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 (9667)9/28/2003 1:46:24 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
stories on wmd intelligence

There are always "naysayers" out there but everybody was fooled, John. Everybody. I know you want WMDs to be a "Conspiracy" story that brings down Bush but I don't believe that is what went on.

It's almost 8PM here on Saturday night. At Willies, the band is setting up and the ladies are arriving. Time to go.



To: JohnM who wrote (9667)9/28/2003 4:01:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
George Will's column this Sunday is on my favorite Bureaucrat. He finally has a Mayor who stays out of the way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Force Of Better Policing
By George F. Will

Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page B07

LOS ANGELES -- "Progressives" will flinch at the thought, but, judging by the standards they favor, perhaps the most successful public official of the last decade wears a dark blue uniform and carries a gun. He is this city's police chief, William Bratton.

No aspect of contemporary governance -- the delivery of education, medical care, housing or even welfare services -- has achieved progressive successes as dramatic as has policing. These successes have been progressive in that their benefits have accrued disproportionately to persons particularly disadvantaged and vulnerable to injury, including deprivation of liberty, property and life on account of crime.

Between 1991 and 1999, more professional policing, with an assist from demography (fewer young males), reduced violent crime nationally more than 25 percent. In New York City between 1993 and 2001, thanks largely to measures instituted while Bratton was Mayor Rudy Giuliani's police commissioner between 1994 and 1996, crime was reduced 64 percent -- including a 75 percent decrease in gun homicides.

This change, of a magnitude that social science rarely records, primarily benefited low-income minorities living in neighborhoods infested with predators -- mostly minority predators preying on minorities. The facts of crime refute the "progressive" myth of the equal susceptibility, at any time, of all social groups to antisocial behavior.

But successful policing, which led to "disparate" arrest patterns, produced complaints about police. Complainers cited the disparities as prima facie proof of racial profiling. But the racial profile of the beneficiaries of better policing is mostly minorities released from imprisonment in their homes, free to venture into the streets of revitalized neighborhoods.

For a trenchant appraisal of Bratton's achievement and more, read Heather Mac Donald's book "Are Cops Racist? How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans," in which she demolishes the myth of pervasive racial profiling. She warns: "If the police are now to be accused of racism every time they go where the crime is, that's the end of public safety." And of the urban renaissance that owes much to more intelligent policing.

New York was not large enough for two personalities as assertive as Bratton's and Giuliani's. The mayor's decision to fire Bratton probably had something to do with Bratton's appearance, by himself, on a Time magazine cover celebrating progress against crime.

Last October Bratton came west, and he is "amazed at how much goes on out here." This is the most lightly policed of America's major cities -- 470 square miles policed by 9,309 officers. To match New York City's ratio of police to population, LAPD would need 18,000 officers. Divide LAPD's uniformed force into shifts, allow for administrative duties, vacations and sick leave, and only 500 to 600 officers, and fewer than 170 patrol cars, are on the streets of this horizontal metropolis at a typical moment. Hence the always two and often three police helicopters constantly in the air, coordinating ground patrols.

Counterterrorism responsibilities consume up to 30 percent of Bratton's time as he helps police a region that has some of the tallest buildings west of the Mississippi and two ports -- Los Angeles and Long Beach -- through which pass, virtually uninspected, about half of the 6 million shipping containers that enter America each year. And this city is a simmering stew of ethnicities, which gives rise to gangs that have 100,000 members in Los Angeles County.

Of the 100,000, Bratton estimates that 3 percent are "sociopathic." That is 3,000 people of whom Bratton says, "They'll kill you in a second."

Bratton of course believes in incarceration, but says, "When you send people to jail, you're really sending them to finishing school." The Mexican Mafia is largely controlled from prison. In prison, even more than in neighborhoods, gangs offer members at least the hope of protection. In neighborhoods, gangs are one way children navigate what an LAPD study describes, in an inexpressibly sad phrase, as "the gantlet of childhood."

