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 (3857)8/6/2003 11:32:13 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
URL:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/fuller/fuller1.asp



To: calgal who wrote (3857)8/6/2003 11:35:27 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Key Demographics Emerge Early in 2004 Race







Wednesday, August 06, 2003
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos


WASHINGTON — NASCAR dads are generally white, working class and rural -- as well as racing fans -- and they could emerge as a leading demographic force in the 2004 elections.





“Sometime they vote, sometime they don’t, and when they do, they tend to vote Republican, but can be persuaded to vote for a populist Democrat,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, describing the NASCAR dads (search).

Also called softball dads or office park dads, they are expected to be one of three major forces in 2004, along with married white females and Hispanics.

Sen. Bob Graham (search), who is seeking the Democratic primary nomination, has already figured out the potential strength of NASCAR dads and has made an effort to reach out to them by plastering his name on a Craftsman truck participating in the NASCAR circuit.

Graham has suggested that his more liberal opponents have no chance of winning the group over, but the Florida Democrat may also have trouble attracting the crowd, said one expert.

“White males are not a swing vote; they are a Republican constituency,” said election analyst Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Report.

Al Gore (search) received only 36 percent of the white male vote against George Bush in 2000, less than Bill Clinton (search) in either 1992 or 1996. In a poll recently released by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, now only 24 percent of white males consider themselves Democrats.

Democrats may have a better chance at wooing the two other major groups, say experts.

“In terms of swing voters -- white suburban moms and the Hispanic vote -- there’s been a lot of discussion there,” said Ed Goeas, Republican pollster for the Tarrance Group in Washington, D.C.

Shrewdly labeled “soccer moms” in the 1990s for their status as suburban mothers who spend their days shuttling kids back and forth to extracurricular activities, the group of women targeted by candidates in the next presidential race can also be described as married, frequently working moms, said one poll-cruncher.

According to Scott Keeter, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Democrats overall have enjoyed a slight advantage with women, but their success lies with single, working women, rather than married women with children who increasingly vote Republican.

“Married, working women fall in the middle,” and though they lean Republican, they are still considered more independent and therefore politically up for grabs, noted Keeter.

"I’d say it is a swing group, you can’t count on them for either party,” said Sabato.

So far, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has seen the advantage of tapping into the group. He has collected $1 million so far -- more than any other candidate -- from women who describe themselves as "homemakers." Most are married to lawyers who have contributed millions to Edwards' campaign.

But according to the DLC, 54 percent of married women said they prefer the GOP. While the moms are an important faction, pollster Mark J. Penn warned that suburban parents overall need to be addressed.

Noting that “marriage and child-rearing are key life cycle events in dictating attitudes toward political parties,” Penn, who conducted the DLC poll, said, “No Democrat will win the White House in 2004 without an agenda that speaks directly to middle-class parents.”

But the excitement over this demographic may be eclipsed by increasing chatter over the so-called Hispanic vote, which both sides claim to have growing influence with today.

“They have tilted towards Democrats, but with President Bush’s successes with them, there is reason to believe that Republicans can tap into that group,” charges Goeas.

The population of approximately 35.5 million Hispanics in the U.S. is growing rapidly, and the percentage of Hispanic voters is expected to leap to 7 percent from 5 percent in 2000.

A recent Republican National Committee poll found that more Hispanics than ever consider themselves conservative rather than liberal. But a New Democrat Network poll released in June found that Bush would receive only 34 percent of the Hispanic vote when matched up with a Democrat.

The discrepancy underscores that no one party can claim a hold on Hispanic voters, said Robert de Posada, president of the Washington-based Latino Coalition.

“I think it is somewhere in the middle, where most Hispanics lie," he said.

That is not the case with the black vote, increasingly marginalized, say some observers, because of their historically Democratic support -- nearly 90 percent of African-Americans voted for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. As a result, Republicans make less appeals to them, say election experts, and Democrats only pay attention to their issues long enough to get them out to the polls.

The impact of the black vote lies in the Democratic primaries, where pollsters say it is too early to discern whom they will support. According to a recent poll by the Black American Political Action Committee, a conservative PAC, 42 percent of black voters are still undecided, but 67 percent said they will vote in the primary.

