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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (6391)8/31/2003 4:00:57 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
Well, "Chuckles," here is a short rundown on Prop 54 from "Time" Magazine.

California's Other Big Question
If it weren't for a little mess about recalling the governor, Prop. 54 would be polarizing the state
By MITCH FRANK

Good news for California voters: in October 7th?s special election, once they say yes or no to dumping Gray Davis and weed through a list of 135 possible replacements, they?ll have additional ballot propositions to vote on. (Note to the secretary of state: Most voters won?t find the other propositions unless they come before the recall question.) The most contentious of the initiatives, Proposition 54, would ban the state from collecting data on race and ethnicity in everything from education to health care to state contracts. In any other election, that would be controversial enough to generate its own media frenzy, but in the recall chaos, it just throws one more wildcard into the deck.

Proposition 54 is the brainchild of Ward Connerly, who made his first impact on California politics seven years ago with a successful campaign for Proposition 209. That initiative banned affirmative action by the state government in schools, employment and contracts. The fight over 209 was ugly and it turned Connerly, a successful businessman and University of California regent, into a polarizing figure. He?s not backed down: in addition to 54, Connerly is currently pushing a Michigan referendum to outlaw affirmative action there, which would effectively overturn the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision backing limited affirmative action.

Proposition 54 is being called ?Son of 209.? Connerly believes that if the state stops gathering data on race, ethnicity and ancestry, California will become a more color-blind society. He complains that the state is forcing people to check all ?these little boxes? which narrowly define people by their race or ethnicity. Critics say Connerly is trying to cure a fever by throwing out the thermometer. They counterattack that collecting such data is the only way to determine if discrimination still exists. Furthermore, there are medical concerns that have nothing to do with racism; race and ethnicity play a factor in some health conditions. Data has shown that white women are most at-risk for breast cancer, while black infants have the highest mortality rate. Connerly?s initiative contains an exemption for medical data, but several hospitals and insurers have said it is too narrow.

As contentious as 54 is on its own, it?s just another bit of drama in the saga of the recall. Poll numbers from this month show the proposition winning by 11 points, but that?s down from a 21 point margin in July. But the polls also show that voters who support 54 overwhelmingly back the recall, while anti-54 voters oppose it, albeit by a smaller margin. That raises two scenarios: Republicans believe recall supporters are going to flock to the polls for the chance to boot Davis out of office and they?ll pass 54 in the process. Democrats argue that Davis and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante can motivate black and Latino voters to go to the polls to defeat 54 and also defeat the recall ? or elect Bustamante to replace his boss. When Davis ran for reelection in 2002, he lost among white voters but won a solid majority of blacks and Hispanics. Davis and Bustamante have both come out against 54; Arnold Schwarzenegger is avoiding the subject for now, telling radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday, ?We have not gotten into the affirmative action and also Proposition 54.?

Most of the candidates have come out in favor of another proposition on October?s ballot ? Proposition 53, which guarantees a share of the state budget for improving state infrastructure, like highways. Amazing ? all these people running for governor so they can fix the budget mess are backing yet another voter initiative that takes away the government?s ability to rearrange the budget during tough times. Just another bit of craziness in the recall mess.

time.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6391)8/31/2003 5:55:58 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793800
 
Oliphant on Kerry and Dean. His comments about Dean's followers on PBS Friday - "Too white, too liberal, too upper middle class."

THOMAS OLIPHANT
Economic focus helps Kerry

By Thomas Oliphant, 8/31/2003

WASHINGTON

THE PRESIDENTIAL campaign that John Kerry is "formally" launching this week in South Carolina is built on biography and resume -- political sand castles that usually disappear with the next tide. It is a campaign, off its performance for most of this weird year, that is capable of heading straight into a ditch. But the campaign that Kerry displayed last week is built on an economic message that is just as capable of heading in the opposite direction, toward the Democratic nomination. Biography and resume, by definition, are about him. An economic message is about us.