Bratton cannot produce the change -- two-parent families, which are rarities in parts of this city -- that would do more than anything else to reduce crime. But he can campaign for a "critical mass" of officers to give law enforcement the key to tipping a city against crime: consistency.

If progressives are discomfited by the fact that a cop has done more than their usual pinups have done for the disadvantaged, conservatives too may be discomfited, by this: Their law-and-order agenda requires throwing money at the problem of disorder.

"Give me 3,000 more cops," Bratton says, "and I'll make this the safest city in America in two years."

With annual pay and benefits amounting to roughly $100,000 per officer, the annual bill would be $300 million. Given the billions wasted on "urban renewal," $300 million is a modest price for an urban renaissance.

georgewill@washpost.com

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (9667)9/28/2003 4:01:51 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
Freshman Representatives Get Involved in Another Election: The Big One
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — As a freshman member of Congress, Raúl M. Grijalva has little experience in presidential politics. But on a balmy night in early September, Representative Grijalva, a Tucson Democrat, boarded a sleek campaign bus and rode to the University of Maryland to appear before hundreds of screaming college students alongside the man he hopes will win the White House: Howard Dean.

Representative Candice S. Miller, a freshman Republican from Michigan, took her own political ride recently, in a limousine with her candidate of choice: President Bush. Mrs. Miller, who was the co-chairwoman of the Bush campaign in her home state in 2000 and expects to be "very engaged" next year, accompanied the president last week in Detroit. Asked if they talked politics, she smiled diplomatically and sealed her lips.

Election Day 2004 may be more than a year away, but inside the Capitol, presidential politicking is picking up. Democrats are lining up to take sides; so far, more than 100 Democratic lawmakers have declared their presidential preferences. Republicans are angling for roles in the Bush campaign, hoping to hitch their stars to the president.

The maneuvering, says Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, carries both benefits and risks. Mr. Grijalva and Mrs. Miller, whose first year in office is being chronicled by The New York Times, provide a snapshot of how members of Congress are placing their presidential bets.

Mr. Grijalva signed on with the Dean campaign in August, becoming the third House Democrat to do so. That puts him on the ground floor of a campaign that appears to be taking off, though it will not do him much good if Dr. Dean does not become the nominee.

Some House Democrats are playing it safe and withholding their endorsements, but Mr. Grijalva says he was eager to jump in.

"It's not my style to sit around and be coy," he said.

For Mrs. Miller, who often describes herself as a "George W. Bush Republican," a campaign job will offer a chance to cement her relationship with the president. Mr. Bush is known to demand loyalty, and Mrs. Miller was an early supporter, joining up with Mr. Bush long before it became apparent that he would win the Republican nomination in 2000.

"I was one of the first birds off the wire," she said. "I just saw in him the intangible quality of leadership."

Mrs. Miller does not yet have a formal campaign title, and she declined to discuss whatever negotiations might be under way. But it is widely expected that, notwithstanding her status as a freshman, she will have some prominent role.

As a former Michigan secretary of state, Mrs. Miller is hugely popular in her home state, which makes her an attractive catch for the Bush campaign. The risk is that if Mr. Bush loses Michigan, as he did in 2000, the congresswoman could be held partly accountable.

If Mrs. Miller has any worries about this, she does not betray them. "I know what it takes to win statewide," she says, noting, as she often does, that she won every county in Michigan when she ran for secretary of state.

Still it is clear that she has been doing some political calculations. "Michigan will be a critical state," she said. "The president does not have to win Michigan in order for him to be re-elected, but a Democrat can't win without Michigan."

She said she had "no personal agenda other than to get the president elected," and felt that by campaigning for Mr. Bush "I can have an impact, almost, on the world." Recently, she donated $1,000 to the campaign, in keeping with the advice of the speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, who has urged House Republicans contribute as much as they can.

At this stage, few Republicans will talk openly about their efforts to sign on with President Bush. "A lot of members are posturing for key positions in their state in the Bush campaign," a senior House Republican said. He said campaign officials were slowly weeding through the requests and "taking a very deliberative position," offering positions only to those they believe will enhance the president's prospects.

