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


To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1347)7/31/2003 10:31:10 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Teamsters to Endorse Gephardt for President







Thursday, July 31, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Teamsters (search) union plans to endorse Democrat Dick Gephardt (search) for president, union officials say, giving the Missouri congressman a crucial political boost at a time when his weak fund raising has prompted questions about the viability of his candidacy.





The coveted endorsement by the 1.4 million-member union is expected to follow a Friday conference call vote of 22 Teamsters vice presidents, sources in the union said Thursday. It would be the most high-profile endorsement so far in the race among nine Democrats to challenge President Bush in 2004.

"There are unions and there are unions with capital letters," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. The Teamsters union "is a capital letter union. They back their designated candidates with lots of money and volunteers."

Word of the Teamsters' plans came after Gephardt had spoken with reporters about endorsements from maritime unions. "What unions give you is both resources and people -- ground troops" to help the campaign organize in states, said Gephardt, who has staked his campaign on the support of organized labor.

Endorsement events already are scheduled for Aug. 9 in Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, N.H., -- early primary states -- and in Detroit, with Teamsters President James P. Hoffa (search) and Gephardt, The Associated Press has learned.

Teamsters spokesman Bret Caldwell said the union's executive board was scheduled to talk by phone Friday "to discuss a potential Teamsters endorsement." But he refused to confirm that a Gephardt endorsement was expected, and said the union would make no announcement afterward.

That's because Teamsters officials want to honor a request by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney for affiliate unions to hold their endorsements until after next week's meeting in Chicago, the Teamsters sources said.

The Gephardt endorsement is a slap to the Bush White House, which has tried to chip away at organized labor's solid support for the Democratic Party. Hoffa even secured a special seat at President Bush's first State of the Union speech to Congress.

The Teamsters were Bush's obvious target, with the union's past endorsements of his father and Republican presidents Reagan and Nixon.

For Gephardt, the endorsement was widely expected -- but just not so early.

Teamsters officials haven't been shy about their affection for Gephardt, whose father, a milk truck driver, was a member -- a point the candidate constantly highlights.

"He's certainly the best candidate for working families and has stood strong with the Teamsters throughout his entire career," Caldwell said.

Politically, it couldn't come at a better time for the former House minority leader.

His campaign is plagued by concerns about his ability to excite Democratic voters -- a factor highlighted in his recent, poor showing in the money race.

Gephardt fell far short of his goal, collecting just $3.87 million in the second quarter and lagging behind some Democrats who have been considered much weaker contenders.

Another bane for Gephardt is that he has been down this road before.

In the 1988 presidential race, he drew early attention with his focus on trade and the poor economy, and did well in Iowa. But then he ran out of money and fizzled.

The Teamsters' backing will give Gephardt a bounce heading into Chicago next week for an AFL-CIO-sponsored forum.

"Gephardt needs all the help he can get," Sabato said. "He's still fighting the image of being yesterday's man."

Union leaders also will be discussing a labor-wide endorsement, which would bring with it more than 13 million foot soldiers working on a candidate's behalf for next year's primary election.

Though it's still very early, no candidate has come close to Gephardt's labor support. He added two maritime unions Thursday to his list of mostly small union endorsements that comprise more than 1.4 million members total.

Gephardt's longtime allegiance and his unwavering opposition in congressional battles over free-trade agreements that decimated many unions, including the Teamsters, helped him secure the endorsement, Teamsters officials said.

URL: foxnews.com



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1347)7/31/2003 11:05:13 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Democrats' damage patrol