Experts point to Catholics and senior citizens as additional swing groups that both parties will be sure to woo -- and even more importantly -- swing states, like Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Oregon.

“[Elections] are like three-dimensional chess contests,” said Sabato, "the battles are everywhere, all the time.”







URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93838,00.html



To: calgal who wrote (3857)8/6/2003 11:37:07 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Lieberman Unveils Drive to Gain Jewish Donors




URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93854,00.html


Tuesday, August 05, 2003

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman (search) has unveiled an Internet fund-raising drive devoted entirely to attracting contributions from Jewish Americans, highlighting a subplot in the Democratic race.





The push for Jewish support reveals that the nation's first credible Jewish candidate for the White House has not automatically attracted the financial resources of American Jews, especially Jewish Democrats.

The Connecticut senator plays down the whiff of history and Jewish-American aspirations that would come with a win.

"I am running for president as an American who happens to be Jewish, not the other way around," Lieberman told Fox News. "I am proud of my heritage. I have been pleased to find in this campaign that a lot of others are proud that I have this barrier-breaking opportunity."

Lieberman became the first Jewish American nominated by a major party as a vice president. When his 2000 running mate Al Gore announced that he wouldn't take another shot in 2004, Lieberman banked on tapping into Gore's fund-raising base and leveraging early financial support from Jewish Democrats. But campaign finance reports show that has not happened.

"The fact of the matter is, the jury is out about Joe Lieberman's appeal nationwide," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity (search).

"Sen. Lieberman is having to prove himself in the Jewish community just like any other candidate," said E.J. Kessler, national political correspondent for the Forward (search), a Jewish newspaper based in New York. "We're talking about a community that is very sophisticated and isn't necessarily going to support one candidate just because of his ethnicity or his attachments to the community."

Other Democratic rivals such as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt have raised substantial sums from Jewish donors — a sign Democrats are still hedging their bets.

"A lot of donors are giving to more than one Democrat in this crowded field of nine," Lewis said.

One problem for Lieberman is that President Bush's Israel policy is playing well with many Jewish Democrats. Another problem is that Lieberman is selling centrism to liberal Democrats who tend to vote and contribute in large numbers in Democratic primaries and caucuses, say political analysts.

"Sen. Lieberman's problem in the Jewish community, I mean first of all, we're talking about donors and not voters — is that he's to the right of the Jewish activist donor who's going to be involved in the game now," Kessler said.

With that in mind, Lieberman is retooling, including adding a fund-raising method to his Web site that attempts to appeal to new Jewish donors. The 1,800 Challenge uses the number 18, which carries great significance in the Jewish faith. The Hebrew alphabet assigns a letter to each number and "18" translates into "Chai," meaning life.

"It's a kind of a soft ethnic pitch. It should bring in some money on the margins," Kessler said.

Experts say Lieberman's failure to catch fire among Jewish Democrats is a microcosm of his campaign's woes among all Democrats.

"His problems are the problems of a stalled candidacy. It's not just that he has problems with the Jewish community," Kessler said.

"Pressure is building on Lieberman to show that there's more there," said Lewis.

Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.



To: calgal who wrote (3857)8/6/2003 11:44:36 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Seeking jobs in the U.S.A.

