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: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/7/2003 8:47:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
W's New Deal?
_______________________

By David S. Broder
Columnist
The Washington Post
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Anyone who compared the frequency of their news conferences -- and their fondness for such encounters -- would automatically place George W. Bush and Franklin D. Roosevelt as polar opposites. Where FDR enjoyed sparring with reporters and invited them into the Oval Office twice a week, Bush has made such sessions so rare that each one becomes a special event.

But as last week's Rose Garden news conference demonstrated, in one respect Bush and Roosevelt were very much alike. In both of them, self-confidence was overflowing. As a counterpuncher to criticism and as a doubt-free exponent of his own beliefs, the current president is right up there with the inventor of the New Deal.

In a remarkable feat of journalistic prescience, the cover of the July 26 issue of National Journal, a highly esteemed Washington weekly, depicted Bush as FDR, electronically placing the Democrat's pince-nez and trademark cigarette holder on the Republican's face in a pose that emphasized both men's jut-jawed readiness to take on the opposition.

The photo illustrated an essay titled "The Accidental Radical," by Jonathan Rauch, one of the most insightful journalist-authors in the capital. His thesis, which I found convincing, is that the two men, who came to the White House after relatively short stints as governors of New York and Texas, respectively, lost no time in shattering the widespread misapprehension that they would, as good Establishment aristocrats, do nothing to rock the boat.

Instead, FDR created the modern welfare state and forged the New Deal political coalition that largely dominated American politics from 1932 to 1968. Bush, Rauch argues, is pressing forward major structural changes in both foreign and domestic policy, revising the doctrine and reputation of conservatism and aiming for long-term political dominance by the GOP.

Roosevelt made his changes under the spur of the Great Depression and World War II. Bush has the impetus of 9/11 to thank for the doctrine of preemptive wars, used to justify the attack on Iraq, and for the creation of the Homeland Security Department, one of the biggest restructurings of government since the New Deal. But many of Bush's other innovations, such as his sweeping tax changes, his education initiative and the pending expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs, are rooted in nothing other than his own sense of what the times require.

The real similarity, Rauch says, is the daring Bush and FDR both displayed -- and the size of the policy and political gambles both were willing to take.

I have commented previously on the surprise in seeing how Bush, who campaigned as a nice guy who would calm the roiled waters of Washington but not upset the status quo, has defied the basic assumptions about everything from the role of the federal government in education (making it much more intrusive) to the conduct of foreign policy (making it much less deferential to the views of other nations). The comparison Rauch makes to FDR does not strike me as being overblown.

But there is one big difference, as he points out. We know how the New Deal turned out. It was a smashing political success, and Roosevelt's unprecedented three-plus terms, during which he led the nation in escaping the Depression and defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, earned him the monument memorializing him on the Mall.

We can't yet know how Bush's experiments, bold as they may be, will work out either substantively or politically. Rauch ends his essay with a chilling scenario in which a mythical historian writing in 2019 recounts how it all unraveled for Bush by the middle of his second term.

Nothing in his script -- an America isolated from traditional allies and increasingly preoccupied with unfinished foreign interventions, its economy hobbled by runaway budget deficits as the demands of its retiring baby boomers mount -- is entirely implausible. But none of it is inevitable, either.

As Rauch notes, FDR's political heir, Lyndon B. Johnson, seeking to match or outdo his mentor, "pushed the system and the public too hard" and left office a badly broken man.

Rauch's last paragraph is worth quoting: "The point of this article is not to predict failure for George W. Bush, much less to wish it. The point is to dramatize the stakes he is playing for. He is risking his presidency, his nation's fiscal and geopolitical strength, and the conservative movement. If he wins, he is FDR. If he loses, he is LBJ."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/8/2003 11:35:13 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
A Perspective From The Coast Of Maine...

To Democratic presidential candidates
letters@TimesRecord.Com
08/01/2003
By Arthur Cannon, Times Record Contributor

Dear Candidates:

The next presidential election is truly critical. Conservatives are already talking openly about turning our country into a one-party government for a very long time, and if the Republicans win the presidency and Congress next year they could well be right.

