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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (29952)	10/11/2003 6:13:50 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 89467

Although, I read it here...Arnold is using Jeb Bush's financial advisor. He's in play with the president, who must now make arnold look good, so he can look good...there's the rub.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (29952)	10/11/2003 6:16:23 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 89467

Why hasn't Ascroft thrown Novak in jail? Two different journalists refuse to reveal their sources to the Justice Department. One is a bit-player in a Houston crime drama. The Bush Administration declares it doesn't believe she's even a journalist, and has her locked up. The other's a long-time Washington fixture who holds the key to a burgeoning scandal: Who in the White House unmasked a CIA agent working to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- endangering that agent's life, and revealing CIA front companies she worked at? The Bush Administration's response: Yeah, we're probably not going to get to the bottom of that one. I'm not suggesting Robert Novak be locked up. I am suggesting that the Bush Administration is the very definition of shifty-eyed hypocritical cowardice. They imprisoned Vanessa Leggett, a novice crime writer who had researched a Houston society murder prosecutors felt confident they had sewn up -- only because Leggett refused to surrender her notes and sources when the government demanded them. Leggett had promised otherwise -- and it's a journalist's perogative not to reveal sources who quietly have agreed to share truths and information. So the Feds threw her in jail. With John Ashcroft looking on in stony silence, and ignoring letters and pleas from First Amendment advocates, the president's legal geniuses kept her there for a record-breaking 5 and 1/2 months. During this period, the United States joined Cuba as the only other nation in the Western hemisphere to hold journalists in jail over their work. So if they play that kind of hardball when the stakes are so low, one would expect real fireworks when the stakes are as high as a White House operative destroying a CIA agent. Right? Nah. President Bush says we'll probably never get around to figuring out who in his Administration used Robert Novak and others to unmask the agent-wife of one of his critics. (And "used" is the operative word here -- which is precisely why Novak ought to feel free to reveal his source. We journalists protect sources for giving us information; we do not have the right or privilege or obligation to protect them when they've used us to commit a crime.) "I mean, this is a town full of people who like to leak information," said Bush this week in explaining how hard it was going to be to find his guilty employee. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea. And I'd like to. I'd like to know the truth." Turning the tables on reporters, Bush added: "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partly because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." Sure, blame the press. It's probably our fault he can't find Osama or Saddam too. Yet all the same, where's that Ashcroftian cement-eyed vigilance we saw in Leggett's case? When the government wanted her small-time sources in a small-time matter, she was locked up for months. Now, the President himself claims to want Novak's sources -- because those sources work for the President and may have committed a crime. The President could come down harder on Novak and other journalists who received the leak. Or he could ask his employees to sign an affidavit like this one and get right to the bottom of things. Instead, the White House spokesman is squirming his way through evasive legal hairsplits. While Washington insiders are joking -- shades of Clinton-Lewinsky -- "I did not have conversations with that man." www.thenation.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (29952)	10/11/2003 6:19:27 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Republicans might also take a few lessons from the triumph of the Terminator. Schwarzenegger's socially moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-education positions allowed him a much broader appeal than the previous two, failed, ultraconservative GOP gubernatorial candidates. The rise of Arnold could potentially drag the Neanderthal wing of the California Republican Party closer to the state's majority sensibilities. www.thenation.com Total Recall by Marc Cooper Los Angeles The people of California have spoken. And by shouting out the two words "Governor Schwarzenegger" they have set off one more political earthquake, whose vibrations are sure to be felt from Sacramento to Washington, DC. Turning out in much higher numbers than for last fall's general election, and often after waiting for more than ninety minutes to cast their ballots, a double-digit majority voted to yank Gray Davis from the Statehouse and replace him with the Austrian-born Terminator. For two decades, the dour Davis built a successful political career by making himself a bit less unpalatable than the other guy--until now. The energy crisis, a black hole budget deficit, a tripling of the car tax, education cuts, 30-40 percent tuition hikes and a money-for-influence ethic that showcased political backscratching rather than leadership drove Davis's popularity ratings down into the Yeltsin-like mid-20s. Too many liberal and progressive activists misjudged the recall revolt and wound up on the wrong side of a populist tsunami. Instead of validating the raw voter anger and deep dissatisfaction that fueled the anti-Davis backlash, they discounted the recall as an illegitimate GOP "power grab." That theory was soundly rebuked by the sheer numbers. Schwarzenegger received more votes than those cast against the recall, and by the time all the ballots are counted he'll get more votes than Davis did in his narrow re-election last November. Nor did a strategic chunk of the traditional Democratic base buy their leaders' warnings that the recall was Florida redux. Democrats make up 44 percent of the state's registered voters but accounted for only 38 percent of Tuesday's votes. One in four Democrats voted to sack Davis. And ignoring a $10 million pro-Davis push by the state labor leadership, half of union households voted to oust the governor, as did nearly half of Latino voters and almost 30 percent of blacks. Forty-two percent of the gay and lesbian vote favored recall, as did 24 percent of self-described liberals. Headlines about Schwarzenegger's alleged groping didn't deter 43 percent of women from voting for him, compared with 36 percent for the listless Democrat Cruz Bustamante (no doubt, Democratic apologies for Bill Clinton's sex scandals paved the way for a collective Big Shrug over Arnold's sins). But mostly, Democrats have to ask themselves how it's possible that the Republican Schwarzenegger--who took in $10 million in corporate contributions--was able to claim the populist mantle of slayer of special interests. Why, on the closing weekend of the campaign, did 10,000 Schwarzenegger supporters, rather than a legion of reformers and progressives, surround the lobbyist-infested state capitol? There are 78 million answers--one for each dollar in contributions raised by Davis in his last campaign. Therein lies a cautionary tale for Democrats and progressives--the price of wedding themselves to the poster boy of big-money politics, Gray Davis, was too high. With all his obvious flaws and hypocrisies, Arnold Schwarzenegger just looked better, and cleaner. Republicans might also take a few lessons from the triumph of the Terminator. Schwarzenegger's socially moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-education positions allowed him a much broader appeal than the previous two, failed, ultraconservative GOP gubernatorial candidates. The rise of Arnold could potentially drag the Neanderthal wing of the California Republican Party closer to the state's majority sensibilities. Nor should the Bushies develop too many illusions about Arnold's significance: Bush's prospects of winning Democrat-heavy California next year, even with Arnold in the governor's mansion, remain slim to none. Further, California's voter revolt has implications way beyond the person of Gray Davis. The more astute Republican analysts have already acknowledged its decidedly anti-incumbent tinge. Said Allan Hoffenblum, a moderate GOP strategist, "If Californians had the constitutional right to recall all 120 members of the state legislature they probably would have done that too."