By Donald Lambro

PHILADELPHIA — The Democrats' presidential primary war between diehard liberal activists and pragmatic party centrists intensified this week at the Democratic Leadership Council's meeting here.
While none of the presidential contenders attended the two-day event, the talk in closed-door strategy sessions and in hotel corridors was all about the threat posed to their party by the insurgency of Howard Dean, the left-wing, antiwar, anti-tax-cut candidate from tiny Vermont.
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, the DLC's chairman, fired off the first round at the beginning of Monday's session, declaring the party was "at risk of being taken over by the far left." Mr. Bayh's question to the party's liberal base: "Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?"
DLC founder Al From reminded the New Democrat elected officials who packed the hotel ballroom how Walter Mondale called for tax increases at the 1984 convention to the cheers of liberal delegates. "We lost 49 states" to Ronald Reagan, he said.
And Democratic pollster Mark Penn, who polled for Bill Clinton, warned of a huge "security gap" among voters who trust President Bush and the GOP to do a better job than the Democrats to safeguard national security in the war on terrorism. "If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," he said.
All of them warned that the party would lose next year's elections if it did not match the president's toughness on national defense.
None of them specifically mentioned Mr. Dean, but they made it clear that's who they were talking about in interviews with reporters.
Who can stop Mr. Dean? The big unreported story at the DLC's meeting is that Mr. From is positioning his influential DLC network to back Mr. Dean's chief rival for the presidential nomination, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
Mr. Kerry voted for the congressional war resolution to send forces into Iraq, but he has also been sharply critical of Mr. Bush's failure to build a much stronger coalition for the war and for his handling of postwar operations.
Still, Mr. From points to Mr. Kerry's centrism on issues such as free trade, his support for welfare reform, and hints that school choice vouchers may be worth trying on an experimental basis.
"I think Kerry could be a very effective nominee. I think Kerry could run as a New Democrat [in the general election]," Mr. From told me in an interview.
The DLC does not endorse candidates, but Will Marshall, who runs the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute, has been advising Mr. Kerry. And Al From's embrace of Mr. Kerry is the closest he has come to publicly backing a candidate. Notably, he mentioned no one else in the Democratic pack.
What worries Mr. From most is the party's weakness on defense in an age of terrorism. "The problem with [the Democrats] is that we're not in the debate on national security," he said.
"We're at a time when our country is in peril. The Democratic nominee for president in 2004 has to first cross the threshold on national security so that voters will listen to him on the economy. If we do that we'll have a chance of winning. If we don't, we won't," he said.
In its attempt to reshape the party's image, the DLC showcased seven New Democrat governors, including Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Mark Warner of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Jim McGreevey of New Jersey. All told how they balanced their budgets without raising broad-based taxes and in some cases by cutting taxes.
One of them, though, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who has cut state income taxes across-the-board, devoted much of his speech to national security. Democrats "have to be able to use force when diplomacy fails and our national security is being threatened," he said.
But it was Mr. Penn's sobering polling data that had the most effect on DLC Democrats.
The Democratic Party "is hurt by current perceptions that Democrats stand for big government, want to raise taxes too high, are too liberal, and are beholden to special interest groups," he said.
"Half a century ago, a near majority of voters identified themselves as a part of the Democratic Party. Today that number has declined to roughly one-third of all voters," he said.
Republicans held especially strong leads among white male voters, as well as married men and women with children. Now, "Democrats only lead among the lowest income category, voters who earn less than $20,000 per year," he said.
The Democrats' decline among middle-class, suburban voters will continue "unless the Democratic Party broadens its appeal," he said.
Mr. From sent the DLC delegates home with an emotional plea to "go out and sell the the New Democrats' message."
But grass-roots Democrats say the party's energy and anger right now is all on the antiwar, activist left which is fueling Mr. Dean's headlong drive for the nomination. The DLC had its day with Bill Clinton's skillful political use of centrist-leaning triangulation. Now, say Mr. Dean's supporters, "it's our turn."

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.


URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030730-091823-3205r.htm



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1347)8/1/2003 1:01:11 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Edwards is 4 months late on taxes