But Bush is eminently beatable next year, provided you are smart and say, and do, what it will take. Some of you have already begun to do just that, a few of you from the beginning, a few because of recent events. Some of you have yet to wake up.

Whether you were for or against the war with Iraq in the beginning is immaterial; there is nothing wrong in giving our president the benefit of the doubt in such a grave matter. But you must disabuse yourselves of the notion of conceding the national security issue to him and attacking on what seems to be his most vulnerable point: his miserable record on the economy, environment, education, public health and other domestic issues. The truth — a truth you must recognize and make clear to the electorate — is that Bush is even more vulnerable on national security than on domestic issues; his presumed invincibility on this issue, the product of a massive con job.

You must show how his relentless exploitation of 9-11 for his own political gain has made us far more — not less — vulnerable to terrorist attack since that fateful day, a vulnerability that has grown and continues to grow. A few examples:

He has damaged the economies of our state and local governments, to the extent that they have been forced to let go 80,000 police, firefighters, paramedics and other first responders to emergencies, at a time when they should have been hiring many more.

He has reneged on his promises of federal funding for training and equipment for first responders, promises made immediately after 9-11.

He has reduced seaport security by sending Coast Guard ships, such as Portland's USCG Wrangell, and other assets to the Persian Gulf in support of the Iraq war, even though all experts emphasize that our seaports are among the most tempting targets for terrorists.

He has started a war that was at best unnecessary at this time, and in doing so has squandered finite national defense assets, assets that might be needed to meet homeland emergencies or true emergencies elsewhere — such as Korea. (Although the Bush camp dismissed concerns about our military being overextended during the buildup to the war, saying we had sufficient forces to wage war in Iraq and elsewhere, they are now being forced to relieve 12,000 soldiers of the Third Infantry Division in Iraq by calling up National Guard combat units.)

He failed utterly to plan for the aftermath of that war, not only endangering our troops and the peace process, but revealing fatal weaknesses in our superpower status. Other adversaries are likely to exploit those weaknesses while we are bogged down in Iraq.

You must educate the public as to the absurdity of those Bush tax cuts: purportedly to stimulate a sputtering economy and create jobs, but resulting in 2.5 million jobs lost and the economy in a deep slide since the first tax cut in 2001 — while predicting that the latest round will create one million new jobs, at a cost (if successful) of $70,000 per job.

More importantly, you must stress the connection between our ever ballooning deficits and reduced national security: Our very survival as a debtor nation depends on the willingness of foreigners to keep investing trillions of dollars in our government and private entities, dollars that will be pulled the moment default appears imminent. Without them we lose the wherewithal to continue our status as the world's greatest military and economic superpower ever.

Finally, some of you are arguing for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and others of you are silent on the issue. That might win the nomination, but it would guarantee defeat in the election.

Most of the public realizes that, like it or not, we are stuck to Bush's Iraq tar baby also. We may have toppled the Saddam regime, but that obligated us to replace it with a stable representative government, a task that is proving much more difficult than Bush imagined. And if we abrogate that responsibility, horrific consequences will follow with certainty, consequences even worse than the Saddam regime. The various Iraq factions would fight to fill the power vacuum, and not with words; the end result could be a Saddam regime clone, a fundamentalist Muslim state on the order of Iran or Saudi Arabia, a nation torn apart by civil wars into several smaller states, or even — very unlikely — a reasonably tolerant government. But whatever the outcome, it would occur only after much bloodletting as old scores are settled. The havoc would likely spread to the rest of the region, the blowback quickly reaching this country.

Each of you has a great chance of beating Bush next year. And you'll have two things going for you that he doesn't even know exist: the truth and common sense. Don't blow it.

