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 (4128)8/20/2003 10:23:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
American Voters Have Two Choices: Bush or Bush-lite
__________________

by Hugo Young

Published on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 by the Guardian / UK


The oldest saw in modern politics is that elections are won only on the centre ground. Extremists have to abandon, or at any rate disguise, their passions, and move to positions as close to being all things to all fickle voters as they can invent. That's how Tony Blair made Labour electable. The coalitions of continental Europe are built round the same inescapable proposition. In such politics, nuance replaces conviction, and manoeuvre boldness, as the identifying marks of a winning team.

What's going on in America as the 2004 election begins is unnervingly the opposite. It's one of the more extraordinary spectacles a political scientist, or journalist, let alone a professional politician, could encounter. George Bush is running his campaign from the same fringe position as the one he has adopted for his presidency.

This is a hard-right administration offering virtually no concessions to the soothing niceties that might make it more electorally attractive to voters who are not Republicans. Its tax policy is grotesquely loaded against the masses and in favour of the rich. Its bias on the environment unfailingly comes out on the side of the big commercial interests. It is daily tearing up tracts of policy and practice that protected the basic rights of people snared in the justice system. It is the hardest right administration since Herbert Hoover's from a very different era. And, which is the point, delights in being so. There is no apology or cover-up.

But even that isn't the most striking thing about the set-up as it now stands. For this we have to turn to the Democrats. Unlike Bush, many Democrats are sticking to the conventional wisdom. They grope for some kind of centre ground. But so far has the territory shifted, thanks to the Republicans' shameless stakeout on the hard right, that their quest continues to drain their party of most of its meaning and any of its capacity to inspire.

The rules are being observed, but we find that in some circumstances these rules are a fallacy. They draw a party so far into the orbit of its rival as to render itself meaningless as anything except a political machine of variable potency around the country. Yet the dominant mode of most presidential candidates is still to cling to the kind of centrism that defines them at best as Bush-lite, at worst as people who have nothing to say that could send the smallest shiver up the spine of afloating voter.

One should hesitate to second-guess all these massively professional politicians, laden with polls. But their reflex looks to me as unnecessary as it is self-destructive. One way to respond to Bush's rewrite of the rule book - which covers more contentious ground than Ronald Reagan's campaigns ever did, for example - may be to meekly accept the new setting for old maxims. The other is to treat the maxims, in present times, as a snare.

For one thing, many Democrats seem to have forgotten that they did win the election last time. For four years it has been idle to challenge the Florida vote and the bizarre workings of the electoral college, but now is the time to recall that in 2000 half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore's progressive version of the future than Bush's more conservative one. Bush was still posing as a bit centrist then, and Gore was scarcely a raving liberal. Gore mostly stuck to the Clinton third way doctrine that had taken the Democrats away from the narrowest version of their past. But there was a left-right choice, and more Americans voted left than right.

In most systems, that would have been another reason for the technical winners to gravitate towards the centre. Since that did not happen, it is instead an excellent reason for the losers to rediscover their raison d'être. Yet most of them seem mesmerised with terror at the prospect, and full of guff about Democratic "values" which they take to excuse them from advancing any awkward Democratic policies.

The Iraq war is to blame for this, but only partly. It is Bush's alibi for everything else. To the extent that voters dislike his right-wingery on domestic matters, Iraq and terrorism give cover to the Great Leader. We may be sure he will exploit this until the day of the election. It puts Democrats in a bind, though something has changed when dreary Joe Lieberman, an early war supporter, now feels it necessary to bleat defensively that his was a "principled" position, and posturing John Kerry - probably the favourite as things stand - calibrates a position edging finely away from believer to mealy-mouthed critic. Another year of Baghdad body bags, with Osama bin Laden still at large, and the politics of the war cannot be so neatly predicted.

For any Democrat to take advantage of Bush's waning popularity and overcome his vast campaign finances, however, he must have something to say. There needs to be some clarity, on all fronts. The other day, the same edition of the New York Times carried stories saying that neither young African-Americans nor the Boston Irish could any longer be counted on as part of the core vote. Is this heresy surprising when nobody knows with any certainty what Democrats stand for? If a party can't fire up its core vote, it will be deader quicker than if it can't draw in people who've never voted for it before. Watching what Bush has done to both the economy and the constitution, it should be easy for a Democrat to come up with soundbites and articles of simple faith to inspire a few more than the millions of Americans who voted for Gore last time.

Wiseacres continue to pretend otherwise. They think Howard Dean, the most lefty of the candidates, and former governor of the state of Vermont, could never get elected. Transfixed by the attractions of triangulated centrism, they're prepared to have its geometry laid out exclusively by their opponents. They come out against a bit of the Bush tax plan but not all of it. They're all but silent, as are much of the media, on what anti-terrorism psychosis is doing to civil liberties.

