SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14029)10/26/2003 11:59:09 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793725
 
I should have been clear that the Socialists are hiding behind fighting free trade. I was running my own business in California in the 70s. Closed the first one.

This is the right move by the Republicans. It happens anyway. We all came to SI as investors. And the boards are 70/30 conservative voters.
__________________________________________

washingtonpost.com
Parties Put Stock In 'Investor Class'
GOP, Democrats Heed Growth Of Voters Attuned to Market

By Claudia Deane and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 27, 2003; Page A01

When candidate George W. Bush first proposed a plan for partial privatization of the Social Security system in 1999, he was challenging one of the cherished assumptions of political strategists, who have long regarded the government retirement system as the third rail of American politics: Touch it and you die.

His advisers and some others in the Republican Party saw the initiative far differently -- as a direct appeal to a segment of the electorate they had dubbed the "investor class," the growing number of Americans with at least some savings invested directly or indirectly in the stock market.

Some Republican strategists see this investor class as one key to their future -- akin to soccer moms or the burgeoning Latino population -- and argue that the more these voters are in the market, the more likely they are to support the kind of free market-oriented economic policies associated with GOP administrations. Over time, some of them say, more of these voters, regardless of income, education or family background, will identify and vote as Republicans, helping to realign the electorate in the party's direction. Democrats say those claims are vastly overstated, but they are doing their own studies just to be sure.

Based on the findings of a recent Washington Post poll that examined the attitudes and political leanings of Americans with money invested in the financial markets, Republicans could be more correct than Democrats care to admit. But the findings come with some important caveats that raise doubts about the rosiest scenarios sketched by the GOP's most enthusiastic proselytizers.

The Post survey and analysis found that Americans who have bought individual stocks -- "direct investors" -- are more optimistic about the economy, more likely to identify themselves as Republicans, have a more favorable view of the GOP and are more inclined to support Bush's reelection than are non-investors of comparable income.

Where Republicans strategists are wrong is in their assumption that less direct involvement in the market changes attitudes and party affiliation. The Post poll found that, once a person's income is taken into account, the political views of Americans whose only participation in the markets comes through contributions to a 401(k) retirement plan or an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) are not much different from those of non-investors.

The growth and sheer size of the investor class makes it an obvious target. Republican and Democratic politicians cater to the interests of these voters, from Bush's proposal earlier this year to eliminate the tax on stock dividends to recommendations from politicians in both parties for various government-subsidized savings accounts.

About 3 in 5 adult Americans (58 percent) have some savings invested directly or indirectly in the markets, compared with 44 percent six years ago, according to the Post poll. The majority of those investors (61 percent) own no individual stocks; 37 percent do. Investors of either type are more likely to vote than non-investors, and some studies have estimated that investors make up about 70 percent of the electorate.

The more income someone earns, the more likely he or she is to have investments, but more and more middle-income Americans have become members of the investor class. The Post poll found that, among those with incomes of $30,000 to $50,000, 54 percent said they have investments. When broken down by generation, people under age 30 are the least likely to be in the market, with the next least likely to be Americans over age 60.

Because of the generally greater affluence of voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the GOP has a higher percentage of people who have investments. Still, at every income level, direct investors are more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than are non-investors.

For example, 40 percent of direct investors with incomes of more than $50,000 identify themselves as Republicans, compared with 22 percent of non-investors. Among those with incomes below $50,000, 34 percent identified themselves as Republicans, compared with 23 percent of non-investors.

Direct investors also were less likely than non-investors to blame Bush for the economy's problems and were more likely to point to normal movements of the business cycle or to blame the effects of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

There are some clear partisan differences, however. Democratic investors don't like Bush or his policies very much, which suggests that the most fertile ground for Republicans to gain converts is with investors who are political independents.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, is an unabashed enthusiast for the theory that the investor class will help to expand the GOP, saying, "The Republican solution for every problem" is some kind of new tax-deductible savings plan.

"It changes your time horizon, over time it changes your party affiliation, and it also changes what you read and what you watch on TV," he said.