___________________________________

Arthur Cannon is a retired construction specifications writer who now lives and works in Bath, and considers himself an equal opportunity cynic. His e-mail address is acannon2@verizon.net.
__________________

timesrecord.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/8/2003 3:37:34 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
dailyhowler.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/9/2003 10:38:31 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Does the GOP Need a 12-step program on honesty and integrity...?

Message 19194163



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/9/2003 7:58:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
<<...A point is close to being reached where it will be the Americans themselves who discover that they, and their own nation, have been politically hijacked into an global imperial enterprise...>>

Message 18492785



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3956)8/9/2003 9:13:17 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message
____________________________

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The New York Times
Sat Aug 9, 2:54 PM ET

BARTLETT, N.H.— Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had just finished a walking tour through Littleton, a small town near here in the White Mountains, when he paused to take questions from local reporters outside a candy store. There was one subject this day: Howard Dean.

Again and again, Mr. Kerry was asked his views of Dr. Dean. Again and again, Mr. Kerry, who had passed a half-dozen Dean placards on his walk, demurred. When a television reporter taunted Mr. Kerry to at least utter Dr. Dean's name, Mr. Kerry, who is rarely at a loss for words, grinned and pinched his mouth shut.

This is Mr. Kerry's world these days. Three months after many Democrats and Mr. Kerry himself thought he was rolling to the Democratic presidential nomination, he is frequently stuck in the shadow of an opponent who has moved from small-bore annoyance to potential threat. By all appearances, the changed atmosphere in the early battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire has forced Mr. Kerry to recalibrate his approach to the crowded race for the nomination.

By his own account, Mr. Kerry's campaign message — which even some supporters described as toothless and themeless back when the fight seemed simpler — has become sharper, more focused and more compact. A candidate who has a reputation for circular speaking and windy orations is invoking Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman ("I'm going to tell the truth and they'll think it's hell."), and sounding campaign notes from John McCain, Paul Wellstone and, well, Dr. Dean.

Mr. Kerry is denouncing corporate chieftains for "looting America," and proclaiming the economy under President Bush (news - web sites) the worst since the Great Depression. He is attacking Mr. Bush's credibility and competence on issues as different as tax cuts and the postwar cleanup in Iraq (news - web sites) to large and enthusiastic crowds in New Hampshire and Iowa.

"This is the greatest say-one-thing-do-another administration that I've seen in all the time I've been in public life — since Richard Nixon was president of the United States," Mr. Kerry said in Minneapolis.

After what many Democrats, including Dr. Dean, described as vacillation on the subject, Mr. Kerry is now standing by his decision to vote for the war in Iraq, arguing, "I didn't take the easy road, but I took the road that I thought was correct." He is seeking to claim the mantle in 2004 for expanded health care coverage, an idea that was pioneered in this campaign by Representative Richard A. Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri and Dr. Dean.

He is also following Dr. Dean into the campaign computer age. Last week, he began his own campaign Web log, or blog, to provide a digest of his travels, modeled after the blog Dr. Dean has used with great success to rally supporters and contributors.

And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents — none of whom, he frequently points out, have "worn the uniform of our country" — to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security. When an Iowan asked if he had the fortitude to endure a nasty campaign, Mr. Kerry responded: "Listen, man, I fought in Vietnam and I know how to do mud. I'm ready for them."

Mr. Kerry said any changes in his style and campaign — which he said would become even more vivid as he approaches the official announcement of his candidacy next month — were not in response to the ascendancy of Dr. Dean. Rather, Mr. Kerry said over the roar of a private jet flying him through the Midwest last week, any such changes were testimony of his evolution as a candidate, the natural rhythms of a campaign, and the increasing vigor he has felt in the months since he had cancer surgery.

"Look, I had a prostate operation in February and I'm feeling energized again," he said. "I'm feeling fully healthy and well and energetic and focused. I think there's a greater intensity. I'm stronger, back in full mettle and ready to go."

Whatever the reason, the change is bracing, and suggests that the fall campaign will be lively, if polls continue to show Mr. Kerry and Dr. Dean battling for support in states like this. Speaking to New Hampshire teachers at a resort here, who were upset with Mr. Kerry's support for the Bush administration's education bill, Mr. Kerry offered an attack on Republican senators for resisting increased education spending that would have seemed incendiary even from the mouth of Dr. Dean.