Yet the Republicans didn't get where they are today by such half-baked timidity. The challenge they make is for the life and death of the soul of the America very many Americans still believe in. What their opponents need is a leader whose voice rings more eloquently than Bush's - surely not the hardest contest to win. That won't happen until they abandon their backing and filling, and their belief that being a Democrat no longer adds up to anything more than a milder version of their enemies.

"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater said that 40 years ago. It was the start of the recovery of the right. The words now belong rather exactly in the other side's mouth. If they came out of Senator Kerry's this autumn, they'd make him sound less like a calculating wimp.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

commondreams.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 10:43:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
16 Words, But Not the Ones You're Thinking Of

commondreams.org

By John Turri*

<<...Anyone with an Internet connection could have easily made him or herself aware of the plentiful evidence that al Qaeda and the Taliban were operating in Afghanistan, with lethal effectiveness.

As I said earlier, either Bush is woefully ignorant or a liar. It is beyond belief that he was not briefed on the situation in Afghanistan. That eliminates the first option. So we are left only with the second: George Bush lied to the American public about what is happening in Afghanistan.

We have not dismantled al Qaida, the Taliban is not history, and Afghanistan is in no better shape today than it was a year and a half ago. Afghanis face more problems than the return of terrorist thugs. Afghanistan is once again the world's leading supplier of heroin; women still have no rights to speak of; torture and other human rights abuses are common; the country's justice system is either in shambles or sorely inadequate; and people are still being subjected to harsh restrictions and punishment at the hands of religious fundamentalists.

It is time for the administration to own up to the failure of U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan.

And it's time the President started telling the truth...>>

###

*John Turri is a Javits Fellow at Brown University.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 11:50:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Party Insider: Wesley Clark to Run for President

extremecampaigns.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/20/03 3:29:00 AM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Jeff Dailey, 501-801-8683 e-mail: Jeff@DraftClark2004.com, or Mike Frisby, e-mail: MikeFrisby@DraftClark2004.com, both of Draft Clark 2004

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Aug. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Retired General Wesley Clark will announce his plans to run for president by the end of the month, according to Democratic Party insider Donna Brazile.

In a luncheon speech to the Utah Democratic Party, Brazile said that General Clark would enter the campaign and that President Bush is vulnerable on domestic and foreign policy issues. Brazile ran Vice President Al Gore's 2000 campaign and remains active in Democratic political circles.

Indeed, General Clark acts more and more like a candidate each day, as he lashed out at the Republican administration during a media tour that has included interviews with media outlets ranging from network morning shows to syndicated radio shows.

"It's pretty clear that General Clark has begun articulating his message and telling voters his views on a number of issues,'' said Michael K. Frisby, the media strategist for the Draft Clark 2004 Committee. Frisby said the General will be a formidable candidate.

"None of the other Democratic candidates have raised enough money to scare General Clark away,'' said Frisby, a former political reporter and White House Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. "When General Clark enters the race, he will do something that the other candidates have failed to do: make the case for why the country would be better off with President Bush back in Texas on his ranch."

Don McCorkell, an organizer with the Draft Clark 2004 Committee, said that thousands of Clark supporters have been meeting regularly around the country, building an organization that will become the foundation for the Clark presidential campaign.

"The Clark Brigade is a wave of Clark supporters who are ready to do whatever it takes to get the General elected President of the United States," McCorkell said. "Once he gives the order, our team is ready to canvas the streets in New Hampshire and bang on doors in Iowa to help people understand that General Clark is about substance over style, a man of integrity who will earn the respect of all Americans."

About Draft Clark 2004

Draft Clark 2004, the first political committee to advocate drafting General Wesley Clark for President, is leading the way to convince Clark to declare his candidacy. DraftClark2004.com has organized over 100 regional coordinators in 43 states across the country to support a potential Clark campaign. Thousands of active volunteers are mobilizing Clark supporters nationwide to organize local grassroots activities on behalf of the national draft movement. In addition to its national headquarters in General Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas, Draft Clark 2004 operates a campaign field office in New Hampshire. Draft Clark 2004 has filed as a PAC with the Federal Election Commission but is not affiliated with General Clark, who is not a candidate. For more information on General Clark and the nationwide effort to draft him into the 2004 Presidential race, please visit draftclark2004.com

usnewswire.com

-0-

/© 2003 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 12:16:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
CLARK ON THE ISSUES

veteransforclark2004.us

Wesley Clark - In Continuing Service to Our Country

It is important to know where a candidate stands on the issues that effect us as veterans and citizens. General Clark is progressive on the issues and he has not been reluctant to let them be known. As a military man he speaks firmly and does not waffle on the issues. His words strike home and do not seem to be dependent on spin. Here are some of his views in his own words.