Norquist has plenty of company among conservatives, who have promoted the investor class as a rich prize in the battle between the parties for political supremacy. But Democrats say those Republican theories are no better grounded in reality than predictions in the late 1990s that the Dow Jones index was on a path to run past 30,000 -- predictions that came shortly before the tech bubble burst and a long bear market set in.

Ruy Teixeira, a Democrat who has studied the demographic trends of the electorate, says the flaw in the Republican theory is that the investor class is simply too large and diverse to be remotely considered a homogenous group. Republicans are promoting their theory for parochial reasons, he said, because it fits with their assumption that anyone with a piece of ownership becomes more conservative (and therefore Republican) over time. "I'm skeptical of all that, for sure," he said.

Stanley B. Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said he has done survey research attempting to understand the political behavior of the investor class but found no conclusions worth reporting.

"We couldn't find anything interesting to write about," he said. "It was a nonevent."

Greenberg also points to current trends to debunk Norquist and other conservatives. Over the past four months, he said, "The stock market has gone up and the president's support has gone down. Unemployment and disposable income are clearly more important [political indicators] than stock ownership."

Norquist disagreed. "If the unemployment rate is 6 percent and you're secure in your job, a 7 percent unemployment rate is not as big a threat to you as a drop in the Dow," he said.

On that question, the Post poll found that, for both investors and non-investors, the unemployment rate is by far the most politically sensitive economic indicator. A greater percentage of investors cited market changes than did non-investors, but even an overwhelming percentage of investors said the unemployment rate is more important.

Interviews with some of those surveyed by the Post, however, underscored that investments in the stock market can change the way voters look at and interpret political developments.

Jason Jones, 26, is a banker from Stockton, Calif., who said his involvement in the financial markets makes him receptive to proposals to privatize Social Security, which would allow people to invest part of their payroll tax into the stock market. "I think absolutely that gives me an element of being more comfortable [with privatization] because I have a base of familiarity with it," he said.

Ruth Venell, 52, is a special education administrator from Acton, Maine, whose investments have prompted her to take a keener interest in how political decisions affect the economy. "I look at other things besides stocks," she said. "But the market is probably the thing that will alert me to investigate further. If I get my quarterly report back and I've lost money, then I'm really going to look at other stuff as well."

That points to the double-edged nature of having an electorate attuned to movements in the market. Bush's plan for partial Social Security privatization, for example, was blunted by the drop in the market, and many congressional Republicans remain wary of promoting the idea, despite the belief of some strategists that it will attract voters, particularly younger ones, to the party.

"Republicans have a reputation for being better for your pocketbook, but I don't know if they're better for everybody's pocketbook," said Ginny Edgcomb, a political independent from Falmouth, Mass., who said her retirement account causes her to pay more attention to economic policy debates. "I'm not sure they're better for the middle-class pocketbook."

The battle for the hearts and minds of the investor class will intensify as even more Americans start retirement or other long-term savings plans, as will the debate about how to appeal to them.

Matthew Dowd, senior adviser to Bush's reelection campaign, said both parties need to be aware of whether someone is an investor for the same reason political strategists want to know if someone is married or goes to church regularly. "What's not clear," he added, "is if you can act upon it."
washingtonpost.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14029)10/27/2003 2:19:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793725
 
The Dem Candidates should think of what Dean said: "Let's remember Bush is our Enemy!"
__________________________________

October 27, 2003
Democrats in Debate Clash Over Iraq War
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DIANE CARDWELL

DETROIT, Oct. 26 — Democratic presidential candidates, debating here, harshly and intensely attacking one another Sunday night on the wisdom of President Bush's invasion of Iraq and whether Congress should have authorized $87 billion that would help maintain the war effort.

What had been an old and familiar struggle among the candidates over the original war resolution took on new vigor as the candidates clashed this time over the $87 billion vote, which exposed new fissures among the Democratic candidates.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut expressed incredulity that two of his opponents who had backed the war, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, had voted against the authorization, for Iraq and Afghanistan. And he asserted that Gen. Wesley K. Clark had changed his position on the war and delayed offering his opinion on a vote that has put all the Democratic candidates in a difficult political position.