The Democratic contenders, by contrast, cannot afford to be picky; if there is any deliberating going on, it is among those granting the endorsements, and not those seeking them.

Mr. Grijalva said the Dean campaign solicited his support early on. He shopped around first, looking closely at, among others, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader.

Mr. Gephardt has drawn more support from House members than any other Democrat; both the current Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the party's whip, Steny H. Hoyer, are supporting him. But as a freshman, Mr. Grijalva has little history with Mr. Gephardt.

That he settled on Dr. Dean is not surprising. A devoted liberal whose father, a Mexican immigrant, once worked as a ranch hand, Mr. Grijalva believes Americans are hungry for a clear alternative to President Bush. In Dr. Dean, he sees a candidate who will confront the president "in a direct and forceful way."

He rejects the contention of party centrists that a candidate who runs to the left in the primary will lose the general election. "If we take their advice, we will never provide the voters a choice," Mr. Grijalva said. "It all becomes: `How much money can we raise? How can we be Bush Lite?' "

Although they come from vastly different worlds, and have met in person only a handful of times, the Arizona congressman and the former Vermont governor do share a political style. Mr. Grijalva won his seat in Congress with the help of a ragtag band of volunteers who called themselves "A Whole Lot of People for Grijalva," a fact that has not escaped the notice of Dr. Dean, whose fund-raising took off by word-of-mouth and the Internet.

"He built his organization himself," Dr. Dean said. "He didn't owe anything to anybody, and therefore, he is able to say exactly what he thinks."

Their fledgling political marriage was in full view during the rally at the University of Maryland earlier this month. Mr. Grijalva's aides had planned to drive him there, but Mr. Dean's aides insisted the congressman ride on the bus, in a show of solidarity with the candidate. They hustled him on board like he was a visiting head of state. When Dr. Dean stepped on, he grinned broadly and gave the congressman a hearty clap on the arm. "You're the star of the show," Dr. Dean said, although everyone knew that he, and not Mr. Grijalva, was the star.

The congressman seemed a bit bewildered by it all, and confessed he had no idea what he was going to say at the rally, where he was scheduled to perform a two-minute warm-up act for Dr. Dean.

Words did not fail him when the moment arrived. Standing in the dusk, with huge spotlights bouncing off the brick walls of the campus buildings, the congressman from Tucson declared that "the American people are looking for a voice and a vision." As a band of Republican hecklers tried to shout him down, he led the crowd in an impromptu chant about President Bush: "Says one thing! Does another!"

He had never used that line before, he said afterward. But the Dean camp seemed to like it, and someday soon, he just might use it again.

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (9667)9/28/2003 4:13:43 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793818
 
Right on, Andrew Sullivan!
David Brooks' column yesterday, when you think about it, is shocking. And its shock comes primarily from the fact that we all know it already
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REAL MCCARTHYITES: The hard left is always complaining about having their feelings hurt, I mean their views allegedly "censored." Among the more preposterous aspects of Wesley Clark's campaign slogan of a "new patriotism" is his pledge to create America where people are not afraid to voice dissent. Give me a break. This spring, I was almost deafened by the chants of the pro-Saddam or anti-war left. Walking the beagle tonight in my neighborhood in DC I saw three posters portraying vicious hatred of the United States. And that's fine by me. Furthermore, I have yet to see a single example of government censorship in this country since 9/11. (The worrying exception is the way in which the Secret Service seems to be quarantining legitimate demonstrations against the president. But this blog - and many others written by non-lefties - have been foremost in complaining about that). So where are the real blacklists, the real attempts to police thought, censor opposing views and ruthlessly promoote people on the basis of ideology, not merit? On campus, of course, one of the few places in America where the hard left still exercizes as much control as it can. David Brooks' column yesterday, when you think about it, is shocking. And its shock comes primarily from the fact that we all know it already.
andrewsullivan.com



To: JohnM who wrote (9667)9/28/2003 5:16:50 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
Rubin gave Dean the word. But he doesn't get it. And the WSJ gives Clinton the credit that is due.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Places
Dems ditch Bill Clinton's legacy for Herbert Hoover's.