"You've got 52 troglodytes on the other side," Mr. Kerry said of his Republican colleagues, before abruptly stopping himself. "I take that back — I'll take that back. You have 50 people who believe something else on the other side of the aisle."

In an interview this week, Mr. Kerry spelled out some of his differences with Dr. Dean that he said would become clear as the campaign progresses, and he emphasized that he would seek to draw those contrasts more systematically in the fall.

"We have some differences in opinion, obviously, and those will become more clear as we go forward," Mr. Kerry said, picking at a grilled chicken salad and kicking off his shoes as his plane banked through the clouds over Iowa. "I'm not for taxing middle-class Americans and reinstating the marriage penalty and taking away the child care credit and raising the tax burden on people we tried to help — we Democrats. These are people Democrats helped. And I think it would be folly for Democrats to turn around and say, sorry, we didn't mean to help you."

"I think I'm stronger and more capable of protecting the security of our country," Mr. Kerry said. Asked to assess Dr. Dean's position on the war, Mr. Kerry, who has been lambasted by his opponents for appearing to equivocate in his views on Iraq, responded: "I don't know his position. He's all over the place."

For the most part, Mr. Kerry's reception these days has been warm, and he is clearly benefiting from a lowered expectation created by the portrayal of him out of Washington as cool and aloof. As he campaigns, Mr. Kerry is very big on physical contact, throwing his arm over every shoulder he sees, grabbing elbows and hands as he moves in close to ask, "What is your name?" And he has learned the value of telling a joke on himself, which inevitably charms and surprises his audiences.

"He seems to be pretty genuine," Eric Dyer, 21, the president of the Minnesota Student Association at the University of Minnesota said after hearing Mr. Kerry speak in Minneapolis last week. "I was probably going to go for Dean. But I came here and I was impressed."

Mr. Kerry's focus on Dr. Dean reflects the fact that each views the other as his biggest threat in New Hampshire because they live in adjoining states. And if advisers to Mr. Kerry and Dr. Dean agree on anything, it is that they would like to see this sprawling nine-candidate race reduced to a two-way contest.

Which is not to say that Mr. Kerry is ignoring his other opponents. For example, he frequently criticizes those who, like Dr. Dean and Mr. Gephardt, would roll back all of the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Asked if he agreed with the accusation by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut that Dr. Dean was leading the Democrats into the political wilderness, Mr. Kerry responded: "I'm focused on my message, my campaign. If Lieberman wants to lash out on a political basis, that's his judgment."

There are, inevitably, still signs of the preternaturally cautious front-runner in Mr. Kerry. While Dr. Dean announces, "I want our country back," Mr. Kerry is more apt to explain that he is running because "this is a critical historical moment for our country and we deserve strong leadership that moves the country in the right direction."

And while he regularly invokes his foreign policy experience in the Senate as a contrast to his opponents, his 19 years in the Senate seem an almost incidental part of his candidacy, particularly when compared with his four years in the military. If anything, like the other members of Congress in the race — including Mr. Lieberman and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina — Mr. Kerry seems to struggle with the challenges of trying to run for the White House from the Senate.

"The Senate presents inherent difficulties," he said. That said, Mr. Kerry rejected the notion that any voter would view him as a Washington insider.

"The question is, are you offering a vision of leadership, and do you stop talking Washingtonese," Mr. Kerry said. "And I ain't talking Washingtonese."

As Mr. Kerry was moving through the White Mountains here today, a reporter asked if he was worried that Dr. Dean had been on the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines — a platform Mr. Kerry would presumably have liked to have had.

"Campaigns have cycles," Mr. Kerry responded, "It's early. It's very early."

The senator, who has spent the better part of two years preparing for this, continued: "I haven't even announced yet. We have some time to create some energy here."

story.news.yahoo.com