Foreign policy



"The United States has an active role to play in the world, especially in preserving and extending our core values around the globe; however, we must still balance our actions and convictions with the ideals and opinions of other nations."



"The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. ... We are the embodiment of the Enlightenment. If we're true to those principles, then it's a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."



"What I learned during my time in Europe was that the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come. In Europe, and in much of the rest of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to 'be all you can be' are those ideas today. For the most part, these are our own American values. And they are ideas whose formulation and dissemination owe much to American example and leadership in the past. Because we live and extol these values, the United States enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas and projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important American interests."



"We must still recognize and respect the strong convictions of others, especially when they disagree with us. No doubt, our ideas will appear challenging or even dangerous to some. We have to balance our pride in our heritage with humility in our rhetoric. Living up to our values will cost resources that could always be used elsewhere. We can't do everything. But doing what we can will likely mean that we occasionally send our men and women abroad, into ambiguous, dangerous situations. But these are the burdens we must carry, if we expect to maintain the benefits we currently enjoy. They provide hope for others, and a purpose beyond our own prosperity. However, to carry out our responsibilities around the world, strong multilateral relationships are critical; the United States cannot always 'go it alone'."



"Shared risks, shared burdens, shared benefits -- it's not only a good motto for NATO, it's also a good prescription for America's role in the world."



"Achieving success will be easier the more that American actions can be drawn from the legitimacy of the United Nations and American direction ratified by other states and multinational authorities."



"The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created."



"[With regards to Iraq,] rather than presenting the international community with a problem and asking its assistance in helping to resolve it, the United States government effectively presented the solution and asked for countries to agree with its views."



"This is an administration which really hasn't respected our allies. If you really want allies, you've got to listen to their opinions, you've got to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues."



Homeland Security



Working productively with America's allies is critical to winning the war against terrorism."



"Terrorism is a multilateral problem. You cannot defeat it in one nation. You need international police work, teamwork, international harmonization of laws against terror, a whole series of things. You act unilaterally; you lose the commitment of your allies to make it work. That's the one thing that will kill you in the war on terrorism."



"Much of the terrorist network draws support and resources from within countries friendly or allied with us. And here there are very real limitations to the use of American military force. What we really need are closer alignments... Through greater legal, judicial, and police harmonization, we need to make the international environment more seamless for us than it is for the international terrorists we seek."



"For better or worse, however, the war against terror appears to be under exclusive American control. And every twinge of American decision-making that smacks others as U.S. unilateralism undercuts our friends abroad, the very people who must align their laws and procedures with our own if we are to win."

The United States needs to keep homeland security and the war against terrorism at the top of our list of national priorities; we can't be distracted by other entanglements, including Iraq, that might divert our attention."



"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."



"The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."



Domestic Agenda



"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus, which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed."



"I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at."



Pro-choice and pro-affirmative action



Clark told Michael Tomasky of the American Prospect in an interview that he favors both abortion rights and affirmative action.



"[From my childhood in Arkansas,] I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance. I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to."



"I'm in favor of the principle of affirmative action. Whether [the University of Michigan's affirmative action plan] is the right plan or not, and whether that should be 10 points, not 20 points, whether it should be, let's say, an income level cutoff there at which you dont get the points if you're above a certain income, you can tool with the plan. But what you can't have is you can't have a society in which we're not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination. There is, there has been and the reason so many of us filed [an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action plan] is we saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces."



Environment



"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize."



Families and the Economy



"I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got health care, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work."

Sound economic policy and a rejection of the Bush Administration tax cuts

"I would not have supported [the tax cuts]. They were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren't fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it's not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don't have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. One of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we've incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: 'Is this wise, long-run policy?' I think the answer is no."



"You've got to put the country back on a fiscally sound basis, whether that is in suspending parts [of the tax cuts] that haven't been implemented or rescinding parts, that have to be looked at... Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people's needs for services. The American people on the one hand don't like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us."



Supporting the families of America's military



"Put simply, the quality of youth education remains a key factor in the retention and recruitment of personnel in the armed forces. Beyond mere expedience, our nation must assure that the children of its armed forces personnel are provided a top quality education. The United States military force is highly educated and its members hold the same expectations for their children's education."



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 12:43:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
THE WESLEY CLARK WEBLOG

___________________________________

wesleyclark.blogspot.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 6:13:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments: Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

fair.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 6:18:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
A Dirty Job

seattleweekly.com

by Geov Parrish
Seattle Weekly
August 20 - 26, 2003

TO GET AN IDEA of just how wretched a job newly nominated Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt would do if confirmed as President Bush's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, forget about Leavitt's horrible record on Utah wilderness. Go to Salt Lake City.