"I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized," Mr. Lieberman said at the debate here, sponsored by Fox News Channel and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.

Looking at General Clark, he said: "I've been over Wes Clark's record and statements on this so many times. I heard him tonight. He took six different positions on whether going to war was the right idea."

General Clark initially declined to say how he would vote on the allocation, saying he was not running for Congress, but later, under criticism for avoiding taking a position, said that he would have voted against it. On Sunday he repeated that assertion and praised Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards for their votes.

"Well, I wasn't in Congress; I wasn't able to vote on the $87 billion," General Clark said. "But I want to make it very clear: I would not have voted the $87 billion," he said. "I want to commend John Edwards and John Kerry and those who voted on the resolution. I didn't believe last year we should have given George Bush a blank check in Iraq. Now we're trying to give him another blank check."

Mr. Edwards, who was the first of the pro-war Democrats to announce his opposition to the $87 billion, also shrugged off Mr. Lieberman's attacks.

"My view of leadership is standing up for what you believe in, Joe," he said. "For me to vote yes on that would be to give President Bush a blank check, and I am not willing to give George Bush a blank check."

The exchanges came at a debate that was strikingly testy, as the candidates — by this point, well acquainted with one another's stands — struggled to break through the crowded field.

The 90-minute encounter on Sunday night was the fifth major nationally televised debate since early September.

From the outset, two of the candidates seemed most intent on trying to stand out: Mr. Lieberman, who immediately went on the attack, and General Clark, who was challenged on his credentials not only by his opponents but also by his questioners.

At the outset of the race, the leading opponent of the war was Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, along with the Rev. Al Sharpton, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Carol Moseley Braun, the former senator from Illinois.

Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Lieberman and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri voted for the original war resolution; of those, only Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Lieberman voted to continue the financing. General Clark also said he opposed the war, but at several points earlier this year said he probably would have voted in favor of the resolution if he had been in Congress, as Mr. Lieberman noted when General Clark in the debate, sought to present himself as consistently anti-war.

Mr. Kerry, in defending his vote after Mr. Lieberman questioned it, noted that he had served in Vietnam — and that Mr. Lieberman had not.

"Well, Joe, I had seared in me an experience which you don't have, and that's the experience of being one of those troops on the front lines when the policy has gone wrong," he said. "And the way you best protect the troops is to guarantee that you put the troops in the safest, strongest position as fast as possible. Our troops are today more exposed, are in greater danger, because this president didn't put together a real coalition, because this president's been unwilling to share the burden and the task."

Mr. Lieberman responded: "This is about the votes that he's cast that I believe are inconsistent. In fact, what do we look back and wonder about our time in Vietnam? We didn't support our troops. If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money wouldn't have been there to support our troops."

Mr. Kerry visibly stiffened at that.

Mr. Gephardt, who voted both for the war resolution and for the $87 billion, said that while he had severe problems with the way Mr. Bush had handled the war he did not believe it was right to oppose sending more money while troops were in harm's way.

"I think we all try to do what we think is right; that's what I was trying to do," he said.

"In the end, you're presented in the Congress with a vote, up or down on the $87 billion," he said. "And I can't find it within myself to not vote for the money to support the troops."

And Dr. Dean, who said he would only have supported the resolution if the administration had agreed to roll back tax cuts to pay for it, rejected Mr. Lieberman's suggestion that opponents of the money were undercutting soldiers in the field.

"I don't think servicemen and women do view my position as short of supporting the troops," Dr. Dean said. "I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops, unlike President Bush, who tried to cut their combat pay after they'd been over there."

At several points, General Clark appeared to struggle as he explained his views on the war in response to a challenge from a questioner.

The questioner, Carl Cameron of Fox News, asked, "Are we to understand that what you're saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?"

