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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (6160)11/5/2003 6:46:46 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
It may be that most of the Democratic leadership does not want Dean as the nominee, but he has certainly touched a chord with the rank and file. It seems that Dean raised more money in Massachusetts than Kerry during the third quarter.

Dean surpasses Kerry in raising funds in the Bay State

Small-money donors provided campaign boost on rival's turf


boston.com

By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff, 11/5/2003

A blizzard of small-money contributions enabled presidential contender Howard Dean to raise more money in Massachusetts recently than Senator John F. Kerry, underscoring the former Vermont governor's powerful appeal among liberal Democrats, even in a rival's backyard.

According to a Globe analysis of federal campaign contributions, Dean raised $569,307 from Bay State residents during the third quarter of 2003, while Kerry netted $510,262 during the same period.

Dean's donors in Massachusetts had smaller pockets, giving $387 on average. Retirees, employees at universities and hospitals, as well as artists, gave heavily. Kerry's local donors, on the other hand, gave $899 on average. Among his biggest benefactors were prominent law firms and corporate executives, more traditional and well-organized givers.


The pattern replicates Dean's fund-raising success across the country, an Internet-driven, small-donor campaign. Only, in this case, it occurred in Massachusetts, which Kerry was assumed to dominate, as most politicians do on their home turf.

Kerry's campaign pointed out that, over the last year, the Massachusetts senator has raised much more in the state than Dean.

"People of Massachusetts have given him almost $4 million. . . . It underscores the role they played in building him a firm financial footing in the early part of the campaign," said Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander, noting that 20 percent of the candidate's war chest comes from the Bay State.

One Kerry official said Kerry's local donors "were maxed out early." The official, who asked not to be named, also said of the populist tinge of the donations to Dean, that "no one would deny Dean was able to create a grass-roots network that no other candidates have been able to."

Dean campaign national cochairman Steve Grossman said: "We didn't set out to outraise Kerry. . . . The [Iraq] war is a defining issue for a lot people in Massachusetts, and that helped us."

Kerry clearly had the edge among the area's movers and shakers, with donations from Michael Dukakis, Staples chief executive officer Ronald Sargent, Boston Beer chairman Jim Koch and FleetBoston Financial Corp. CEO Charles Gifford. Dean's most well-known contributors were singer Carly Simon and actor James Belushi, but his contribution list was short on high-ranking officials and executives.

The Globe analyzed 6,829 donations to Democratic candidates by Massachusetts residents from January to September of this year, as recorded in Federal Election Commission records. The data do not include many contributions under $200, for which the FEC does not keep detailed records on.

Kerry and Dean were far ahead of the pack in local fund-raising overall this year, with Kerry getting more than $3 million and Dean receiving $929,008. Connecticut Senator Joseph I. Lieberman was third in the Bay State, with $243,375, followed closely by Missouri Representative Richard A. Gephardt at $236,570 and North Carolina Senator John Edwards at $110,555. Late entry Wesley K. Clark, the retired general, got $73,400.

But these totals were over the entire nine-month period, during much of which the campaigns were in preparation mode.

During the July to September period, when the campaign gained steam and public attention, Dean outraised Kerry.

Kerry has been a fixture of state politics for two decades: Lieutenant governor in 1982, then election to the US Senate in 1984, with three subsequent reelections. Dean, though governing in neighboring Vermont, had limited visibility in Massachusetts, and around the country, until this summer.

"The numbers could well represent people with new interest in Dean, as opposed to all the usual suspects for Kerry," said Dante Scala, of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.

Three of Dean's top five locations for local contributions were universities: Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Boston University.

"University communities are always pacifist or close to it. That does reveal that the antiwar tilt by Dean is having an impact," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Harvard students and staff also gave heavily to Kerry, but two local powerhouses, Hill, Holliday advertising and the Mintz Levin law firm, were the most lucrative spots for Kerry.

Local attorneys were the top giving profession to Kerry over the year. Retirees were Dean's number one contributors. Physicians, professors, writers, and artists also gave generously to Dean, ranking among the top 10 professions donating to him.

People who listed their job titles as corporate president, CEO, law or investment firm partner, and consultant figured prominently among Kerry's donors.

"What Howard Dean has drawn to his campaign is lot of people who really are looking for fundamental change in the Democratic Party and who saw something special in him, whether it's on the war or his career as a physician," Grossman said.

Raja Mishra can be reached at rmishra@globe.com.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.



