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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8022)9/15/2003 2:28:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793843
 
Faith that every conflict must somehow be solvable by compromise

Yep. I think you are right. I see this approach on other issues. Yet the History of the world shows that most of these conflicts get solved with violence.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8022)9/15/2003 2:47:26 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793843
 
Dean really came over great on "K Street."

September 15, 2003
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
The Ex-extemporaneous Howard Dean
By JODI WILGOREN - NEW YORK TIMES


ES MOINES, Sept. 14 — The pins have already started to penetrate.

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, laughed off criticism by his competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination this week by saying that he felt like a pincushion. Then he quietly began making tiny alterations to his standard stump speech, measuring facts and assertions twice before speaking.

President Bush's tax cuts, denounced by Dr. Dean for months as "$3 trillion" or, sometimes, "$3 trillion, including interest," became a $2.4 trillion cut, plus $600 billion in interest, during a rally on Friday in Plymouth, N.H. The 91 percent of new mothers in Vermont who used to get home visits within two or three weeks now get visits "mostly in their homes, some in doctors' offices," within three or four. And when Dr. Dean told supporters at the Bektash Temple in Concord, N.H., on Friday that his campaign had 150,000 donors and the next-best number was 20,000, he slipped in a "that I know of," just in case.

The changes, perceptible perhaps only to the aides and reporters who trail him, show a subtle but significant shift for a candidate who sells himself as unscripted. After a week of accusations that he chooses terms carelessly or says different things at different times, Dr. Dean is now balancing his shoot-from-the-hip instinct with his place in a national spotlight where enemies and observers, armed with Internet research tools and digital video recorders, parse every word.

"If I can use precise language," he explained Friday, "I now do if I can."

Ouch, Another Pinprick . . .

Or, if he remembers to.

One of the sharpest pins yet came on Friday from Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who compared Dr. Dean to Newt Gingrich, the architect of the Republican revolution in 1994, for assailing Medicare and Social Security in the 1990's. At a news briefing at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire, Dr. Dean called the comparison "a sad end" for Mr. Gephardt.

End of what? His campaign? His career?

But a statement issued at the same time from Dr. Dean's headquarters in Burlington, Vt., used the phrase "sad day" instead. An aide explained, "That's what he was supposed to say."

Supposed to? Turns out he had been prepped in a five-minute huddle with aides. He managed to hit the "politics of the past" line but muffed the "sad day" bit.

"I didn't know I said `end,' "Dr. Dean said. "From a Freudian point of view, you could have a lot of fun."

. . . But Only Wimps Flinch

Fun it may not be, but Dr. Dean said the attacks made him stronger, recalling a conversation he had with Gary Hart, who became a presidential also-ran in 1984 and 1988, about how wimps did not make it to the White House.

"It's not a bad process, to be honest with you," he explained over club sandwiches and a spinach-strawberry salad on Saturday at a supporter's home. "If I'm going to go up against George Bush, I'm going to get much more from Karl Rove than I get from these guys."

The attacks this week came from his rivals Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (who said Dr. Dean's comments on the Middle East abandoned 50 years of American foreign policy traditions toward Israel); Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (who took issue with his claim to be the only white politician talking to white audiences about race); and the Rev. Al Sharpton (who called on him to oppose Internet voting in Michigan because many African-Americans are on the short end of the digital divide). Even the Republican governor of New Hampshire chimed in, saying a Dean presidency would be bad for the local economy.

There were no apologies. Instead, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos for the ABC News program "This Week," Dr. Dean bickered over Mr. Stephanopolous's phrasing about his early support of Nafta, which he now says needs major reform.

"You were a strong supporter of Nafta," Mr. Stephanopoulos said.

Dr. Dean retorted: "Where do you get that idea that I'm a strong supporter of Nafta? I didn't do anything about it. I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down the street supporting it. I wrote a letter supporting it."

At lunch on Saturday, he quibbled with another reporter, saying he was just a "supporter" of the trade bill, no adjectives necessary. But Dr. Dean was one of several governors scheduled to attend a White House signing ceremony on the trade bill in 1993 (he said he cannot remember if he made it), and in 1995, on the very same ABC News program, Dr. Dean said, "I was a very strong supporter of Nafta," according to a transcript.

Asked whether he would be "better off" if he did not make absolute statements like the one on race, Dr. Dean said he would be "less controversial" but also "less appealing."

He repeated his complaint that Mr. Gephardt's comparison of him to Mr. Gingrich amounted to old-style Washington politics. Then, regarding the criticism of his statement about the Mideast — which has been joined by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts — he compared two of his opponents to their mutual nemesis, President Bush.

"I think what Kerry and Lieberman are doing is exactly what the president does," he said. "They divide by fear."

A Cacophony of Hoofbeats

Some have compared Dr. Dean to Seabiscuit, the thoroughbred who came from nowhere to become the most popular and successful horse to race in the 1930's. But now he is sounding a bit like War Admiral, the Triple Crown winner who for months shunned Seabiscuit's offer for a match race.

Mr. Kerry, the candidate formerly known as the front-runner in the presidential primary race, today challenged Dr. Dean to a head-to-head debate, saying that the stages crowded with nine candidates did not give him ample opportunity to highlight their differences. Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, demurred.