Mr. Clark responded: "No, I always — I'm a fair person. And when this administration's done something right, well, if they were Russians doing something right, Chinese doing something right, French doing something right or even Republicans doing something right, I'm going to praise them.

"Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public," he said. "President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today."
nytimes.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14029)10/27/2003 3:03:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793725
 
The candidates have "had it" with the debates. I think we will see a lot of changes in the 08 go-around. New York Times.
_________________________________________

October 25, 2003
POLITICAL MEMO
Some Democratic Hopefuls Question Value of Debates
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — Their nearly weekly debates have been the biggest events of the season for the Democratic presidential candidates. They build their travel schedules around the televised encounters. Their aides devote hours to coming up with catchy retorts. And the forums draw more press coverage than anything else the candidates do.

Even so, many of the top candidates and their aides are at their wits' end over the televised jousts. Some openly contend that the events are simply a waste of time.

"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in Iowa, "and not necessarily the person who might make the best candidate or the best president."

"They're very superficial," he added.

The heart of the problem, officials at many of the campaigns say, is that a debate of nine people hobbles candidates from standing out above the amusing wisecracks of stragglers in the polls like, say, the Rev. Al Sharpton. They have so little time that the only way they can win notice is to level a direct, nasty attack — and even that does not always work.

Compounding the candidates' distress is that the television audiences are not that big to begin with. The debate in Detroit scheduled to be shown on Fox News Channel on Sunday night may end up competing head to head with a seventh game of the World Series.

Mr. Kerry should have the least to complain about, at least given that in the 90-minute debate on CNN two weeks ago, he got the most speaking time: 10.5 minutes, according to two networks' counts. Most candidates spoke for five to seven minutes each.

But the campaigns fret that they have no way to escape the conundrum because the alternative — viewers spotting an empty chair in their stead — is politically untenable.

Moreover, winnowing the debate field would be a particularly tricky proposition for a party that preaches inclusiveness. This is especially the case when two of the stragglers, Mr. Sharpton and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, are African-American. (The other candidate at the back of the pack in the polls is Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio.)

"You want to give candidates a chance to talk about the issues that are important to Americans," Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said. "But you would run into the difficult decision on who can and can't attend."

Donna Brazile, the head of Al Gore's campaign in 2000 who is herself African-American, said the party needed to start coalescing around a front-runner sooner rather than later — and that should trump any other considerations.

"It's time for the rubber to hit the road," Ms. Brazile said. "It's time for some of the candidates to stay home."

Ms. Braun said she would do no such thing. "The Democratic Party, of all parties, should stand for the big tent for real, and not something determined by how much money you have and how many ads you can buy," she said. "I'm in it to win it."

Mr. Kucinich said he was in it for the long haul, too. Mr. Sharpton did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman, Rachel Noerdlinger, said he had "no intention of withdrawing under any circumstances."

It is no surprise that the three are not about to cede the spotlight. For the underfinanced, less popular candidates, participating in the debates is a key to attention and perhaps, later fame. In 2000, Alan Keyes, a lesser-known Republican candidate, established himself as enough of a television presence to land his own show on MSNBC after the election.

For all the criticism, Democratic Party officials defended the debates, saying they provided increasing national exposure for Democrats while giving them a forum to go after their ultimate target, President Bush.

"It's been a powerful way of delivering a tough critique of Bush and his administration," said Jim Mulhall, a communications strategist for the Democratic National Committee who has helped organize and negotiate the party's sanctioned debates.

Because of the early primary schedule next year that has sped up the campaign, Sunday night's event will be the fifth major nationally televised debate since early September. (In the 2000 campaign, the first major televised Republican and Democratic forums did not happen until late October 1999.)

While the debates this year have been a relative ratings boon to the networks that have shown them, the audiences are small compared with those for network programs. For instance, roughly 1.8 million on average watched the CNN debate two weeks ago, nearly double the network's typical prime time audience of late. But that is nowhere near the audience for even a mildly successful sitcom like "Hope & Faith" on ABC (10.2 million).

