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: Raymond Duray who wrote (4402)	8/28/2003 10:40:22 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

FAIR AND BALANCED ______________________________ Thursday \| August 28, 2003 Lott -- "cut domestic programs to fund Iraq" Chris Matthews is beating up on Trent Lott right now, asking how much "Bush's war" will cost US taxpayers in a time of record deficits. Given the choice between raising taxes, more deficit spending, or cutting domestic services, Trent chose door number three -- cutting domestic services. It's remarkable -- seeing Bush and his cabal on the defensive. And the war is now indefensible. Turning to CNN, a report is airing complaints that the administration hid the true costs of war. The true cost of war? "Tens of billions", says Bremmer. Also today, two more Americans have died in Bush's war. Back to MSNBC, Trent Lott, in that Matthews interview, denied vehemetly it was "Bush's war" -- he claimed it belonged to all of the US, and to the Congress who voted for the war. And to the Democrats who voted for it. Fair enough. It belongs to every person who voted for it. Including the Democrats. I hope they can sleep at night after their sick little political "calculation". Voting for this war was a BAD move. A bad move for the 331 allied troops who have given their lives. A bad move for the people who depend on the social programs that Trent Lott will cut to pay for it. A bad move for the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have given their lives. A bad move for the tens of thousands of injured. So yes, I blame Congress -- every last person who voted for the war. But at the end of the day, it was Bush's lies that created the impetus for that vote. So, without a doubt, this is Bush's War. Whether he likes it or not. dailykos.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4402)	8/28/2003 11:01:37 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

I am not someone who thinks that oil is the primary motive for the administration's course in Iraq. However, there is no question that Iraq has become, for certain people, a fantastically lucrative venture. Mr. Bremer's latest appropriation suggestions underscore this nicely, and I wonder if some of the administration's recalcitrance might be ascribed to simple conflicts of interest -- if the people who have their ear might also have a significant stake in keeping international community, and the ostensible opening of future contracts to competitive international bidding, at bay. What does everyone think the effects of giving the United Nations a lead role in Iraq would be upon the granting of contracts, both for oil and reconstruction services, to American companies -- specifically, to Bush adminstration donors and cronies? Has anyone analyzed this? I feel like I haven't read anything dealing specifically with that, though it might have just slipped under my radar. Posted by Brandon Keim at August 27, 2003 10:06 PM dailykos.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4402)	8/28/2003 12:43:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Dreams of Jimmy Dean ___________________________________ Aug 28th 2003 From The Economist print edition economist.com A toothy nightmare for Republicans AS KARL ROVE drifts off into the fretful sleep of all great political operatives, one name probably consoles him: George McGovern. The president's opinion-poll ratings may be sky-diving, Iraq may be morphing from triumph to quagmire, the much-vaunted recovery may be jobless, but the Republicans' main strategist can still count on those crazy Bush-hating Democrats to nominate Howard Dean, the darling of the anti-war movement. And, just like Mr McGovern, the scourge of the Vietnam war in 1972, he can be trounced at the polls. The McGovern comparison is now the political orthodoxy on Mr Dean. With the Vermonter leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire (where he leads John Kerry by a massive 21 points) and downloading money off the internet by the clickful, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council is already screeching with alarm. Far from denying the McGovern link, Mr Dean's two most loyal constituencies—young idealists and Volvo-driving professionals—positively celebrate it. (Indeed, some of the older fans probably worked for Mr McGovern in their impecunious youth.) Full disclosure: this column once described Mr Dean as two parts McGovern to one part McCain. So Mr Rove can sleep soundly? Well, consider another name from the past. Possibly, just possibly, the real comparison should be not with Mr McGovern but with Jimmy Carter. Mr Carter may be no more than a cuddly old joke to many conservatives nowadays. But back in 1976, he was certainly no joke to Gerald Ford. Mr Carter (to whom Mr Dean talks regularly) seized the White House by presenting himself as a very different creature from the hapless president he later became. The two great themes of his campaign seem familiar today. First, Mr Carter sold himself as the voice of authentic America running against the phoney-baloney Washington establishment, a class in which he included Democrats as well as Republicans. He made great play of being a God-fearing southern governor who made his living farming peanuts. He encapsulated popular disgust with inside-the-Beltway by claiming that he wanted “a government as good as its people”, and he put enormous store in personal probity, promising the American people that “I will never lie to you.” On his recent “Sleepless Summer” tour, Mr Dean's speech reached a climax when he swore he would make people “proud to be American again”. He presented the Democratic establishment as Mr Bush's moll—a cowed co-dependant making compromise after compromise on taxes and Iraq. High time, he cried, for a straight-talking doctor to stand up for the real America. The second big comparison with Mr Carter is both men's capacity for defying political stereotypes—for mixing left-wing and right-wing ideas together. Candidate Carter captured the moral indignation of liberal America over Watergate; but he was also a southern Baptist who supported balanced budgets, denounced the welfare system for discouraging work and family values, and tried to cut red tape. Having begun 1976 as the choice of just 4% of Democrats, the peanut farmer cleverly circumvented the established veterans of both wings of his party, notably Scoop Jackson on the right and Morris Udall on the left. Mr Dean is also much more eclectic than many people suppose. Yes, he opposed the war in Iraq, but he boasts that he would “never hesitate” to send American troops “anywhere in the world to defend our country”. Yes, as Vermont's governor he signed the most liberal gay-marriage bill in the country, but he supports gun rights and the death penalty. Yes, he promises more health-care coverage and more taxes on the rich, but he has cut government, reduced taxes and forced welfare recipients to look for work. The clever thing about populism and political eclecticism is that they go hand-in-hand. What could be more outsiderish than defying party orthodoxies, picking up good ideas wherever you find them and avoiding becoming a prisoner of any of the party's interest groups? In the 1970s, many Democrats regarded Mr Carter as a man who could revitalise a party that was still too fixated on the New Deal. Mr Dean's populism also gives him that revitalising edge. A peanut for your thoughts As Mr Rove tosses and turns, he can reassure himself with several differences between 1976 and 2004. Mr Ford was running as the anointed heir of Richard Nixon just after Watergate. Despite the flap over Iraq, most Americans still trust Mr Bush. Even better, Mr Dean comes from the wrong part of the country—the liberal north-east. He will have a much harder time convincing independents of his conservative side than the southern Mr Carter had. And of course, ever since September 11th, Mr Bush has had the trump card of national security. Against a full-scale assault from Mr Rove's troops next year, a Nominee Dean will have difficulty explaining the subtleties of his position on defence. But politics is a moving form of warfare. Mr Dean's stand on Iraq looks less controversial with every American soldier who is shot and with every day that passes without weapons of mass destruction being discovered. Moreover, Mr Dean is not staying still, waiting for Mr Rove to McGovernise him. In his current stump speech, he claims he can no longer be rude about Republicans because so many support him. And he has also reacted warmly to suggestions that he might choose General Wesley Clark as his running mate. Just like Mr Carter in 1976, Mr Dean has a chance to exploit a widespread feeling of frustration with the direction of the country. To do that will surely need more mistakes by Mr Bush and extraordinary political skill on his own part. But it has already taken quite a lot of political skill to turn a no-hoper from a backwoods state into the front-runner in the Democratic field.