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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (481277)	10/25/2003 2:00:05 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769667

Marianne M. Jennings Dems, beware! newsandopinion.com \| A mighty struggle consumes the hallowed halls of liberalism. Liberals are flummoxed because, just as I predicted days after Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on The Tonight Show that his hat was in the California gubernatorial 3-ring circus, the Terminator won in a rout. An "R" now follows the governor's name in a state that was the Democrats' sure thing for electoral votes. The LA Times anti-Arnold groping campaign failed, generating both votes for Arnold and canceled subscriptions. Gray Davis's edict of driver's licenses for everyone backfired as well - more votes for Arnold because he supported Prop 187, the voter rebellion to fix the immigration mess. Accusations that Arnold was anti-Semitic were laughable. Fuming citizens swarmed the polls because 135 candidates needed their votes. The left can't get its bearings on California because, as with welfare reform, economics, taxes, perjury, and presidents, they lose the forest in the trees. Rather than own up to a slap-in-the-face defeat in California, the New York Times instead ran an editorial from an Austrian who was dismayed over Arnold's victory. Imagine the egg, in addition to the zinc oxide, on California surfers' faces after that tongue lashing, "Dude! Austria doesn't like Conan?" The Dems battle mightily but they just can't take the pulse of the people. They are like self-proclaimed inventors who never quite get a patent. Their 10 presidential candidates cite John McCain as their model candidate. I wonder if they realize that McCain lost. Time magazine's post-recall analysis, one of many liberal quagmires of mourning and confusion, entitled "The 5 Meanings of Arnold," offers parody that puts us satirists to shame. Arnold, they write, is a "Republican who sounds sort of like a Democrat." Their proof? The Shrivers joined Arnold for his victory speech. The Shrivers might have some pull in Berkeley, if the Peace and Freedom party candidate ate meat or drove an SUV. But the proletarian masses west of Cape Code, or much past 1968, for that matter, aren't Shriver fans. Time cited Conan's victory speech in which he pointed to wife Maria Shriver and said, "I know how many votes I got today because of you." Maria is a Dateline anchor. People in California don't know who the vice president of the United States is, including one of their candidates, former child TV star Gary Coleman, Ten bucks says 90% of those who voted don't know Maria is a Democrat, let alone what a Shriver is. Time also concluded: "The national economy is failing, and the President is out of touch. He should be frightened by today's results." The recall portends victory for Howard Dean, "The former Vermont Governor is not the only one who sees parallels between the antiwar fury that has propelled him to the front of the Democratic pack and the economic discontent in California." Time closes with a chilling warning, "Incumbents beware." Mr. Bush must be shaking in his boots. How does a magazine print such analysis and fail to mention that Republican red meat conservative Tom McClintock and Arnold garnered 62% of the vote in a state in which only 37% of voters are registered Republicans? Earth to Time: The recall was rebellion against Draconian taxes. Think Twisted Sister and the Arnold campaign theme song: We're not going to take this any more. The tripling of motor vehicle taxes, a straight out-of-pocket fee, was the straw that broke soccer moms' backs. This pitiful introspection ignores the real meanings of Arnold, to wit: Arnold is a famous movie star with name recognition. Most Hispanics were outraged when Miguel Estrada withdrew from the federal appellate judicial confirmation process. They thought Erik Estrada, Officer Ponch from the TV show, CHIPS, had been trounced. Arnold is their guy. Arnold is happy and grateful. His oft repeated message was: I love California! California gave me everything! Name one happy or upbeat Democrat of the 10 presidential candidates. Lieberman sounds on the verge of tears. Kerry looks like he is in tears. Al Sharpton still carries Tawana Brawley anger. Carol Moseley Braun seems to be holding back hiccups. Wesley Clark is Ashley Wilkes with more angst. Dean is angry that he has to even run. He wants ascension. Arnold is a fiscal conservative. He told his advisor, Warren Buffett, to take a hike when Warren suggested raising property taxes. Hello, Oracle of Omaha - Proposition 13? Buffett is right up there with Time on voter pulse. Even in Seattle, a seat of liberalism, voters rejected, by 68% to 32%, a latte tax that would have funded preschool programs. Hell hath no fury or hyperactivity like an overtaxed espresso drinker. Arnold is neither devil nor angel. The footage of Arnold smoking pot and touching the backsides of dancing women is horrifying. But Arnold is no Clinton. Some of the footage and stories are 3 decades old. Americans see the difference between a president having his way with an intern in the White House and a weightlifter whose maturity was a long time coming. Arnold is a fiscal conservative, a motivated and charming outsider who took 41% of the Latino vote, 20% of African American vote, and 53% of the female vote, more than Bustamante and Davis together. The meaning of Arnold and California is that Republicans win elections when Democrats make a mess with taxes and big government. Democrats beware! Heck, just wake up and smell the espresso tax!