The debates have come on top of several candidate forums, many of them televised as well. Swamped by requests from interest groups and the networks, the candidates called upon the Democratic National Committee earlier this year to bring some order to the process.

The party settled on a series of a half-dozen sanctioned debates. But the number of unsanctioned events has continued to grow.

Bill Carrick, a strategist for Mr. Kerry, said that aside from the number of candidates involved, there had been too many functions over all for any of them to be very meaningful.

"I wouldn't get rid of them; that would be excessive," Mr. Carrick said. "They would be more valuable and more important if there were less of them."

"Right now," he added, "the burden on the campaigns is the travel, the re-doing of your schedule constantly."

Some campaign aides, however, said the debates were of some utility.

Steve Murphy, Representative Richard A. Gephardt's campaign manager, said his boss had been able to score a point or two, as in a debate last month when he called Mr. Bush's foreign policy "a miserable failure."

Chris Lehane, a strategist for the campaign of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, said that any chance his newcomer candidate could get on television was of value. Mr. Sharpton's quick wit has helped him become a star of the debates — whether or not that will help him in Iowa and New Hampshire. He draws attention with memorable lines like this one about Osama bin Laden: "This guy has out more videos than a rock star, but George Bush's intelligence agencies can't find him."

Often, the candidates resort to stylistic nuance as a way to stand out. In the CNN debate, some candidates engaged in an off-camera sleeve-rolling competition during a commercial break.

Mr. Edwards, General Clark and Mr. Kucinich folded twice along the cuff. Mr. Gephardt folded his cuff in half and rolled it four times. Howard Dean rolled his sleeves up the highest.

Ultimately, campaign aides said, the problem comes down to too many candidates, too little air time.

"Take one hour, sprinkle it with nine candidates, throw in a dash of opening and closing statements and the obligatory Iraq question," said Jano Cabrera, a senior adviser to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, "and voilà, you have a guaranteed recipe that prevents any single candidate from breaking out."
nytimes.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14029)10/27/2003 3:10:43 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793725
 
This one's for you Dean lovers. I know you are out there!
____________________________________________

October 25, 2003
Talking Like a Firebrand, Dean Walks a Fine Line
By JODI WILGOREN NEW YORK TIMES

THORNTON, Iowa, Oct. 23 — As Howard Dean walked over to pet the 600-pound hogs on a visit to a family farm here on Wednesday morning, he blurted out his imaginary headline, "Governor speaks with Washington lobbyists."

That was just the latest bomb thrown at the establishment by Dr. Dean, whose campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has lately become one long anti-Washington attack. He has already apologized three times to his rivals for caustic comments.

Last week, even friends criticized him for seeming to compare members of Congress to cockroaches.

"You're either going to make mistakes like that or you're going to make the mistake of not saying anything," Dr. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, said about the cockroach jibe.

His nonapology apology captures the central dilemma and critical balancing act of his campaign: how to galvanize the alienated newcomers and ideological diehards who have fueled his insurgency without frightening off the party leaders and moderate voters essential in a general election.

If anyone has the résumé to bridge this divide, it is Dr. Dean, who has spent 20 years in elected office and knows the national scene from his years leading governors' groups. Dr. Dean may be outside Washington, but he is hardly outside the system.

Behind his revolutionary use of the Internet to spread the anti-Washington, antiwar message sit the trappings of a traditional campaign. He started running negative advertisements this week, has recently beefed up his opposition research team and is supported by a group of Washington lobbyists that meets biweekly to court Capitol Hill.

Still, many party regulars inside the Beltway and in state party offices fear that his liberal antiwar views and brash outspokenness could be toxic.

"It's a temperament issue," said former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. "Part of what makes him exciting is this coiled tension. But you also get a sense that he could snap your head off if you looked at him cross-eyed."

Many elected officials are fascinated by Dr. Dean's fund-raising prowess and impressed with the crowds that greet him at each stop. Some officials salivate at the prospect of tapping into his Internet database if he wins.