Sunday, September 28, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Howard Dean recently told the Washington Post that former Democratic Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had advised him he couldn't "sell" Dr. Dean to Wall Street if he didn't become more of a free-trader. Dr. Dean declared this almost as a badge of honor, which illustrates a dangerous economic turn in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
We had our differences with Bill Clinton, but there's no doubt one of his achievements was leading his party away from protectionism. Open trade was a pillar of his New Democrat philosophy. He and Al Gore routed the AFL-CIO and Ross Perot to pass Nafta in 1993, followed by bills to create the World Trade Organization and allow most-favored-nation trading status for China. A decade later all three have contributed to American prosperity.

But without a Democrat looking out for the national interest from the Oval Office, the party is now slipping back toward trade parochialism. On Capitol Hill, the party's regional and union interests have become dominant; most Democrats opposed giving President Bush new trade negotiating authority last year. More ominous still is the rhetoric coming from the Presidential candidates.

In demanding that Nafta be renegotiated, Dr. Dean is hardly alone. With the exception of Senator Joe Lieberman, we can't find any of the other candidates who still supports it. John Kerry attacked Dr. Dean as a protectionist the other day, but the Massachusetts Senator has also said he regrets having voted for Nafta. Dr. Dean is also getting whacked from the left for not being protectionist enough: Congressman Dick Gephardt has mocked the fact that Dr. Dean sent Bill Clinton a letter supporting it and showed up for the signing ceremony in 1993, only to walk away from it now.
Meanwhile, Senator John Edwards is sending out weekly news releases trying to pick a trade fight with China. Even Mr. Lieberman, a recognized free-trader, is trying to show he can also be "tough" on trade by joining the Bush Administration in knocking China around.

The Democrats insist they don't oppose free trade but only that any new trade agreements must have "labor and environmental standards" written into them. Dr. Dean has told several interviewers that he would withdraw from the World Trade Organization and Nafta if they weren't altered to ensure that foreign workers have "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the U.S.

But this is a recipe for precisely the kind of U.S. unilateralism they claim to deplore in the Bush Administration. Not many other countries are pleased to import another country's labor laws. Poor countries with low wages especially resent the forced imposition of U.S. rules that assume a far higher standard of living.

As Mr. Lieberman noted in this month's Albuquerque debate, "That would mean we'd break our trade agreements with Mexico, with Latin America, and with most of the rest of the world. That would cost us millions of jobs. One out of every five jobs in America is tied up with trade. So if that ever happened, I'd say that the Bush recession would be followed by the Dean Depression." Dr. Dean tried to backtrack that he'd accept "international" standards as well, but his protectionist bent is clear.

It may be that some of this is due to the free-for-all that the Democratic race has become. The candidates are looking for any edge, and in particular they covet the early endorsement of the AFL-CIO that helped Al Gore beat Bill Bradley in 2000. Union members are a huge share of the nominating electorate, especially in Iowa, where Dr. Dean hopes to knock Mr. Gephardt out of the race.
And yet promises made during a campaign are hard to break. Mr. Bush's trade record is less than sterling, with its steel tariffs and the recent collapse of global talks in Cancun. So trade would be one issue where the Democratic nominee could campaign as the more pro-growth candidate who supports American global economic leadership.