To: American Spirit who wrote (6160)11/5/2003 8:50:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Blaming the media won't bail out the Bushies this time.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Joe Conason's Journal
Salon Premium
Nov. 4, 2003
_______________________

It isn't the "filter"

----------------------------

If the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians went unreported by the news "filter," would those people still be alive? If the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq kept quiet, would that policy be working rather than failing? If U.S. policy is failing, at the cost of American and Iraqi lives, is the duty of patriots to pretend otherwise or to speak out?

I only ask because -- until the terrible week that culminated in yesterday's Chinook helicopter downing -- the line from the White House and the Pentagon was that America's worst problems in Iraq were "negative" news coverage and domestic "political" sniping. That propaganda trope is no longer plausible even to those who fervently support the administration and the war. Americans are losing confidence in the president's war policy not because of media coverage or political criticism, but because the administration misled them about the reasons for the war and the costs and consequences of invading Iraq.


While complaints about media coverage and partisan adversaries will stir up the Republican base (and the Fox newsroom), such responses are wholly inadequate to answer the thorough indictment of arrogance and incompetence in David Rieff's Sunday New York Times Magazine essay. Rieff argues that almost every major policy decision, from the sponsorship of Ahmed Chalabi to the mishandling of the U.N. Security Council to the rejection of a larger ground force, pointed toward the current situation -- a situation that, as Paul Bremer finally admitted, is getting "worse." Each of those decisions contributed to the increasing peril of our troops as well as the insecurity, suffering and festering hostility of the Iraqis.

Rather than blame their critics, Rumsfeld and his civilian Pentagon associates should be pondering what they must answer for -- especially in their reckless insistence on a "lean" troop commitment after the brass told them many more soldiers would be needed to maintain order following the Baathist dictatorship's destruction. Implicit in that dispute was a dire warning that came true almost immediately, in the looting of unguarded museums, offices and ammunition dumps. Where do the terrorists and guerrillas get their weapons, including those surface-to-air missiles, if not from arsenals that Pentagon planners neglected to safeguard?

As men who will never admit error, no matter how many bodies are shipped home in darkness, Bush and Rumsfeld still insist that no more U.S. troops should have been deployed. In fact, the defense secretary said on Sunday that he expects the number of American personnel in Iraq may soon decrease. According to him, they will be replaced by the rapid expansion of coalition-trained Iraqi security forces. Yet whether those forces are expanding quite so rapidly as Rumsfeld claims is another question: His optimistic numbers don't match those cited by Paul Bremer and other administration sources in recent weeks. Rumsfeld's credibility is now so poor that almost nothing he says about Iraq can be accepted at his own word.

Worse than the constant insinuation that reporters and political opponents are the proximate causes of trouble in Iraq is the implication that we have only two choices: "Cut and run," or support the president's failing policies. At the New American Strategies conference in Washington last week, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski enunciated an alternative:

"In Iraq we must succeed. Failure is not an option. But once we say that we have to ask ourselves what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?

"Or is it a deliberate effort to promote, by using force, a political solution? And if there's going to be a political solution in Iraq, clearly I think it is obvious that two prerequisites have to be fulfilled as rapidly as feasible: namely, the internationalization of the foreign presence in Iraq, regarding which too much time has been lost and which is going to be increasingly difficult to accomplish, in spite of the somewhat dialectical successes with which we are defining progress in Iraq lately. [Laughter.]…

"In addition to the internationalization of Iraq, we have to transfer power as soon as is possible to a sovereign Iraqi authority." (And not, it must be added, a sovereign authority led by the unelected likes of Chalabi.)

In the past, Brzezinski has been wrong about many things, but his credentials are not in doubt -- and he is right to warn that the only decent route out of Iraq will require support from the same allies whose concerns and advice have always been spurned by the Bush administration. Its bad decisions and stupid swaggering are now costing more and more lives.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer:
Joe Conason writes a daily journal for Salon. He also writes a weekly column for the New York Observer. His new book, "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth," is now available.

salon.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (6160)11/5/2003 9:18:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Daunting intellect sets Clark apart, and some people off, in soldier's life ringed by success

sfgate.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (6160)11/5/2003 10:00:53 AM
From: JakeStraw  Respond to of 10965
 
John Kerry's War Record

By Michael Benge
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 13, 2003
Michael Benge is a Foreign Service officer and a former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973)

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned -- and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the antiwar activist who testified before Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the US Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an antiwar activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam - an odd coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would
deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an antiwar activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.

Michael Benge is a Foreign Service officer and a former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973)

Message 19467524