In a chat with journalists before Kerry's presentation in Durham, N.H., last week, a senior Kerry adviser well versed in the ways of Washington and Wall Street expressed amazement at how easily Democrats have forgotten the core lessons of Bill Clinton's presidency, when getting economic fundamentals right supported and stimulated prosperity. The core of government policy, he said, must focus on the most powerful engine of growth -- America's middle-class -- for reasons that include simple fairness and politics as well as sound economics.

In addition, discipline must be maintained over the huge federal budget, and trade policy must be "progressive" to foster American exports, meaning no rollbacks of existing international agreements and a willingness to pursue new ones. That is the essence of Kerry's approach, which stands not only as a solid means of reversing an astonishingly poor record by the Bush administration but as a forceful rebuke of two competitors -- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt -- who have let their fixation on a single issue (universal health insurance) cloud their judgment about the income tax burden on ordinary Americans.

It sounds tough, and it appeals to the anti-Bush in most Democrats these days, to call for the repeal of all of the tax cuts. However, that means far more than the unconscionable slashes in the top rate paid by the most wealthy, the cut in taxes on stock dividends, and the lowered capital gains rate.

It also means the recent increases in the child tax credit, the new bottom rate of 10 percent, the much broader 15 percent bracket, and the easing of the so-called marriage penalty. This is where working America lives in tax terms and the impact of complete repeal would be enormous, both on families with a tough enough struggle to make ends meet and on a fragile economy that needs more, not less, consumer spending.

This portion of Kerry's speech deserves repeating: "We shouldn't make it harder for middle-class families to make ends meet and we shouldn't turn our backs on making the 21st century work for all of us. But some in my party are so angry at George Bush and his unfair tax cuts that they think the solution is to do the exact opposite."

Anger, the source of Dean's surge, is a poor substitute for sound policy. His proposal would raise the income tax burden on middle-income households by as much as $2,000 a year, putting a ridiculously brutal squeeze on families, the elderly included, that are being pinched by hard times and the rising cost of essentials as never before.

Kerry's proposal shows how concentrating on the top-rate tax cuts and other high-income areas yields more than enough money to stimulate the economy in the short-term, but also to slash the deficit over time so massive federal borrowing doesn't choke off recovery.

The key, as Clinton showed, is carefully targeted stimuli and new discipline on overall government spending. Kerry emphasizes a tax credit for new hires by manufacturing firms, serious aid to state and local governments whose budget crises are a serious drag on the economy, and assistance to families in financing higher education. At the same time, he recommends the return of strict, pay-as-you go, budget rules for new initiatives.

There are signs that Dean's campaign recognizes its exposed position on taxes. Already, he has begun to speak vaguely of supporting tax reform that would ease the burden on workers with modest incomes.

The situation is reminiscent of Bill Bradley's initial success against Al Gore four years ago. In retooling his campaign, Gore fastened on a hole in Bradley's version of universal health insurance that provided no money for Medicare and ended Medicaid without a replacement of equal value. Gore isolated Bradley as an upscale elitist and hammered him relentlessly.

One speech will not be enough for Kerry -- or for John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, who have similar views. The key question is which candidate will fasten upon a middle-class economic message, almost to the exclusion of everything else, and make the contrast with Dean a question of values.

I suspect most people believe Kerry is as qualified to be president as anyone has ever been. They want to know whether he can make a difference in their difficult lives.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
[census]



To: JohnM who wrote (6391)8/31/2003 10:32:19 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793800
 
Good article by McCain. Dean is on board also. The "Cut and Run" crowd is getting smaller.

Why We Must Win

By John McCain

Sunday, August 31, 2003; Page B07

A recent visit to Iraq convinced me of several things. We were right to go to war to liberate Iraq. The Iraqi people welcome their liberation from tyranny. A free Iraq could transform the Middle East. And failure to make the necessary political and financial commitment to build the new Iraq could endanger American leadership in the world, empower our enemies and condemn Iraqis to renewed tyranny.

If we are to avoid a debate over who "lost" Iraq, we must act urgently to transform our military success into political victory.

We fought a just war in Iraq to end the threat posed by a dictator with a record of aggression against his people and his neighbors and a proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against both.

