, Mr. Bush is effectively allowing Mr. Kennedy to dictate terms. Conservatives in Congress are appalled by White House demands that they hold their noses and vote for the biggest expansion of government in 30 years. What is the point, they ask, of having control of the White House and Congress if it is just to enact Democrat big-spending programs? Better to be back in the minority, many say. As Mr. Ponnuru suggests, this is the price we are paying for being in the midst of a foreign policy crisis and having a Democratic Party controlled by its most extreme elements. The former tends to make conservatives reflexively support the president, while the latter makes the White House think the middle of the political spectrum is there for the taking. With the elderly occupying much of that middle ground, the goal is simply to buy their votes with prescription drugs. Richard Nixon did the same thing back in 1972 when he boosted Social Security benefits by 20 percent and automatically indexed them to inflation. But while this did buy the votes of the elderly that year, it did not buy their loyalty. When Nixon got into trouble over Watergate, the elderly did not come to his defense because of the windfall he showered on them. They simply took what he gave them for granted and asked, "What else are you going to do for me?" Political analyst Charlie Cook suggests something similar could happen to Mr. Bush. No matter how big a prescription drug subsidy is enacted into law, it will never meet the outsized expectations of today's "Gimme Generation" of elderly, who feel they are owed unlimited benefits simply for living through World War II and the Great Depression. Therefore, they are guaranteed to be disappointed by the results and will chafe at any limitations on the government's largess. When Mr. Bush refuses to expand the program to their liking, Democrats will be more than happy to say they will. And should Republicans ever suggest anything in the future to restrain the inevitable growth of the prescription drug program, Democrats will predictably attack them for slashing it and killing untold numbers of seniors by denying them life-saving drugs. These attacks will work, leaving Republicans as the bad guys once again, even though no prescription drug plan would exist without Republican support. In short, the political calculation is penny-wise/pound-foolish in the extreme. Any prescription drug plan will be an albatross around the Republican Party's neck for generations to come. It's a bad deal. Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (423855)	7/7/2003 4:30:46 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Whitewater came up with a big fat zero you and know it. The only one jailed (terribly unfairly) I know of is Susan McDougal whose story flies in the face of the Starr and GOP claims that their investigation was anything other than a Gulag old-Soviet style "sign a confession or else" type persecution. What other Clintonites were jailed? That's BS. Post the names and facts. I think Cisneros and Espy weew indicted, but one of them was acquitted. I think Cisneros. So that makes one single indictment in 8 years. Reagan's bunch had 31 indictments, mostly top level. Who are your numbers including, people they knew in the corporate world? Martha Stewart? That doesn't count. If you count those then Reaganite indictments are much higher.