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030805-084100-3722r.htm

By Paul Craig Roberts

Throughout history, peoples have been overcome by trends and forces that they were unable to recognize. Could the United States be losing its economy to forces economists mistake for benevolent free trade?
Traditionally, free trade has required a country's work force to compete indirectly against the work forces of other countries in the markets for traded goods and services. Fears in the post-World War II era that U.S. wages and living standards would be undermined by imports made with cheap foreign labor proved to be wrong, since U.S. labor was better educated and worked with more and better capital and technology, which made American labor much more productive. Higher productivity protected U.S. wages and employment from cheap foreign labor.
The collapse of world socialism and the rise of globalism have made U.S. capital, technology and business know-how highly mobile. Today it is as easy — and far less expensive — for a U.S. company to produce abroad for U.S. markets. Instead of locating its capital and technology in Ohio, California or South Carolina, the company locates its facility in China, for example.
By locating in China, the company substitutes a work force that is paid less than a dollar an hour for U.S. labor that costs $26 an hour. By locating in China, the company also avoids expensive regulations, torts, employment taxes and discrimination lawsuits.
The mobility of capital and technology means that American labor now faces direct competition in global labor markets. This is a new development.
A Chinese person working with U.S. capital and technology is just as productive as an American. The Chinese worker can be hired for much less, because living standards and the cost of living are far lower in China.
The huge labor surplus in countries such as China and India means that wages are not likely to rise very rapidly in those countries. The U.S. companies that substitute Chinese and Indian labor for U.S. employees are building in lower labor costs for years to come.
Eventually, as China and India become fully employed first world economies, wages will be bid up and labor will be paid according to its productivity. By then the United States might be a third world country.
Existing mortgages, cost of living and accustomed living standards prevent U.S. wages from falling to levels that would be competitive with China's. Americans have to seek work in their next best alternative when they lose their well-paying manufacturing and high-tech knowledge and service jobs to foreigners. By definition, these are less productive jobs paying less.
When jobs move out, skills move with them. At the rate at which the United States is losing software and computer engineering jobs, for example, how much longer will U.S. engineering schools be offering this major?
When manufacturing jobs are lost, so are jobs in trucking, warehousing, banking and insurance. There is a chain effect that reduces the overall productivity of the U.S. as a location of economic activity.
The loss of high productivity jobs takes away the ladders of upward mobility and wipes out human capital. A displaced U.S. software engineer cannot move to China or India to seek employment in his profession.
Retraining is not an answer, because almost the entire range of knowledge jobs can be outsourced. The Internet permits U.S. employers to hire people in India, China and the Philippines as stock analysts, accountants, researchers, designers, engineers, radiologists — any occupation that doesn't require hands-on, face-to-face, local presence.
Economists assume that the substitution of foreign labor for U.S. labor is the benevolent workings of free trade. But what is being traded when U.S. employers move jobs out of the country? Many of our imports are products made for American markets by U.S. companies.
Economists mistake the free movement of factors of production for free trade. Raised on the theory of comparative advantage, economists know that free trade is mutually beneficial. They dismiss without thought any concerns that seem to call free trade into question. The case for free trade has been unassailable for so long that economists have overlooked that today's circumstances do not comply with the assumptions of the theory.
The gains from trade flow from each country focusing on what it can do best and trading for other goods. The idea that there are comparative advantages in production is based on countries having different endowments of immobile factors of production. When the theory was developed, agricultural output was an important component of gross domestic product, and a country's advantages resided in its climate and geography.
David Ricardo discovered the principle of comparative advantage in the early 19th century. He recognized that the principle did not hold if all factors of production are internationally mobile. Mobile factors of production would migrate to countries that had the greatest absolute advantages. Those countries would gain and all others would lose.
Climate and geography cannot migrate, but capital and technology can. Today, absolute advantage resides in an abundant supply of cheap and willing labor. Now that Asia is safe for capitalism, capital and technology flow to countries where labor costs are lowest.
The global mobility of factors of production is a new development. Until recent years, it was not safe for capital and technology to migrate outside North America, Western Europe and Japan. No first world country had an absolute advantage in labor cost.
The collapse of world socialism changed circumstances overnight. American labor now faces direct competition in global labor markets. The excess supply of labor in these markets will drive down wages, salaries and employment in the United States. As the dollar is likely to lose value under pressure from our growing trade deficit, the decline in wages will not be compensated by a decline in prices, and U.S. living standards will fall.
It is irresponsible for economists to dismiss these concerns by citing empirical evidence from historical correlations. New developments are not reflected in historical data.
Economists dismiss as "anecdotal evidence" the news reports of millions of high-paying U.S. white-collar jobs being moved overseas and filled by foreigners. American high school and college students are far more realistic than economists as they search for careers that cannot be shipped out or given to foreigners on work visas.
U.S. labor no longer has the advantage of education, training, technology and capital over its foreign competition. Existing wage levels, however, assume that Americans still have these advantages. The extraordinary wage differences between the United States and Asia mean that jobs will flow out of the United States into Asia. Tax cuts and low interest rates cannot compensate for the huge wage differences.
American corporations have made a strategic decision to move jobs abroad. What corporations will employ the displaced U.S. employees?