Iraq's transformation into a progressive Arab state could set the region that produced Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al Qaeda on a new course in which democratic expression and economic prosperity, rather than a radicalizing mix of humiliation, poverty and repression, define a modernity in the Muslim world that does not express itself in ways that threaten its people or other nations. Conversely, a forced U.S. retreat from Iraq would be the most serious American defeat since Vietnam.

America's mission in Iraq is too important to fail. Given the stakes, we cannot launch this "generational commitment" to changing the Middle East on the cheap. The administration should level with the American people about the cost and commitment required to transform Iraq.

Americans must understand how important this mission is and be prepared to sacrifice to achieve it. Without an intensive campaign now to explain what is at stake and absent the necessary political and financial commitment, we raise the potential for a defeat that will deal a lasting blow to American interests and freedom's progress.

Having liberated Iraq, we must demonstrate the tangible benefits of occupation, which the Iraqi silent majority will tolerate if it successfully delivers services, law and order and a transition to Iraqi rule. The danger is that our failure to improve daily life, security, and Iraqis' participation in their own governance will erode their patience and fuel insurrection.

We do not have time to spare. If we do not meaningfully improve services and security in Iraq over the next few months, it may be too late. We will risk an irreversible loss of Iraqi confidence and reinforce the efforts of extremists who seek our defeat and threaten Iraq's democratic future.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, an able administrator, lacks resources and the political commitment to achieve his goal of Iraq's transformation. His operation is nearly broke, and he admits Iraq will need "tens of billions" of dollars for reconstruction next year alone. Yet there is an insufficient sense of urgency in Washington, and needs on the ground in Iraq are going unmet.

Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate. A visitor quickly learns in conversations with U.S. military personnel that we need to deploy at least another division. We need more foreign troops, particularly from Muslim allies such as Turkey and Pakistan, but security does not necessarily improve with each new country that deploys forces. It is the number and quality of military forces, not the number of countries that send them, that matters.

Iraq's reconstruction requires not simply more troops but a different mix of troops -- linguists, civil affairs officers, military police, engineers -- as well as a significant increase in civilian experts in development and democracy-building. The number of civilian advisers in Iraq is astonishingly low. I was struck by the near-unanimity of opinion among American officers in Iraq that civilian expertise -- on reconstruction, judicial reform and local governance -- is as important as our military presence.

I was also struck by the distrust many Iraqis hold for the United Nations. It is questionable whether U.N. authority over Iraq's political transition would enhance its legitimacy. A U.N. peacekeeping force like the one that stood by as thousands of Bosnians were massacred at Srebrenica would not inspire the Iraqi people's confidence. U.N. blessing of the occupation authority, recognition of the Iraqi Governing Council and advising on Iraq's reconstruction could help in soliciting foreign troops and reconstruction aid, but U.N. primacy would endanger Iraq's transformation.

Iraqis must have a greater role in determining their future. Training a new Iraqi army, civil defense force and police force is critical. We should be equally aggressive in training and advising political parties, transferring more authority to Iraqi leaders and establishing a framework and timeline for a political transition.

Let there be no doubt: Iraq remains the central battle in the war on terror. We must succeed in Iraq because every bad actor in the Middle East -- Baathist killers, terror's sponsors in Iran and Syria, terror's financiers in Saudi Arabia, terror's radical Shiite and Wahhabi inciters, the terrorists of al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, Hamas and Hezbollah -- has a stake in our failure. They know Iraq's transformation would be a grave and perhaps fatal setback to them.

Iraq must be important to us because it is so important to our enemies. That's why they are opposing us so fiercely, and why we must win.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona.

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6391)9/1/2003 3:50:47 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
Dean's Antiwar Stance Creates a Force to Be Reckoned With
Ronald Brownstein

September 1, 2003

Austin, Texas

Joseph Seringer, a mortgage company manager here, is calm, rational and well-spoken. But he's also furious at President Bush for instigating a war in Iraq that Seringer believes was based on lies and deceit. He's just as mad at Democrats in Washington who signed up for the ride.

Maybe it goes without saying that in the Democratic presidential race, Seringer would walk over broken glass for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"Dean is the only one who had the guts to stand up and oppose the war in Iraq," Seringer said as he stood in the crush of a Dean fund-raiser at a stylish coffeehouse here last week. "The others were sissies; they just fell in line behind the Bush propaganda. And that war was a lie from the beginning."

