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: JohnM who wrote (11937)	10/12/2003 2:38:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793669

Clinton gives Kerry a boost October 12, 2003 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Bill Clinton recently told Sen. John Kerry privately that it now looked as though he and Gen. Wesley Clark were the only Democrats who could beat George W. Bush in the general election. The former president based that assessment on the Gallup Poll but made it appear it was his own opinion as well. That boosted the spirits of Kerry, who has slipped from his front-running status for the Democratic nomination. However, Kerry lieutenants consider it to be Clinton soft soap that he probably is dispensing to other Democratic presidential aspirants. A footnote: Kerry supporters are counting on Clark to take away enough votes in New Hampshire from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to enable the Massachusetts senator to win a primary election he cannot afford to lose. Arnold's team California Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger was so impressed by his Washington-based campaign consultant Mike Murphy that he has asked him to be his chief of staff in Sacramento. Murphy, who handled media and overall strategy, declined. During the recall election campaign, Schwarzenegger often conferred with Murphy and Rep. David Dreier, chairman of the U.S. House Rules Committee. Dreier, who was Schwarzenegger's most effective campaign spokesman, heads the governor-elect's transition team. A footnote: Conservative Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock did not end up on good terms with Schwarzenegger after finishing third in the election. Chances of a warm relationship between them faded when McClintock credited late, unsubstantiated reports that Schwarzenegger had been pro-Hitler by saying the actor should drop out of the campaign if those allegations were accurate. Nuclear politics Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic whip, has pulled off a massive backroom deal. He won an aide's selection to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in return for releasing his previous blocks on nominations by President Bush. The nuclear industry, which has contributed heavily to Bush's re-election campaign, was enraged by the president's selection of anti-nuclear physicist Gregory Jaczko. The White House had turned down Jaczko earlier in the year, but Reid asserted that he then would stop confirmation of all the president's nominations. Nuclear issues are important in Reid's state of Nevada, which has fought the administration's plans for a nuclear waste repository 100 miles from Las Vegas. Once the White House agreed to Jaczko, Reid released the holds he had placed on close to 40 nominees. The Senate immediately confirmed a dozen previously stalled nominations -- including the U.S. attorney for Oregon. Healthful pork The House conservative economy bloc's pessimism over controlling federal spending deepened Tuesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson granted $1 million to start a national health museum. President Bill Clinton got the ball rolling for the museum by authorizing $500,000 in 1997. So far, only $10 million has been raised for the $200 million project. High-spending Republican chairmen of the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittees -- Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and former Rep. Jon Porter of Illinois -- for years sought museum money against conservative economizers. In joining the appropriators, Thompson said visitors to the museum would be educated on how to live a healthier life. Dinner with Cheney Republican ''Eagles,'' the party's high rollers, were brought into Washington Tuesday and Wednesday for the Republican National Committee's ''2003 Presidential Gala'' and enjoyed a rare treat: a private dinner with Dick Cheney. An Eagle qualified for a seat at the Wednesday night ''gala'' addressed by President Bush, along with two breakfasts, a lunch and a post-dinner reception. But the biggest benefit was a relatively intimate dinner Tuesday night at the Willard Hotel addressed by the usually reclusive vice president. The price for being an Eagle is $15,000 annually. That fee qualifies the contributor for two major RNC events a year, including Wednesday's ''gala.'' suntimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (11937)	10/12/2003 3:48:48 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793669

Well stated from powerline... Sauce for the goose powerlineblog.com Reader Stan Brown has this to say about charges that the Republicans are guilty of hypocrisy in reacting to charges that Arnold Schwarzenegger engaged in multiple instances of "groping": "Ten years ago, the appropriate standard for judging sexual conduct by a politician was generally accepted and well-known. Liberals forced Bob Packwood to resign because he asked a number of women to kiss him. The general consensus agreed that Justice Thomas would not have been confirmed had his accuser been believed (for talking about sex!). A few years later, it was clear that Bill Clinton had violated this standard on multiple occasions. Conservatives demanded that Clinton be held to this standard and pay the price. "Liberals, however, argued that the standard they had so recently applied to Packwood and Thomas with such righteous indignation was no longer in force. Times had changed. They argued that Clinton's sexual behavior should be considered private. According to the left, that a politician was a sexual predator was no longer the least bit significant. In effect, liberals took their case to the American people and petitioned the people, sitting as the court of public opinion, to establish a new precedent. They wanted the American public to reverse the old precedents and agree to a totally new standard in judging a politican's sexual misconduct. "Both sides wrote extensively on the issue. Both sides argued the merits fully and completely. The people were well aware of the issue and the argument. And the people rendered their judgment. The liberals won. Clinton's actions were deemed to be merely private sex and, henceforth, this new liberal standard on sexual misconduct would be applied to American politicians. "And then the liberals tried to smear Arnold. They argued that the old precedent still applied. The very same LA Times, which edited George Will's opinion piece by removing a reference to Bill Clinton as a rapist, printed all kinds of anonymous accusations of groping. Mouths agape at the incredible hypocrisy of liberals, conservatives properly pointed out that the left couldn't have it both ways. What happened to the new rules the liberals had established? Of course, conservatives didn't like the liberals' new rules, but elementary fairness dictated that both sides play by the same rulebook. How can it possibly be hypocritical for conservatives to insist that liberals abide by the same rules that the liberals had worked so hard to put in place? Anyone who reviews the recent history on this issue and thinks that it is the conservatives who are hypocrites is clearly incapable of impartiality." I understand the outrage at liberals over this issue. Their hypocrisy, as Mr. Brown eloquently demonstrates, is manifest and highly offensive. However, some may find his analysis too legalistic. At the end of the day, voters must decide for themselves what weight, if any, to attach to well-founded allegations of improper sexual behavior. In doing so, they need not, and probably should not, be guided by "precedent" in the form of arguments by pundits and voter reaction to those arguments. Thus, I will continue to view unwanted fondling of women as a negative factor when assessing the fitness of candidates for office. HINDROCKET adds: I think everyone would agree, in principle, as to unwanted fondling. The question raised by Arnold's case is how much 1) credibility and 2) weight should be given to anonymous accusations from decades ago. There is also a difference in most peoples' minds, I think, between the decorum to be expected on a movie set and in a Senator's office. But in principle, unwanted fondling is disapproved of pretty strenuously by everyone. The area where people still disagree is that of "wanted" fondling, what used to be called womanizing. Clinton's defenders either denied or ignored charges that he raped Juanita Broadrick, exposed himself to Paula Jones and groped Kathleen Willey. The "private acts" that Stan Brown rightly says have now been declared out of bounds were the ones with Monica Lewinsky. So to a large extent, Clinton's critics and defenders have always talked at cross purposes. What made Clinton's conduct so exasperating to his detractors, to the extent it involved consensual behavior, was that it was so egregious: in the Oval Office, with a White House employee, in an open and obvious manner, while talking on the telephone about matters of war and peace. I don't think it's unreasonable for the public to expect that someone elected President should put aside that kind of crass, selfish, unseemly behavior and conduct himself in a reasonably dignified manner while concentrating on the nation's business. Which is why, even though most Americans concluded that committing perjury shouldn't be impeachable as long as it's about sex, most Americans also respect George Bush a lot more than they did Bill Clinton.