Paul Craig Roberts is a columnist for The Washington Times and is nationally syndicated.



To: calgal who wrote (3857)8/6/2003 11:47:04 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
Unrest on the right

By Bruce Bartlett

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030805-084105-9082r.htm

In recent weeks, President Bush has started to come in for the first meaningful criticism from mainstream conservatives during his presidency. While nascent, it could become the only real barrier to his re-election next year unless dealt with quickly.
To be sure, there are those on the right who have been critical of Mr. Bush since Day 1. But at least since the World Trade Center attack, such criticism has been mostly confined to fringe publications and Web sites that do not represent the mainstream of conservative thought. Therefore, it is significant when people like Rush Limbaugh, George Will and William Safire all begin attacking Mr. Bush from the right and comparing him to Richard Nixon.
Although those on the left view Mr. Nixon as an archconservative, there is really precious little evidence for such an opinion. As president, he did almost nothing that was fundamentally inimical to the liberal agenda. Had Bill Clinton been president during those years, I believe that his policies would have been little different from Nixon's. They were classic "New Democrat" policies — split the difference between right and left and declare victory. But since the left controlled the agenda, the result was always to move in a leftward direction.
I remember as a college student reading the most virulently anti-Nixon attacks not in left-wing publications, but in those on the far right. The John Birch Society, for example, just hated Nixon. And though it is mostly forgotten, Rep. John Schmitz, California Republican and Nixon's own congressman (he represented San Clemente), ran against him in 1972 and got more than 1 million votes in the general election. I doubt that many liberals were among the total, since Mr. Schmitz advertised proudly his John Birch Society membership.
Mr. Schmitz emphasized Nixon's liberal domestic policies — he established more regulatory agencies of any president since Franklin Roosevelt, raised taxes, busted the budget and spilled red ink, imposed price controls, and caved-in to Soviet demands for an anti-ballistic missile treaty, among other things. Substantively, there was absolutely no reason for any conservative to support Nixon in 1972 except that he was better than George McGovern — the most left-wing Democratic nominee since William Jennings Bryan.
No doubt, that is the same reason why most conservatives supported William Howard Taft against Bryan in 1908. But the result was that Taft signed into law the federal income tax and created a national bank for the United States (the Federal Reserve), two cherished liberal ideals that Bryan never could have accomplished. Only a Republican president could have rammed these measures through a Republican Congress.
Conservative dismay over Taft's liberal agenda led directly to massive Democratic gains in Congress in 1910 and his own loss in 1912. The same dismay over Nixon's liberal agenda led to massive Democratic gains and his ouster from office in 1974.
I am sorry to say that I see Mr. Bush traveling the same path. He has concluded that the Democrats are very likely to nominate a candidate so far to the left as to be unelectable. Howard Dean's ascension to the head of the Democratic pack supports this conclusion. But ironically, rather than making Mr. Bush feel more comfortable pursuing a conservative agenda, he continues to move left on domestic issues — especially the budget-busting prescription-drug-subsidy bill.
Mr. Bush has also signed into law a campaign finance reform bill that most conservatives view as blatantly unconstitutional, endorsed an education bill written by Sen. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and initiated more trade protectionism by any president since Nixon. But against these, Mr. Bush continually plays his trump card — the war against terrorism. And just as Nixon played the anti-communist card in terms of the Vietnam War, it has been enough to keep most Republican voters under control — so far.
The only substantive difference between Nixon and Mr. Bush, in terms of policy, is that the latter cut taxes while the former raised them. Of course, there are also important personal differences. Nixon was sleazy and dishonest, while I don't believe that such can be said about Mr. Bush. But if it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — the reason why most people who supported the war supported it — then he is going to have a "credibility gap" as big as Nixon's to overcome.
Even so, I think Mr. Bush is a "lock" for re-election, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Yale economist Ray Fair predicts he will get 56.7 percent of the vote based on economic data already in hand. If the economy does better than expected, his vote total will only rise.
But conservatives still need to ask themselves: to what end? Do we want another Taft or Nixon, who imposed liberal policies no Democratic president could achieve as the price for keeping a Republican in the White House? It is a question worth asking.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.