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat and 2004 presidential hopeful, is four months delinquent in paying the property taxes on his Georgetown mansion and owes the cash-strapped District more than $11,000, city records show.
Mr. Edwards is worth somewhere between $12 million and $30 million after a successful career as a personal injury lawyer, according to his financial disclosure forms. He bought the eight-bedroom, 6,672-square-foot home in the tony neighborhood for $3.8 million in September.
In February, the city sent Mr. Edwards a tax bill for $9,562.46, which he was supposed to have paid by March 31, according to tax records. As of 3:30 p.m. yesterday, Mr. Edwards owed $11,092.46 with interest and penalties, according to the city's tax collection office.
Mr. Edwards' office was not aware of the unpaid taxes but at 7 p.m. yesterday issued the following response by e-mail after The Washington Times faxed a copy of the bill:
The senator and his wife, Elizabeth, "had not received a bill. As soon as they received one, they paid it," the statement says.
Mr. Edwards' delinquency came during a year in which the city faced a $323 million budget shortfall. The District was forced to cut funding for public education and a wide array of city services.
The senator's tax bill is among the city's largest for private homeowners.
"That's a lot of money," said Virginia Daisley, a spokeswoman for the city tax collection office.
"There's no reason for not paying your tax bill," she said. "I guess if you're in the hospital or something, but still you have to pay your taxes."
On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Edwards often rails against President Bush's tax cuts as giveaways to wealthy people for whom tens of thousands of dollars is pocket change.
For example, in a June speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Edwards criticized "tax-free tax shelters for millionaires that are bigger than most Americans' paychecks for an entire year."
In the same speech, where he laid out his vision for revising the U.S. tax code, Mr. Edwards said, "In these times of national sacrifice, we should not be asking less of the most fortunate."
Ron Faucheux, author of the book "Running for Office" and editor of Campaigns & Elections magazine, said: "You have to take care of those personal issues before you run for office, whether you're running for local office or president of the United States."
Mr. Edwards' wealth and occupation mean that he has to be particularly attentive to such matters, Mr. Faucheux said.
"In the case of Edwards, it's a particular problem. His position as a trial lawyer and the enormous amount of money he's made and the fact that he lives in a multimillion-dollar home hurts his populist class warfare message," Mr. Faucheux said. "Anything that calls attention to his wealth will not be helpful to him."
This is not the first time the Edwardses have failed to pay tax bills on time.
In at least eight instances during the past decade, the Edwardses have been so late paying property taxes on their Raleigh home and various automobiles that bill collectors assessed them penalties, according to records kept by Wake County in North Carolina.
In 1995, for example, they were more than two months late paying their taxes on a 1989 Mitsubishi and a 1991 Acura. That same year, they were nearly a month late paying taxes on their Raleigh home.
Last year, they were late paying their taxes on a 1998 Volvo and a 1998 Buick.
That did not include the dozens of times the Edwardses paid months past the due dates on their Raleigh tax bills but were not assessed late penalties.
Regarding the outstanding bill in Washington, Mrs. Daisley said that even in cases where a tax bill is in dispute, the city requires owners to pay by March 31.
"You can protest the bill, but you must still pay your taxes on time, and we'll reimburse you," she said. "It's the owner's responsibility."
If Mr. Edwards fails to pay his taxes, the city could sell his Georgetown mansion at auction in July 2004.



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1347)8/1/2003 1:01:33 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Bob Tyrrell

Why no ‘holy cities ’ in America?

newsandopinion.com | The other day, Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor of the invaluable Wall Street Journal, wrote a very informative report from Iraq's holy city of Najaf.

He wrote in part that things are not going as badly over there for us as most of the other journalists seem to think. He wrote that not as many Iraqis hate us for liberating them from killers, torturers and thieves as is reported in the rest of the press. He wrote that a particularly pungent piece in The Washington Post headlined "Rumors Spark Iraqi Protests As Pentagon Official Stops By" was based on the protest of a single cleric, residing in the holy city of Najaf. Most of the rest of the Najafians -- if that is the term for the indigenes -- did not share the excitable cleric's sour humor.

Gigot's piece got me to thinking. One of my thoughts was: Why in all of America, a country many times the size of Iraq, do we not have any holy cities? Not even the Southern Baptists have been able to create a holy city. I suppose the Mormons believe they have at least one holy city, but the rest of the country appears not to share their enthusiasm. If America did have a holy city, which would we settle on?

I suspect New York would win the liberals' nod, at least prior to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's crackdown on squeegee men. Or possibly Hollywood, Calif., would get their accolade. It is, after all, their present cultural capital, their Florence, their Athens.

I am told the liberals love those Hollywood "action movies" showing busty women in tight-fitting military garb, pistols on their hips, grenades hanging from the bodices, as they beat the living daylights out of flabby white men and various creatures from outer space.

The creatures are so bizarre in their physiological components that Darwin if he saw them would laugh -- and Darwin was not a very giggly fellow. They have eyes and ears that serve no imaginable purpose, and appendages that seem useless, and warts, and tails and skin might make any dermatologist a millionaire.

There are other cities that come to mind. For decades now, Americans have been listening to rock and roll, or is it rock & roll? Some Americans become very intellectual about this art form, and I would not want to betray an ignorance here that might encourage some 55-year lifetime subscriber to Rolling Stone into thinking me musically illiterate.



At any rate, rock is a major element in American culture, and so a good prospect for the appellation holy city might be Cleveland. The rock cognoscenti will tell you that Cleveland is home to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. In fact, the building in which rock has been enthroned is an architectural masterpiece. Moreover, it boasts many facilities for the elderly and disabled, for rock stars age earlier than the rest of us and the rigors of their lifestyle have a lot of them hobbling around on walkers.