Others theorize that a Dean candidacy would risk not just the White House, but also a series of seats in Congress.

"They don't like him personally, and part of why they don't like him personally is the way he campaigns," said one Democratic consultant who is unaffiliated in the race. "But what is at bottom is they think he's bad for the party. They think he's unelectable and can bring the party down with him."

The debate continues a longstanding argument in the party over whether to move to the center to woo the independent voters who have decided recent close contests or try to energize untapped constituencies by railing against the status quo.

Dr. Dean's advisers are wary of warning him to tone it down because they think the perception that he does not calibrate his comments is part of what fuels his popularity. When the Beltway bards booed his performance this summer on "Meet the Press" on NBC-TV, $250,000 poured in over the Internet.

Dr. Dean is frequently asked about his temper by voters in town hall meetings, a sign that the appeal may be double edged.

He long ago alienated moderates in the party. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council has twice warned that his selection could be a death knell, and although he promises to represent the party's historic base and core values, he constantly criticizes its representatives as spineless.

The former governor, however, says he is trying to win by expanding participation.

Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist with 20 years of presidential campaign experience who works for the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, admired Dr. Dean's ability to bring new people into the process but cautioned, "It has to be a game of addition, not a game of exclusion."

"The party is big and it's broad," Mr. Longabaugh said. "And if he wants to be the nominee, he has to be the leader of all of it."

Dr. Dean is hardly a outsider in the Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger tradition. A Yale graduate who was reared on Park Avenue, he became a Democratic county chairman after the 1980 election and was re-elected governor five times. He knows the home telephone numbers of important players and has been attending A-list gatherings like Renaissance Weekends.

But running against people who have, as Dr. Dean likes to say, a combined 67 years in Washington — he called it a century before Senator Bob Graham of Florida dropped out — he has raised high the anti-establishment banner, particularly after the entry of another outsider, Gen. Wesley K. Clark of the Army.

A favorite line of late is, "Americans are not as dumb as people in Washington think we are." Note the "we."

"I'm not going to take any guff from the Washington politicians," he said the other day. "They say I want to get rid of Medicare or don't like the middle class. I say, `Do you want another Washington politician as president, even though they haven't accomplished anything in 10 years or 30 years?' "

But even as Dr. Dean denounces do-nothing Washington politicians, a team of 24 lobbyists meets every other week to help him court Capitol Hill and the party machine that sends superdelegates to the nominating convention. So far, he has the endorsements of 10 members of Congress — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri leads with 32 — 91 state legislators and 11 former governors.

Although Dr. Dean lauds the 200,000 neophytes who have given an average of $84.38 to his campaign, experienced fund-raisers forage for fat checks in Washington, New York and Hollywood. The campaign recently hired Jay Carson, a spokesman from the office of Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader, and, as The Daily News reported this week, hired Ace Smith, an opposition researcher who has worked for Gov. Gray Davis of California, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Bill Clinton.

The other night at a bar in Charleston, S.C., after having made 100 "ordinary people" wait while he chatted on a cellphone for 10 minutes, Dr. Dean said, "It was a congressman, a very important congressman."

"I know that in the end I have to work with Congress," Dr. Dean said in a recent interview.

Bob Kerrey, the Nebraska senator turned president of the New School University in Manhattan who sought the Democratic nomination in 1992, said Dr. Dean should watch his words a bit and be careful to provide context for his comments, because what a candidate says in a New Hampshire living room can reverberate around the world.

"The problem is what he's doing is working," Mr. Kerrey said. "If he'd followed my advice at the beginning of the campaign, he'd probably be in sixth place."
nytimes.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14029)10/27/2003 6:46:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793725
 
How could something like this happen with the Inspectors reporting they had visited the house 38 times? This is a really depraved couple. Evangelicals, to boot. Unbelievable! This case is going to make every Tabloid and every Cable show in the country.
_____________________________________________

October 27, 2003
New Jersey Couple Held in Abuse; One Son, 19, Weighed 45 Pounds
By LYDIA POLGREEN and ROBERT F. WORTH - NEW YORK TIMES

COLLINGSWOOD, N.J., Oct. 26 — The parents of four boys adopted from New Jersey's troubled foster care system were arrested Friday, two weeks after the police found that the children, ages 9 to 19, had been starved to the point that none of them weighed more than 50 pounds, according to the Camden County prosecutor.