To: calgal who wrote (481277)	10/25/2003 2:05:14 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Jonah Goldberg French Fried: France turns into even bigger foe newsandopinion.com \| I was wrong about France. No, no, this isn't prelude to an apology for being the earliest and biggest popularizer of the Simpsons' nom de French: "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Rather, what I was wrong about is that the French are even worse than I thought. I had predicted in September of 2002 that the French would ultimately fall into line with the United States on the Iraq war. My rationale was that French recalcitrance had less to do with principle and more to do with a combinations of interests: a need to protect French oil contracts; a desire to conceal French complicity in the Hussein regime; a desire to enlarge the power of the United Nations, which would in turn amplify French influence in the world; and, of course, a certain cultural joy de vivre in soiling America's Corn Flakes whenever possible. But once it was clear that America would invade Iraq with or without them, I predicted, the French would fall in line so they could be in on the postwar action. They never did, obviously. America, Britain and Australia went to war. The French went to the cafes. Actually, they did worse than that. The French lobbied African nations to vote against America in the U.N. They threatened fledgling Eastern European nations that support for America might mean trouble with the E.U. They threw numerous monkey wrenches into diplomatic machinery so it would be impossible to gain international support. Indeed, as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times has noted, those shenanigans might have made war more likely because the French didn't want the U.N. to level a serious ultimatum against Saddam. Now, I don't want to revisit the whole issue of France, a country we liberated and rebuilt, not only NOT supporting us in a time of need but actually actively campaigning against us. Either you're ticked off about that or you're not. Oh, and spare me the references to the post 9-11 Le Monde headline that declared "We Are All Americans." Not only did the text of that very article, written by Le Monde's publisher, criticize America for its "cynicism" but by December of 2001 - more than a year before the Iraq war - the author was already denouncing America as racist, fundamentalist, death-hungry, etc. Anyway, since the French didn't get their way in preventing the war - and there was no way they could have kept us from winning it - they are now fairly determined to see us lose the peace. At first, they denounced the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council, suggesting it was illegitimate. Then the French and their willing sidekick U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan insisted that power be handed over to the council immediately to initiate the "logic of sovereignty" instead of the "logic of occupation." The French and the U.N. know that to do this would mean the Lebanonization of Iraq. Bosnia's been occupied - by the United Nations! - for seven years. "Does Kofi Annan," asked Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, "really think that what took seven years in Bosnia can take one year in Iraq, with six times as many people?" Of course not. And that's the point. The aim is for America to fail and if that means Iraq becomes a bloody quagmire that destabilizes the region, well, maybe that's worth it. The notion that the French really care about the innocent people of Iraq is flatly absurd. Yes, this month the French voted in favor of the U.S.-backed resolution establishing a multinational force under U.S. command. And, all of a sudden, there's silence about the French as if they've come around. But last month, Friedman wrote in The New York Times, "It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy." Friedman was right then, which means he's still right now. One U.N. vote - which, by the way, was accompanied by a swift French promise that they'd do nothing to help with the reconstruction - hardly signals a fundamental change in France's desire to hamstring America. What is astounding is how much of a free pass this one-time ally is getting here in America. Because the war was unpopular with many liberals, it's assumed that France's actions are informed by the same principles as, say, Howard Dean's. I think Dean's positions on the war are scandalously dim-witted and ill-advised. But he still wants what is best for America and even Iraq. It is impossible to say the same thing about France.