Being a native of Chicago, I would like to see this Midwestern colossus termed a holy city, but in all honesty not even many Chicagoans would relish their town being raised to the eminence of "holy city." There is its mafia past. Two generations of the Daley Machine in city hall make the sanctification of Chicago unlikely. And the Rev. Jesse Jackson claims to live there, complete with mistresses and his funny money operations. Then, too, Chicagoans relish the reputation of their city as being a "tough town." If we were to raise it to the level of holy city, we might get beaten up.

So deciding on an American holy city is not an easy task. Yet looking back on American history, I think we can all agree that America's best candidate for the designation "holy city" is Washington, D.C. Liberals have since FDR's day seen Washington as the great magic wand capable of righting all wrongs and succoring the nation's teeming masses of indigents. Quite possibly liberals admire Washington even more than they admire Hollywood, in all of its intellectual splendor.

Conservatives of a patriotic stripe remember Washington for the monuments and for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the politically alive, only Americans of strict libertarian rigor are without reverence for our nation's capital, but then one cannot imagine a libertarian accepting any city as holy.

So here is my recommendation. Henceforth let us consider Washington our holy city. If we are insistent enough, journalists from such prestigious Arab media outlets as al-Jazeera will have to speak of "the holy city of Washington."

Imagine the headlines: "Bush Returns to the Holy City of Washington." Or an al-Jazeera reporter might begin an on-the-scene television report with "I traveled into the holy city of Washington last night to ..."

This holy city business can cut both ways.



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1347)8/1/2003 1:04:08 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1604
 
Cal Thomas



Dems are losing the center

newsandopinion.com | It is a truism in politics that around 40 percent of Republicans will always vote for a Republican presidential candidate and about the same percentage of Democrats will vote for their party's candidate. The battle is for the middle 20 percent.

According to a new poll commissioned by the "moderate" Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the group with which Bill Clinton successfully aligned himself, Democrats risk losing next year's presidential election because of dramatic erosion in support among white males.

Another truism is that when the nation is at peace and secure, the mushy middle tends to favor Democrats. But when it is threatened by enemies - foreign or domestic - it tends to side with Republicans. The DLC poll found that is precisely the case now. Democrats, the poll says, would do well in attacking President Bush over the economy if it weren't for the security issue.

Mark Penn, who conducted the poll, said that since Clinton left office more Americans see Democrats as the party of big government and higher taxes. Penn said the way President Bush is handling the war on terrorism has opened a large gap with Democrats on who is to be trusted on national security issues.

"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Penn, which is a polite way of saying that the current crop of candidates is all losers, except Joe Lieberman, who is the only one defending the toppling of Saddam Hussein and who remains far behind in the polls.

Democrats have not learned from Clinton. In 1992, faced with three straight crushing defeats by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who ran against ultra-left candidates, Democrats decided to go with a candidate who positioned himself as a centrist. And Clinton won - twice. But just as Clinton found it difficult to resist temptation when it came to matters of the flesh, so do Democrats easily succumb to the lure of liberalism, even though it takes them down to defeat every time.

<

Democratic strategist and former Walter Mondale campaign manager Bob Beckel tells me that to a certain extent the appeal by Democrats to their liberal base is predictable, but "if it wasn't for Howard Dean we wouldn't be having this conversation." Dean, the most liberal among the top-tier Democratic candidates, continues to pull the rest of the pack to the left. Beckel says what Democrats ought to be talking about is "no new taxes, no more government programs and how you fuel the entrepreneurial spirit," but he says that won't happen as the candidates try to attract their liberal base by out-liberaling each other. He recalls one of his favorite Jesse Jackson lines: "It takes two wings to fly." So far, Democrats have only a left wing, which is why the DLC poll shows them having trouble getting off the ground.

President Bush seems to be practicing middle-of-the-road politics better than his opponents. He has resisted commenting on cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage, and he rarely speaks of abortion, except to repeat his campaign slogan that every child should be welcomed in life as well as in law, which is supposed to sound non-threatening and does. While his conservative base might wish for a solid conservative or two on the Supreme Court and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, abortion and even flag burning, Bush has shown no outward sign that he will give his base what it wants. He might if he's reelected, but to talk too much about such things now would turn off the centrists and swing the middle to the Democrats.

This was the Clinton strategy. Clinton was a liberal on national health care, gays in the military, abortion and even welfare reform (which he vetoed until polls indicated the people wanted it). But he looked and sounded moderate. Bush is basically a conservative who seeks to portray himself as a non-fire-breathing moderate, except when it comes to the war on terrorism. This is where the country is, and it is where the Democratic presidential candidates and much of their leadership are not. That's the point the DLC poll tried to make, but the pleasures of ideological self-indulgence may be too much for Democrats to resist.