If Dean wins the Democratic nomination next year, the explanation may be as simple as this: He opposed a president most Democrats detest when that president launched a war most Democrats loathe.

Lots of ingredients have contributed to Dean's rise this year: his blunt, plain-spoken style, his outsider status, his campaign's mastery of the Internet and his charge that Washington Democrats haven't been tough enough on Bush.

But it was Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq that crystallized all of these factors, and it still provides the most dynamic source of energy for his campaign.

Some Democrats are drawn to Dean's support for universal health care or gay civil unions, and his promise to balance the federal budget always wins dutiful applause. But none of these topics has emerged as real differences between him and his Democratic rivals. To Dean's following, the moment he stood out from the pack is when he stood up against the war. Opposition to the war in Iraq seems every bit as important to Dean's campaign as opposition to the Vietnam War was to George McGovern's successful bid for the Democratic nomination in 1972.

Consider Mary DaSilva, a nurse from Austin who paid $125 to see Dean at the fund-raiser. The first time she heard of him was when someone gave her a Dean flier at a rally against the Iraq war in March. She put the flier in a drawer but found it again in April while the war was raging and virtually all figures in public life were supporting the effort.

"I was thinking, 'Where are the Democrats?' " she said. "I just felt so betrayed by them. So when Howard Dean stood up and said it was wrong, it just drew me to him like a magnet."

Not all Democrats are so fervent. But most share DaSilva's basic verdict on the war. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last week, nearly three-fifths of Democrats said the United States never should have gone to war with Iraq. Only about 40% of Democrats said they considered the Iraq war part of the struggle against terrorism, as Bush has portrayed it. And nearly 70% said the war's aftermath was going badly.

What's more, it appears the Democratic activists critical of the war are much more energized than the war's supporters. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the controversies over Bush's use of prewar intelligence, and the postwar casualties and violence are reinforcing a sense among the war's opponents that they were right all along. "Those of us who said the war was a bad idea now have a chance to say it was a bad idea," said James Hargrove, a retired programmer who was at Dean's Austin fund-raiser.

The resurgence of that antiwar sentiment is unsettling the ground for everyone else in the 2004 race.

Most immediately affected are the leading Democrats who supported U.S. action ? Sens. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. All are facing scorn from an antiwar left that sees their enlistment not only as a policy mistake but a character flaw. Except for Lieberman, who many believe was operating on ideological conviction, the verdict at Dean's Austin fund-raiser was that the Democratic contenders who voted for the war knew it was misguided but supported Bush because they believed it would inoculate them in a general election.

"I think the war right now is a total negative for anyone who was for it," says a senior strategist for one of the Democrats who backed Bush. "And the only thing that changes that is conditions improving on the ground in Iraq. If things continue to deteriorate, we are swimming upstream."

The force of that current has encouraged all the Democrats to more harshly criticize Bush's handling of the prewar intelligence and postwar reconstruction. In that way, Dean's rise guarantees Bush will face a more aggressive critique of the way he has managed the war and, especially, its aftermath, no matter who wins the Democratic race. After the grass-roots outpouring for Dean, no Democratic nominee can afford to submerge the issue as the party did in the 2002 midterm elections; Bush will have to work to defend his decisions.

But the war may create the greatest challenge for Dean himself. It has provided the foundation of his campaign; it might also impose the ceiling. While most Democrats now consider the war a mistake, 60% of independents in last week's Gallup Poll said it was the right decision. Those are voters Dean will need if he makes it to a general election. And while opposition to the war benefits Dean among Democrats overall, recent polls suggest it could still be a problem for him in more conservative states that vote early in the primary season, such as South Carolina.

For Dean, the critical question is whether he can maintain the passionate enthusiasm of his antiwar foot soldiers while convincing more moderate voters, even in the primary, that he can be trusted with the nation's security. Tellingly, Dean reminds voters in his stump speech that he supported the first Gulf War and the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Yet conviction and political necessity virtually ensure that Dean will continue to stress his opposition to the war in Iraq. The biggest applause in his speech still comes when he reminds audiences he was the only leading Democratic contender who opposed the war, and aides say that if nominated, he is committed to arguing that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time.