I did, in May. And entering the Salt Lake Valley from the south on Interstate 15, what I saw made me sick to my stomach. Rounding the curve at the head of the pass separating the valley from towns to the south, the view was reminiscent of those antismoking commercials that show what cigarette use does to your lungs. With the Wasatch Mountains to the east and both mountains and the Great Salt Lake to the west, the Salt Lake Valley is one of the most spectacular urban settings in the country. But on this day, I would be descending into and breathing a sea of yellow-brown glop, the sort of toxic stew that once plagued residents of Denver and Los Angeles. The once- beautiful valley was an urban wasteland.

THE SAME FACTORS that once made Denver's air so bad are prevalent in Salt Lake City: a booming, car-dependent metropolis, a dry climate, a valley prone to air inversions, and an elevation almost as high as that of the Mile High City. The Salt Lake area has far more pollution than 25 years ago because, like Seattle, it has a lot more people and many more cars.

But its smog is also much worse because for more than a decade, Utah has had one of the most pro-business, antiregulatory governors in the country. Who is now poised to become the person in charge of enforcing the entire country's environmental laws.

While George W. heads our way for some carefully contrived green-washing photo ops—oh, and to raise huge sums of campaign greenery from our region's worst polluters—the scuttlebutt in D.C. is that Bush and his hard-line advisers didn't want another "moderate" to replace the previous EPA head, former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. They wanted one of their own, a Westerner like Bush and Cheney and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, someone who'd share their antipathy not only to new legislation but to enforcing environmental laws already on the books. Repeatedly, the White House undercut or overrode Whitman's policies and pronouncements. And this while Whitman herself compiled a record most environmentalists considered awful.

Watchdogs like Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility have for the past 30 months been revealing one horror story after another of environmental law being compromised by Bush appointees eager to please their former colleagues (or employers) in one or another environmentally damaging industry. Leavitt promises to take to a new level Bush's open contempt for the law and for the nation's consistent desire for environmental protection and restoration. Leavitt was notorious for not even inviting environmental experts or advocates to be involved in state-industry negotiations over environmental policy. His Bush-pleasing résumé includes, among many other things, refusing to lift a finger in the case of U.S. Magnesium, whose dioxin-spewing mining facility on the western shore of the Great Salt Lake for years was considered the country's worst polluter.

This is an appointment intended to destroy the environment, not protect it; to flaunt the law, not enforce it. For a president whose environmental record is already, according to centrist presidential contender Joe Lieberman, the worst in history, this is not an accommodation of the nation's wishes aimed at mollifying pre-election criticism. Instead, Bush is polishing his anti-environmental credentials. Having Leavitt run the EPA is like putting Al Capone in charge of the IRS. Or Willie Sutton at the head of Bank of America. And having Bush come to the Pacific Northwest to don a flannel shirt and pose with hatchery salmon is an insult to everyone who cares about our region's natural beauty.

DUBYA'S EXTREMISM wouldn't be possible had the nation's major environmental groups not spent the past three decades forfeiting their considerable public support in favor of Beltway compromising. It's the same trap that has seen Democrats move steadily rightward and away from any consistent governing philosophy, to "take advantage" of neocon extremism, thus allowing the right wing to also move ever rightward. After nearly three years of policy-inflicted damage to the environment that will take decades or eons to undo, will environmental groups now be able to muster enough public outrage to seriously challenge Leavitt's nomination? Will Senate Democrats work to stop him from assuming power? Will they finally begin speaking out for the majority of Americans on environmental issues and fighting against Bush's despoiling of our planet like they mean it?

To glimpse the alternative, don't bother watching Bush's fishy stage tricks this week. Instead, take a good look at the yellowish-brown sludge Mike Leavitt is leaving the residents of Utah.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4128)8/20/2003 8:31:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
The Last Word: Wesley Clark

stacks.msnbc.com

Marching on Washington?

NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL

July 14 issue — For a self-described “nonpolitical” person, Gen. Wesley K. Clark finds himself in an unusual position: considering a run for the White House. Earlier this year, a grass-roots organization started a campaign to persuade the four-star general to run in 2004. Clark recently received more than a thousand letters from supporters in New Hampshire urging him to run, and last week draftwesleyclark.com opened its national headquarters in Washington, D.C.

FOR DEMOCRATS LOOKING to take back the Oval Office, Clark’s resume is a godsend—he spent 34 years in the military and served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander and commander in chief of the U.S. European Command from 1997 to May 2000. Clark has not yet decided to take the plunge, but his name has got America buzzing. NEWSWEEK’s Michael Hastings asked for his views on how Washington is handling its global role. Excerpts at:

stacks.msnbc.com

<<...If you decide to run, will you be looking forward to the political realm?

I love being in the business community. I’m thrilled at the prospect that someday I might be able to create jobs for other people. On the other hand, I’ve always liked the battle of ideas. And to me, competing in the political arena should be first and foremost about the ideas and perspectives that candidates would bring to the tasks, then following through on what’s been promised...>>