"There's seven other guys in this race," Mr. Trippi said. "The guy has something to say, he's got plenty of debates to say it. Lieberman hasn't had any problem doing so."



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8022)9/15/2003 3:02:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793843
 
When the Pals complain about the solution, the Israelis can point to their support of Arafat, and say, "Brother, you asked for it!

A Wall More Real Than Any Map
By Jackson Diehl
washingtonpost.com
Monday, September 15, 2003; Page A23

QALQILYAH, West Bank -- On one side of the imposing concrete barrier that now separates this Palestinian city from central Israel, smooth Palestinian lawyers conduct almost-daily tours for journalists, diplomats and European solidarity groups to show how "the wall" has cut through Palestinian homes, separated farmers from land and bottled up 80,000 people in a pocket that can be entered only through a single Israeli checkpoint. On the other side, Israeli briefers point to the more modest, fence-style portions of their "security obstacle" and recount how, before its construction, snipers shot and killed Israelis on a nearby highway and suicide bombers passed through unchecked to Tel Aviv.

For many on both sides, the barrier that Israel is constructing on the western edge of the West Bank was a more compelling issue than the Bush administration's "road map" even before the collapse of the diplomatic process. The unilateral "separation" of Israelis from Palestinians has loomed as an alternative to the "peace process" for the past decade; now it is emerging in concrete and barbed wire on the ground, and the most interesting and dynamic politics and diplomacy here are about what form it will take.

The terms of a negotiated, two-state peace, after all, were mostly worked out three years ago, thanks to the Clinton administration. Most Israelis and Palestinians know what these terms are; most tell pollsters that they would accept them. And yet the leaders of both sides are obdurate: Yasser Arafat already has rejected the available two-state solution, while Ariel Sharon considers it unacceptable. Both still dream of imposing far different terms on the other.

So while the Bush administration belatedly seeks to revive the process it scorned on coming to office, many Israelis and Palestinians have been pursuing a parallel struggle. It's focused on the fence, but it's really about all the old questions that once were thought solved: whether there will be one or two states between the Mediterranean and the Jordan; whether one will be predominantly Jewish; and if there are two, where the border will be.

A surprising number of people on both sides are back to arguing that there should be only one state. Michael Tarazi, a U.S.-born lawyer who often presents the Palestinian case against the wall, would like it to be torn down while Palestinians petition the world for citizenship and voting rights. That would mean that in less than a decade, when Palestinians will outnumber Israelis, it would be possible to dissolve the Jewish state at the ballot box.

Though Sharon says he supports two states, most of his Likud Party and his most likely successors as prime minister do not. Instead, they now press for a network of fences that will connect Jewish settlements to Israel on restricted "bypass" roadways while penning the Palestinian population into several cantons where it may enjoy self-government but not sovereignty. That fence plan is the one on Israeli planning maps.

The hawks' vision of separation can already be seen and felt in the West Bank's road network. Smooth new highways, from which most Palestinian traffic is banned, carry Israelis from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to the settlements while bypassing Palestinian towns. The old roads, for use by Palestinians, are choked with checkpoints and the chaos of backed-up traffic. To travel the short distance from Ramallah to Arab East Jerusalem, one must pass on foot through a border-like obstacle course of hostile sentries and document inspectors -- and to do it twice, in two places.

To be a centrist here today is to argue that the fence should be built, but along a single line that would separate Israel from a territory that could become Palestine. Israeli doves -- the few who remain -- and Palestinian moderates argue for a fence along the 1967 border between Israel and the West Bank. Slightly to the right are those who say the fence should be expanded to include Jewish settlements near the old border, a solution that might allow 70 percent or 80 percent of Israeli settlers to be folded into Israel at a cost of about 5 percent of West Bank land.

It's because of such arguments that the fence has now become part of diplomacy: Bush spent almost as much time on it in his last meeting with Sharon as he did on the road map. So far the 90 miles of fence built by Israel have been on or near the old border, but under Sharon the barrier has crept out to include Jewish settlements on both sides of Qalqilyah -- with an extra fence thrown in to complete the encirclement. Plans call for its next stage to penetrate 17 miles into the West Bank in order to scoop up Ariel, one of the largest and most politically influential settlements. Fences are meanwhile sprouting around Jerusalem, including a large settlement inside the city, while encircling two big Palestinian areas.

Bush seems to understand the new game; he asked Sharon not to build the new fence out to Ariel. Sharon, according to U.S. and Israeli officials, agreed. Now the two governments are quietly arguing about the route of the fence near Jerusalem. How those discussions turn out may mean as much as -- or more than -- whether the peace process of the road map is revived.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8022)9/15/2003 10:27:55 AM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793843
 
It's not reasoning. It's faith. Faith that every conflict must somehow be solvable by compromise. It's disbelief in the possibility of existential conflicts.

It's so much fun to take in sheer abstractions, isn't it. Particularly since no one occupies that territory.

It's the classic, discredited distinction. My side are the dispassionate reasoners, the other side is emotional, irrational faith, whatever. Just one more of the stereotypes in which the other is, at best, unacceptable; at worst, demonized.

Duality thinking squared.