Instead, the Democrats are falling for the fool's gold of protectionist politics. The polls always look at first glance as if bashing foreigners on trade is popular. But campaign history is littered with politicians who have tried it and been rejected. No major American political party has nominated an avowed protectionist since Herbert Hoover in 1928--and we know how that turned out.

opinionjournal.com



To: JohnM who wrote (9667)9/28/2003 5:32:52 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793818
 
As the recall gets down to the wire, Oliphant gets nasty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

THOMAS OLIPHANT
Debating Democrats avoid Calif. pitfalls
By Thomas Oliphant, 9/28/2003

SENATOR John Edwards is right on -- there really is a train wreck coming in the United States, and Americans of all political persuasions are correct in feeling deeply unsettled about a foreign policy mess that for now has linked with an economic policy mess in their worried outlook. In California, by contrast, the train wreck has already happened as the state's voters struggle to decide if it is dramatically different from other states, requiring a unique response, the product partially of politics broadly defined (both parties, gridlock), or of one party narrowly defined (the governor they reelected barely 10 months ago).

That hard-to-define moment when people really begin to pay attention to presidential politics is approaching. A tentative conclusion: So far, the illuminating contest for the Democratic nomination, contrary to past buzz, has made President Bush's position more precarious, not stronger. There is now an opposition, grounded in the broader public concerns about Iraq and the economy, that has gained, not lost, strength with time. You can quarrel with its ideas; you cannot deny its legitimacy.

In California, by contrast, politics itself remains on trial. Sometimes, as in last week's pathetic "debate," a specific event qualifies as metaphor. The contrived, childish brawling showed why the legitimacy of the recall itself remains in dispute, whether it offers the potential of legitimate change or the real prospect, in Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante's apt phrase, of perpetual politics.

In these differently charged atmospheres, it is as American as apple pie for candidates to emerge with the self-portrait of outsider or fresh face or disinterested citizen compelled into the arena by some force larger than their own ambition. Sometimes they are products of real movements, sometimes merely celebrities; sometimes they are essentially frauds, sometimes they are a couple of cans short of a six-pack. Sometimes campaigns sort all this out, sometimes they don't. One of the most refreshing qualities of all their contributions is the reminder that America is not an elitist meritocracy, that "experience" and "qualification" have broader definitions in most people's minds.

In the nation, there are in fact three of these types now in the Democratic race with a chance to move forward: Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark. Dean is by far the most partisan, more by campaign strategy than biography, a true bull in the china shop of his party's establishment. Edwards is more the fresh face, a reminder that progressive values really can come in moderate, engaging wrapping paper. And Clark, at least after 10 sometimes bumpy, sometimes intriguing days, is the clearly distinguished citizen drawing on a leadership ability that so many military people can display.

One of the delightful consequences of last week's Democratic debate was that it exposed the silliness of all the pre-event buzz, which distilled into the preposterous question of whether Clark can spell "cat." Of course he can, which has nothing to do with whether his candidacy will be strong or weak. Much more important, his arrival is one of those events in presidential campaigns whose significance for now is that it is causing a reevaluation of all the candidacies. What Clark has done is throw the deck of cards up in the air. This is always a wonderful, testing development.

By total contrast, the wild card in California now stands self-exposed as part traditional celebrity and part fraud.

What began in the pose of disinterested citizen is now exposed as just another Republican front man for business interests. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't touch evil special-interest money and then went and collected millions from business buddies. These interests are now paying for TV ads slamming Bustamante and even the principled conservative in the race, Senator Tom McClintock, for taking Native-American casino money, as if the actor himself didn't take buckets of the same money last year for his ego vehicle, a fraudulent initiative petition for after-school programs that to date has not funded a single program for a single child.

Because legitimacy is the issue, he lies repeatedly about the state's condition. It is truly a mess, but Schwarzenegger's false description of the budget deficit (by a factor of more than three) and false portrait of massive business out-migration are over the top.

So, too is the one lesson from the Animal House debate. Instead of the issue being that the actor can spell "cat" like Wesley Clark, it is that he really is a loud-mouth boor who thinks shouting over Arriana Huffington is a sign of strength. Schwarzenegger was so dependent on his rehearsed lines that he lacked the smarts to realize that offering her a part in "Terminator 4" tended to confirm his past comments that he enjoyed shoving a female actor's head in a toilet bowl in one its prequels.

He may or may not win, but he showed why legitimacy is still the issue in California. Back here, the outsider Democrats have moved well past it, on their merits.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.

boston.com