The boys were so badly malnourished that their shriveled bodies gave no hint of their ages, investigators said. At 19, the oldest was 4 feet tall and weighed 45 pounds. The police initially thought he was just 10 years old. The boys' condition was discovered when a neighbor called the police because the 19-year-old, Bruce, was looking for food in the neighbor's trash at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 10, according to the county prosecutor, Vincent P. Sarubbi. The boys were removed from the home later that day.

The boys had been locked out of the kitchen of the house in this blue-collar Philadelphia suburb and were fed a diet of pancake batter, peanut butter and breakfast cereal. They ate wallboard and insulation to sate their hunger, investigators said.

A caseworker from the Division of Youth and Family Services, the state agency that oversees the foster care system, had visited the house at 318 White Horse Pike 38 times in the past 2 years, investigators said. The parents, Raymond Jackson, 50, and his wife, Vanessa, 48, rented the house, which passed a safety assessment by the caseworker and her supervisor in June.

"This is the most horrible case we have ever encountered in our child abuse unit," said Mr. Sarubbi, who charged the parents with aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of their children. "It has been impossible for me to rationalize how parents could treat children this way." Mr. Sarubbi announced the arrests at a news conference on Saturday.

The case is the latest in a series of discoveries revealing the collapse of New Jersey's child welfare system, which left the youngsters it was charged with protecting vulnerable to abuse and neglect in troubled homes with little oversight.

To settle a lawsuit over the failures of its foster care system, the state agreed in June to hand oversight of the agency to a five-member panel of child welfare experts. Last month, Gov. James E. McGreevey appointed an independent child advocate to protect the rights of children.

The advocate, Kevin M. Ryan, said Sunday that this latest case revealed the magnitude of the agency's problems. "The question that has to be penetrated is, how did 38 visits over 2 years not rescue these children from slow torture and starvation?" Mr. Ryan said in an interview. "I am completely baffled at this point at how a failure of this magnitude could happen."

He contrasted this case with the one that ultimately led to the call for major reform of the social service agency, the death of a 7-year-old boy in Newark named Faheem Williams, who was found hidden in the basement of a duplex where his cousin was supposed to be taking care of him. An investigation later revealed that Faheem's case had been closed prematurely despite serious allegations of abuse.

Of the Jackson case, Mr. Ryan said, "Here we had a caseworker who was going into this house and seeing these children," adding "It was not a failure of interaction."

The caseworker, whom officials would not identify, resigned from the agency as the conditions at the Jackson home came to light, said Gwendolyn L. Harris, the commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, which oversees the Division of Youth and Family Services. Agency officials described her as experienced, and Ms. Harris said the agency would review other cases she handled.

At least 8 and as many as 10 employees of the Division of Youth and Family Services, including managers and supervisors, face suspension and some could be fired depending on the outcome of the department's investigation into the Jackson case, she said.

Also living in the Jackson house were two girls, ages 5 and 12, whom the couple had also adopted from the foster care system; a foster daughter, 10, whom they were planning to adopt; and two of the couple's adult biological children — a son and a daughter, Mr. Sarubbi said. None of the children other than the four boys appeared to be malnourished, Mr. Sarubbi said. The family had received a total of as much as $28,000 a year from the state to take care of the adopted children and their foster daughter, investigators said. That stipend was reduced when the oldest boy turned 18.

The caseworker, with her supervisor, had completed an inspection of the home in early June, an investigator said. The inspection was one of more than 14,000 completed in the last six months in response to repeated problems in the foster care system. The assessments were intended to root out problems similar to the Faheem Williams case and others that troubled the agency in recent years, and were preceded by training courses for all the employees sent to perform them, officials at the Division of Youth and Family Services said.

