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

To: LindyBill who wrote (11789)	10/11/2003 6:37:52 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793689

Sealed, Signed, and Undelivered By The Prowler THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL Gov. Gray Davis may not have been the biggest loser in the California recall. Some Democratic National Committee members are calling for DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe to explain his odd behavior in the days leading up to Tuesday's election debacle. McAuliffe appeared on cable news channels and gave print interviews citing DNC internal polling data that showed the recall election too close to call. He also claimed that he had numbers indicating Democrats would emerge unscathed from the election. He also claimed that even if Arnold Schwarzenegger did win, he'd do so with fewer votes than Davis would receive from voters opposed to his recall in the first place. In fact, Schwarzenegger outpaced Davis by more than 100,000 votes. "I don't know where the hell McAuliffe got his info, but he was treating it like sacred writ, and it was just trash," says a California Democratic Party official in Los Angeles. "I know he likes to blow a lot of sunshine up peoples' behinds, but this was just embarrassing for us." McAuliffe's misdirection -- and this is putting it kindly -- was even more egregious when you consider that on Monday night, Davis advisers showed their boss tracking poll data that indicated the Republican frontrunner had actually widened his lead over Davis in the previous 48 hours. "Davis knew he was dead on Monday night," says a Democratic operative in Sacramento. "By Tuesday morning, this was all about trying to put a dignified face on defeat." McAuliffe has attempted to beautify his party's electoral performance before. He willfully misled his faithful followers during the 2002 midterm elections, claiming his party would at least hold their seats in Congress, and instead saw the Democrats lose ground in both houses. "We're getting tired of his shtick," says a DNC donor in New York. "He's been telling us how we're doing great in raising money for the convention in Boston, but there are more than a few of us who don't believe it. On the ground, we're hearing that we aren't raising much of anything to pay for the convention." McAuliffe has defended his brand of optimistic spin as a necessity in times when the party is down in the dumps with no clear successes in sight. That said, his recent performances aren't helping in the fundraising front. The Democrats trail Republicans badly in almost all categories of fundraising. Things are so bad, the national party isn't in a position to help its state parties. Recently, according to a DNC staffer, the South Carolina Democratic Party contacted the DNC for help in raising a little more than $500,000 to finance its 2004 presidential primary. The DNC couldn't help, and didn't. Now the state party is looking into other options. americanprowler.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (11789)	10/11/2003 6:50:37 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

"Eagles" I haven't heard of. "Social conservatives" -- as far as I can tell, this means outlawing abortion completely, and outlawing homosexuality, as well. Abortion used to be the hottest button. I don't believe in unrestricted abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy, but don't think it's murder to use morning after pills. To "social conservatives" that makes me a murdering liberal, and to "liberals" that makes me a woman-hating fascist. Homosexuality, for reasons I can't comprehend, is turning into another hot button. I've told this anecdote before - when I was a kid, my grandmother rented out the "little house" behind their business to a devoted homosexual male couple. One of them was the stereotypical hairdresser, the other worked at Keesler Air Force Base doing clerical type work. My grandmother let me know they were gay, and this was fine with her - I have no idea what words she used, this was almost 40 years ago - but she probably said, she didn't care if they were white, black, green, purple or polka-dotted, which was an expression of hers. Now, this was 1960-1965 in Biloxi, Mississippi, so if my grandmother didn't care, then, why should anybody care now? In "Do the Right Thing," Danny Glover says that we all know what the right thing is, it's what our grandmothers taught us. I had good grandmothers, and I miss them. No idea whether they'd like Schwarzenegger, but they were suckers for good looking guys who were polite and well-spoken. I don't think they would have liked Clinton, at least not after he'd been around for a while (too slick), and they would probably have doted on Dubya.