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 : Wesley Clark -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (567)	10/9/2003 10:21:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 1414

nytimes.com Democratic Candidates Single Out Clark in Debate By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HOENIX -- Democratic presidential hopefuls focused their fire on Wesley Clark in campaign debate Thursday night, calling the retired general a longtime Republican and belated convert to their party -- and indecisive to boot. "I did not vote for George Bush. I voted for Al Gore," Clark retorted in the most contentious of four debates thus far in the battle for the nomination for the White House. Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean criticized Clark, who jumped to the head of the pack in several national polls within days of entering the race less than a month ago. Dean said Clark had advised a Democratic congressional candidate in New Hampshire last year to vote for legislation supporting the war in Iraq -- a war the former general now criticizes sharply. Lieberman, a supporter of the war, jabbed at Dean and Clark simultaneously. In a backhanded compliment, he said Dean had been steadfast in his opposition to the war. By contrast, he criticized Clark for what he called a history of inconsistency on Iraq. He said Democrats need a candidate who can "reach a conclusion and stick to it." Kerry said that despite Clark's declarations, the former Army general "did say he would vote for the resolution" approving the war. He also said Clark had praised Bush at a Republican fund-raiser last year -- at a time, he said, the administration had already won tax cuts for the rich from Congress and was trying to tap into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina also spoke dismissively of Clark, mentioning that he had always opposed Bush -- even "when some on this stage had hope for" him. Clark labored to fend off the criticism. "I would never have voted for war. The war was an unnecessary war and it's been a huge strategic mistake for the country," he said. At one point, Clark struck an above-the-fray pose, saying, "I'm not going to attack a fellow Democrat," he said. But even that drew a sharp response. "I want to say ... welcome to the Democratic presidential campaign. Look, none of us are above questioning," said Lieberman. The field of Democratic contenders -- shrunken by one with Florida Sen. Bob Graham's withdrawal from the race -- met onstage at the Orpheum Theater in Phoenix, capital of a state that holds an early primary on Feb. 3. The candidates sat on tall chairs in front of identical lecterns, each one bearing a CNN logo. The cable network sponsored the debate, and Judy Woodruff, a network anchor, served as moderator. When they weren't sparring with one another, Democrats took time to heap fresh criticism on Bush's postwar policy in Iraq, faulting him for failing to win significant help from other countries. "You remember on your report card you had your English grade, your history grade and then it said, plays well together? He flunked that part," jabbed Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. Dean accused several rivals of giving Bush "a blank check to go to war in Iraq" by voting for or voicing support for a congressional resolution last year. But Dean also said he would support Bush's request for $87 billion to maintain the troops stationed in Iraq and help rebuild the country. That, in turn, drew a challenge from Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who said the troops should be brought home because "they are targets" for terrorists in the land that Saddam Hussein once ruled. Edwards sought to make the case that his working class background as a millworker's son made him the best candidate to defeat Bush. Kerry of Massachusetts, who grew up wealthy and remains that way, quickly rebutted that. "In Vietnam, nobody cared about your background," said the war veteran. Halfway through the debate, the format switched. The lecterns disappeared, the men shed their suit jackets and fielded questions from the audience. The first one came from a veteran of Iraq who asked what the Democrats would do for military families. All nine raised their hands and Clark, a former NATO commander, drew laughter when he eagerly sought the floor. "God bless you," Lieberman said to the questioner when it came time for him to speak. It marked the first time in any of the debates that the candidates were asked to respond to questions from men and women whose votes will prove decisive in the early primary states.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (567)	10/10/2003 10:48:13 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1414

Scott, Re: Bush not Clark: Is California Golden for Bush? The Democratic spin is that recall was bad for Bush, but a look at the numbers suggests otherwise. by Fred Barnes 10/10/2003 7:50:00 AM Fred Barnes, executive editor WHEN POLITICAL OPERATIVES TALK, they have three options. They can tell the truth. They can spin, which means twisting the truth. Or they can indulge in absolutely laughable spin they don't believe for even a nanosecond but put out anyway. The claim by Democrats that the recall of Gray Davis spells trouble for President Bush in 2004 falls into this third category. Democrats argue the recall signals incumbents are vulnerable, especially the man responsible for the state of the economy, the president. But the exit poll in the recall election found California voters easily distinguished between Davis and Bush. The survey found that only 27 percent of Californians approved of Davis's handling of his job as governor, while 72 percent disapproved. Bush did much better: 49 percent approved of his performance as president and 48 percent disapproved. Bush's numbers are actually good news for 2004. His standing in California is only a tad worse that his national poll numbers. And since he's probably at the bottom of the third year slump that besets nearly every president, chances are his popularity with California voters will improve between now and the November 2004 election. So, at worst, Bush will be competitive in California, which he wasn't in 2000 when Al Gore won the state by 12 points without campaigning there at all. Now Democrats will have to pay attention to California in 2004, instead of taking the state for granted. Of course there are other reasons why the fall of Davis and rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger bodes well for Bush and Republicans. Democrats say voter anger is aimed at politicians in general, not just Davis. But the anger at Bush is limited to Democrats and liberals. And in California, it wasn't only Republicans who voted to boot Davis, but a majority of independents and a quarter of Democrats. Worse for Democrats, the two Republican candidates for governor, Schwarzenegger and state senator Tom McClintock, got about 60 percent of the total vote. How in the world could that be an ominous sign for Bush? And there's more. Schwarzenegger not only outpolled Davis, though they ran on separate ballot questions. He got more votes than Davis did when he was re-elected in 2002. One complaint voters had about Davis was his tax hikes, most recently a tripling of the car tax. But Bush is a tax cutter. Democrats insist he has slashed taxes too much. Fine, but it makes no sense that voters revolting against tax increases will now turn to rebelling against tax cuts. Finally, there's the war in Iraq. Bush won the military campaign and is struggling to establish a secure Iraq with a viable democratic government. His Iraq policy has strong critics, but at least he won the war. True, it's a bit of a stretch to say Davis went to war with energy producers. But let's compare that to Bush's war nonetheless. Davis lost the energy war, sticking Californians with the task of paying for long-term energy deals in which the cost of energy is far higher than the current price. One final thing. It's true both Davis and Bush confront large budget deficits. Bush, however, has credible excuses for his--the economic downturn that began before his inauguration, September 11, the stock market tumble, and the corporate governance scandal. Davis's only excuse is that he spent too much as the economy sagged. Small wonder, then, that voters put heavy blame on Davis, but don't do the same with Bush. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.