Mr. Ryan said he had begun an investigation of the operations of the division's office that dealt with the family, the Southern Adoption Resource Center. The center handles foster children who are likely to be candidates for adoption. Each child who came into the Jackson home through the foster care system was overseen by the Southern Adoption Resource Center, investigators said, adding that the caseworker was assigned to the family to look after the 10-year-old girl whom the Jackson were planning to adopt.

Once a child is adopted, officials said, the child is no longer assigned a caseworker.

Mr. Sarubbi said the adopted boys lived in a state of constant want. They had lice, and their teeth were rotting because they had not seen a dentist or doctor for at least five years, investigators said. They were home-schooled by the adults and were not permitted to leave home often, investigators said.

In marked contrast to the four boys, the three girls were well fed, went to medical appointments and took vacations with their parents to Willamsburg, Va., where the family had a time-share apartment. The girls were permitted to order Chinese takeout while their brothers starved, Mr. Sarubbi said.

Yet the boys seemed unaware of their plight, he said.

"The parents had essentially brainwashed the children into believing they had eating disorders," the prosecutor said, adding, "The saddest part is I don't think the children even knew how bad off they were."

The family had financial trouble, Mr. Sarubbi said. They were $8,000 behind on their rent and had defaulted on loans on their vacation time shares in Virginia and the Poconos, he said. Neighbors said Mr. Jackson worked as a mortgage broker and wore tailored suits, but investigators said he was now unemployed. The electricity had been turned off recently for four months, Mr. Sarubbi said, and the gas was off for a month.

Neighbors said that they noticed that the boys were small and thin, but that Mr. and Mrs. Jackson had told them they had medical conditions that kept them from growing properly.

Pete DiMattia, who lives next door to the family, said he never thought to call the police or a child welfare agency because he often saw a state car parked outside the house and assumed that the family was being supervised.

"I thought the kids had medical problems," Mr. DiMattia said. He said the boys were polite and respectful, referring to him as "Mr. Pete."

The evangelical church attended by the Jacksons, who are born-again Christians, is in Medford, about 20 miles away. Congregation members said they could not imagine that the Jacksons had starved their sons.

"There is no way on God's green earth that this happened," said Frank Jacobs, 50, a member of the Medford congregation, the Come Alive New Testament Church, who said he has known the family for 15 years. He said the children were lively and active members of the church, attending Sunday school, acting in pageants and singing.

Medical examinations of the boys ruled out any natural cause for their small stature, Mr. Sarubbi said. One boy, a 14-year-old identified only by his initials, K. J., weighed 38 pounds when the Jacksons adopted him in 1996. When he was removed from their home on Oct. 10, he was 4 feet tall and weighed just 40 pounds, Mr. Sarubbi said. After 13 days in a hospital, K. J. had gained seven pounds, he said.

"To look at the children, it was just gut-wrenching," Mr. Sarubbi said. "They had distended stomachs. You could see their ribs. Their shoulder blades protruded from the skin. The boys' faces were gaunt."

He said it seemed impossible that anyone, particularly someone charged with looking out for the welfare of children, would fail to notice the boys' condition. He said he would examine how the Division of Youth and Family Services handled the Jackson case, but he would not say if anyone from the agency would face criminal charges.

The three younger boys have been released from hospitals and are in foster homes, Mr. Sarubbi said. Bruce, the oldest, remains hospitalized; doctors are monitoring a possible heart problem. The girls living in the house have also been placed in foster homes.

Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights, a Manhattan-based child advocacy group that sued New Jersey over its foster care system, said the Jackson case was a stunning reminder of just how difficult it will be to right the troubled system. It was particularly distressing, she said, that the very process that was intended to find problem homes — the inspection of all homes with foster children — failed to help the Jackson children.

"I think we have got to immediately start talking about redoing a large number of these assessments because I don't know how many of them have been done and how many of them done appropriately," Ms. Lowry said. "It is clear that this system can't be fixed quickly."
nytimes.com