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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4014)	8/11/2003 7:17:37 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

RE:Democrats Unlikely To Retake House Interesting.....

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4014)	8/12/2003 10:37:12 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Cal Thomas Arnold is no Ronald newsandopinion.com \| Ronald Reagan was an actor who became governor of California, so why not Arnold Schwarzenegger? Or so the argument goes. Why not actor Gary Coleman, then, or any of the other candidates for whom inexperience, not to mention cluelessness about what's needed to repair the damage done to the state's economy, seems to be their main qualification? President George Bush has endorsed Schwarzenegger, saying he would make a good governor. Based on what? The president couldn't possibly know what Schwarzenegger stands for, because no one else seems to know, including Arnold. At least he has his lines down. In rapid-fire TV appearances following his "Tonight" show announcement that he is a candidate should voters recall Gov. Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger lamented the exodus of businesses from the state and said something must be done to get them back. Would he cut taxes and reduce the regulations that caused them to flee? He didn't say. According to the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, between January 2001, and January 2003, California lost 223,900 private-sector jobs, but government jobs rose by 121,700. Can he reverse that trend? He's not saying - yet. What about social issues such as same-sex "marriage"? "I don't want to get into that right now, "Schwarzenegger told ABC's "Good Morning America." He has advocated reversing the car tax increase - an issue former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore rode to victory in the '90s - but he also wants to spend more on school construction and hire more teachers. Schwarzenegger seems to think he can take advantage of voter distrust and disgust with Davis by focusing on the embattled governor and not himself. That may work for the first week or two, but Arnold is going to have to come up with a platform that is more substantive than "I'm not Gray Davis." His aides say one will be forthcoming. Contrast Schwarzenegger with Ronald Reagan. By the time Reagan ran for governor in 1966 (winning by a 1 million-vote margin), his political philosophy had matured. He converted from Democrat to Republican while president of the Screen Actors Guild during debates about the alleged influence of communism in the film industry. He toured the country under the auspices of General Electric, which sponsored his TV show. But Reagan's philosophy began evolving much earlier. In a soon-to-be-published book of his letters compiled by longtime aide and family friend, Martin Anderson, Reagan expresses interest in the world around him as early as age 11. Reagan's former attorney general and top California aide, Ed Meese, recalls that before Reagan decided to run for governor, he made a series of 10-minute talks around the state, followed by a question-and-answer session that lasted an hour. Meese tells me, "(Reagan) studied briefing books about state government and how it was organized and then he told people what he would do." Schwarzenegger is part of a political family, but it's the Kennedy family. He is a social liberal and is bound to disappoint conservative Republicans, even if he is the GOP's only hope for getting back in power in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger not only supports abortion on demand, but homosexual adoption and what he has called "sensible gun controls." His political baptism occurred last year when he successfully pushed for a series of before- and after-school programs that will, according to some estimates, cost California taxpayers up to $455 million annually. After the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Schwarzenegger seemed to express disgust with the process, saying in a George magazine interview in 1999, "That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for." Another thing? What else is there for which you will not forgive your party, Arnold? The Schwarzenegger candidacy reminds me of a 50-year-old movie, "A Face in the Crowd," in which some political opportunists take a country hick (played by Andy Griffith) and attempt to turn him into a political powerhouse so he can become president with them pulling his strings. Schwarzenegger is probably more sophisticated than that film character, but does he have any convictions that differentiate him from Davis and much of the rest of the pack? To paraphrase the late Desi Arnaz, another actor with a thick accent: Arnold, you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do. You are no Ronald Reagan.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (4014)	8/12/2003 10:37:42 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Dennis Prager What makes a liberal? jewishworldreview.com \| Why do people hold liberal-left positions? (Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.) This question has plagued me because I have long believed that most people, liberal or conservative, mean well. Very few people wake up in the morning planning to harm society. Yet, many liberal positions -- I emphasize liberal positions rather than liberals because most people who call themselves liberal do not hold most contemporary liberal positions -- have been wreaking havoc on America and the world. How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions? There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive. At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook. A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil. Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces. "Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote? The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed. That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth. There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And comfortable people don't like to be made uncomfortable. Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.