Republicans believe that's an argument Dean ultimately can't win. Many Democratic strategists privately agree. But a party rank and file eager to hear that case made against Bush is propelling Dean to the front of the Democratic field ? and the war in Iraq back to the center of campaign 2004.

*

Ronald Brownstein's column appears every Monday. See current and past columns on The Times' Web site at latimes.com .



To: JohnM who wrote (6391)9/1/2003 6:34:38 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793800
 
Here's one you and I agree on, John.

Jacob Sullum's
Syndicated Column - Reason

August 29, 2003

Altered Minds
Former drug warriors turn against prohibition.
Jacob Sullum

In the 1980s, not many people could plausibly claim stronger anti-drug credentials than Nancy Reagan. But Forest Tennant could.

"It's great for the Reagans to get up and say, 'Let's do something about the drug problem,' but I don't know who's going to do it," he told the Los Angeles Times in 1986. "Only true professional people like myself can do very much with the drug problem."

The remark was characteristically haughty, but Tennant had the training, experience, and reputation to back it up. A physician and researcher with a doctorate in public health, he operated a chain of drug treatment clinics in California and was widely cited and consulted as an expert on drug abuse and addiction.

Tennant has published hundreds of scientific articles, testified in high-profile trials, and advised the NFL, NASCAR, the California Highway Patrol, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Times described him as "riding at the forefront of the current wave of anti-drug sentiment."

So when the folks at the Hoover Institution who produce the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge were looking for someone to debate drug policy with me, Tennant must have seemed like a natural choice. Imagine their surprise when he ended up agreeing that the war on drugs has been a disastrous mistake.

To be sure, Tennant is not completely comfortable with the idea of treating all psychoactive substances the way we treat alcohol. Among other things, he worries about underage access and legal liability issues.

But Tennant concedes that only a small percentage of drug users become addicted, that the drug laws are not very effective at preventing abuse, and that any increase in addiction that follows the repeal of prohibition is apt to be small. Equally important, he has come to realize after decades of dealing with addiction that the war on drugs imposes tremendous costs in exchange for its dubious benefits.

Tennant says the September 11 attacks had a big impact on his thinking about drug policy. He recognized that the connection between drugs and terrorism, cited by the government to justify the war on drugs, was actually a consequence of prohibition, which makes the drug trade a highly lucrative business and delivers it into the hands of criminals. "We've got to take the profit out of it," he says.

Tennant is also troubled by the impact that U.S. drug policy has on countries such as Colombia, where it empowers thugs and guerillas, sows violence, undermines law and order, and wreaks havoc on the economy. And he believes the war on drugs has fostered systemic corruption in the United States. "We need to try something different," he says.

As a first step, Tennant would like to see states experiment with various approaches to drug policy, including decriminalization of marijuana, a drug he considers much less dangerous than the government claims. He thinks it plausible that in 15 years Americans will be able to purchase pot legally.

This is the same man who made waves in the 1980s by promoting a home eye test kit to help parents detect and deter drug use by their children. Parents were supposed to administer the test every few days, beginning when their kids were about 7. No one could have accused Forest Tennant of being soft on drugs.

Tennant is by no means the only former drug warrior who has become a critic of current policy. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), founded last year, includes more than 400 current and former police officers, judges, federal agents, prosecutors, and parole, probation, and corrections officers. The group is headed by Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police who worked in narcotics enforcement for 14 years.

"After three decades of fueling the US war on drugs with over half a trillion tax dollars and increasingly punitive policies," says LEAP, "illicit drugs are easier to get, cheaper, and more potent than they were 30 years ago. While our court system is choked with ever-increasing drug prosecutions, our quadrupled prison population has made building prisons this nation's fastest growing industry...Meanwhile people are dying in our streets and drug barons grow richer than ever before. We must change these policies."

As an attorney quoted in a recent Seattle Weekly article about LEAP observed, "The news story is not that the war on drugs has failed. It's who's saying it now."

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam).

© Copyright 2003 by Creators Syndicate Inc.



reason.com