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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (174271)	8/22/2003 12:19:42 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577984

Hence the need to run on the compassionate adjective. Your type lives on the supreme notion of the self. You have neither a balanced approach, nor a fair sense of balance in problem solving. It's simplistic solutions to complex problems. The same kind of policies that have failed to bring Israel security for nearly 2/3 of a century. You let them run on long enough, the truth comes out. ted

To: Alighieri who wrote (174271)	8/22/2003 2:42:37 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577984

Al, interesting perspective.......don't agree with all of it but a lot of it makes sense. ted ****************************************************** archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com Editorials & Opinion: Sunday, August 17, 2003 Guest columnist How to beat Bush By Al From Special to The Times As strong as President Bush seems today, he's not invincible. But there's only one way any Democratic candidate can defeat him in 2004. That's by asserting a clear sense of national purpose — by getting the big things right and by convincing Americans that he can provide our country better leadership than Bush can. But there are any number of strategies that won't work for Democrats. Democrats won't win a fund-raising contest with Bush. The president is likely to break all fund-raising records — and no Democrat will be able to come even close. The Democratic candidate needs to raise enough money to get his message across, but to try to match the president is to pursue a fool's errand. Democrats won't win by polarizing the debate. Bush is a staunch conservative, not the moderate he claimed to be in the 2000 campaign. But Democrats who believe the way to counter his conservatism is by moving left to sharpen the contrast — to offer, in the words of failed presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, "a choice, not an echo" — are wrong. A recent Gallup poll revealed that on social issues, 37 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, 23 percent as liberals. On economic issues, it's 43 percent conservatives, 15 percent liberals. Running to the short side of the field is not a winning strategy. Democrats won't win by pandering to narrow interest or constituency groups. Resisting the demands of such groups is hard. That's why Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was right to try to put the kibosh on candidate forums sponsored by organized pressure groups before they cause more damage than they already have. Democrats won't win if they tolerate nonreal candidates throughout the nominating process. Although Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun have no chance of winning the nomination, every time they appear on stage with the legitimate candidates, they diminish the stature of the whole field. So far, the damage is negligible because most voters aren't paying attention. But, as the campaign heats up, the Democrats' chances of defeating Bush will be damaged significantly if these candidates stay in the race. Finally, Democrats won't win without strengthening their appeal to what President Clinton called the "forgotten middle class." In the 2000 and 2002 elections, Democrats won only the votes of high-school dropouts and the educational elite (voters with postgraduate degrees). They lost the huge mass of voters of educational levels in between. Over the long haul, that's an unsustainable alliance, because high-school drop- outs and postgraduates have very different demographics and very different views on cultural issues. As the campaign begins in earnest, Democrats need to remember that their party has had its greatest successes when it has championed great national purposes. Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism from its excesses; lifted us from Depression; built the greatest army, navy, air force, and merchant marine in the world; and defended freedom and democracy from fascism and Nazism. John F. Kennedy restored our confidence, which had been shattered by Sputnik, strengthened our defenses and our economy, and set in motion the process to put a man on the moon. Lyndon Johnson championed civil rights, ending legal segregation and winning for African Americans the right to eat in restaurants, sleep in hotels and, most important, to vote, without suffering discrimination. Bill Clinton saved progressive government from its excesses, ended two decades of stagnation with unprecedented prosperity, overhauled our social safety net by replacing welfare with a work system, and reversed decades of spiraling violent crime. For Democrats to beat Bush next year, they will have to build on the traditions of their most successful presidents — espousing a clear national purpose and getting the big things right. For 2004, that requires common sense and realism, not rocket science. It means dedicating a presidency to fighting the war on terrorism and keeping our country safe. It also means building a strong, growing 21st-century economy that expands opportunity, creates jobs again, raises incomes and secures retirement — all the things Bush has failed to do. A candidate with a progressive agenda to achieve those goals will have a real chance to send Bush into early retirement. In the first debate among Democratic presidential contenders this spring, Sen. Joe Lieberman argued: "I am the one Democrat who can match George Bush in the areas where many think he's strong — defense and moral values — and beat him where he's weak — on the economy and his divisive right-wing social agenda." Whether Lieberman has the chance to prove that will be decided by the primary voters. But the formula he has laid out for taking on the president is exactly the right one for a Democrat to follow. Al From is founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council. This article originally appeared in the DLC's Blueprint magazine, available online at www.ndol.org/blueprint