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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15755)	11/10/2003 1:47:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793672

These ads will work to the Republican's advantage with Religious Blacks and Chicanos, plus blue collar Catholics. My "didn't give a shit" Puerto Rican Daughter in Law was married in the Anglican Church but tried to get my son to remarry her when she went Evangelical. ____________________________ Gay Marriage Gets Million-Dollar Ad Campaign By Howard Kurtz Monday, November 10, 2003; Page A04 Gay marriage is shaping up as a hot-button issue for the Republicans in 2004 -- which is why one gay rights group is spending as much as $1 million on advertising to frame the issue in positive terms. "We want to educate people about what marriage is," says spokesman Mark Shields of the Human Rights Campaign. The ads, to be placed in major national newspapers, try to humanize the issue of same-sex unions. "Why Are 'Pro-Family' Groups Attacking This Family?" says one ad featuring a Maryland couple, Jo and Teresa, and their three young children: Between "skinned knees" and "soccer practice . . . they face all the same joys and frustrations as other parents -- but without the same protections." Other versions showcase two elderly women, two black women, two church-going men and Keith Bradkowksi holding a photo of his partner, who died in the World Trade Center attack. "The terrorists killed people not because they were gay or straight -- but because they were Americans," the headline says. washingtonpost.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15755)	11/10/2003 2:50:29 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793672

U.S. warns of increased Iraq attacks Sun November 09, 2003 11:41 PM ET reuters.co.uk By Dean Yates BAGHAD (Reuters) - Iraq's U.S. governor Paul Bremer warns guerrillas will step up attacks to stop reconstruction efforts and says several hundred foreign militants have entered the country. Bremer vowed in an interview with The Times newspaper U.S.-led forces would not be driven out of Iraq by the militants because the price of failure was too high for the country itself and the Middle East. "We're going to have increased attacks and increased terrorism because the terrorist can see the reconstruction dynamic is moving in our direction," said Bremer, adding the foreign fighters were from Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. "It will be more of a problem in the months ahead unless the intelligence gets better," he said. Washington, which has lost 150 soldiers to hostile fire since President George W. Bush declared major combat over on May 1, blames the attacks on Saddam Hussein supporters and foreign fighters, including al Qaeda members. "Consequences of us not succeeding here would be very grave. They are for the Iraqis fatal, perhaps for the Middle East almost as fatal," Bremer told the Times. He was quoted as saying an Iraqi "special force" to counter rising militancy would probably not include former members of Saddam's intelligence services, but it was "not impossible". Sympathising with the Iraqi people, he said it was "not comfortable being occupied", but added: "And it's not comfortable being an occupying power." BLASTS IN BAGHDAD Several loud explosions echoed across Baghdad on Sunday night and police said a mortar bomb hit a house in the city centre, but there were no immediate reports of casualties. It appeared to be the fourth mortar attack by guerrillas in a week on the capital. Guerrillas have grown increasingly bold in launching mortar attacks on the U.S.-led administration on the west side of the Tigris River. No one has been killed, but several personnel in the U.S.-led coalition have been wounded. U.S. warplanes bombed targets in Iraq on Sunday in air strikes that resumed last week for the first time in more than six months after the recent shooting down of three U.S. helicopters. In the latest air strikes, F-16 fighter-bombers dropped three 500-pound bombs near the flashpoint town of Falluja, in an area west of Baghdad where 16 U.S. soldiers were killed when a U.S. Chinook helicopter was downed. The air strikes followed attacks on U.S. troops, a U.S. military source said. He had no precise details. U.S. troops in Saddam's home town of Tikrit have launched a new operation in the hostile area to hunt down guerrillas. "If necessary, we'll carry out more shows of force," said Major Josslyn Aberle, spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division. Saddam remains at large after being toppled from power by U.S.-led forces in April. Iraq's interim Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council would meet a December 15 deadline for setting out a path towards self-rule. The pledge was made amid frustration expressed by occupation officials that Iraqi politicians have not moved more quickly to draw up plans for taking over power. "The ball is now in our court and we must deliver," Zebari said on the issue of creating a new constitution and when to hold elections. Zebari said the December 15 deadline would be met, although implementation of the political plan depended on security. An official of the U.S.-led coalition told Reuters there was "fairly strong frustration" over the Governing Council's slow progress as it had been made clear the constitution should be the top priority when the body was formed in July. "Where are we four months on? We haven't moved yet," the official said.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15755)	11/10/2003 9:25:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793672

The last one was a hooker. Maybe this one will be the real thing. ________________________________________ National Review The Anti-Clinton A liberal dream come true. By Andrew Cline If Howard Dean wins the Democratic presidential nomination, everyone will say the triumph was due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. And everyone will be wrong. Dean's extended stay at the top of the polls has many reasons. Opposition to the war is just one of them. Dean also has a natural leadership ability and obvious charisma. There is another factor that I've yet to see written about, but which is a major attraction for many liberal voters. Howard Dean is the anti–Bill Clinton. While Bill Clinton remains the most popular Democratic politician in nationwide polls, a good chunk (possibly most) of the activist base of the party wants to toss him like a threadbare pair of boxer shorts. These are the people who think Ted Kennedy is history's greatest senator. And Clinton is the man who triangulated away their dreams of an American socialist utopia. The conventional wisdom that liberals love Dean because they sense that he is as furious at Bush as they are is right. They want a candidate who views the 2004 election as a war of Us against Them, of the Righteous vs. the Evildoers. But also important is that Dean allows the liberals to cleanse themselves of the taint of Bill Clinton. By voting for Dean, they can vote anti-Clinton and anti-Bush at the same time. Dean is everything the Left hoped Bill Clinton would be in 1992, and nothing Clinton turned out to be. He holds the promise of being a president who is dependably liberal and uncompromising in his principles. Dean is plain-spoken and honest. Clinton was obtuse and slimy. Dean was a wealthy urban kid who, laden with liberal guilt, voluntarily moved down the social ladder to maintain his principles. Clinton was a poor, rural kid who sold his soul to the highest bidder for eight years in the White House. To the political Left, Clinton was the tall, dashing lover who swept them off their feet only to break their hearts and leave them vowing never to go out with such a creep again. Dean is the nice guy with sensible shoes who has them believing in love again. No other Democratic candidate gives the Left the same feeling of comfort and safety that Dean provides. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards all are tainted. They are career politicians who regularly flirt with "the other guy," a.k.a. the Republicans. Clark is tempting. He is handsome and looks great in a uniform. But he was sleeping with the other guy just last year. Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley Braun are — how does one say this politely? — just not attractive. REST AT nationalreview.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15755)	11/10/2003 9:29:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793672

Finally! Someone puts it perfectly. The case President Bush made is not the Wilsonian one of making the world safe for democracy. Rather, his abiding concern, as was TR's, is to make the world safe for the United States. ________________________________________ National Review High World Stakes The urgency of a second Bush term. By Adam Wolfson Bush's speech was the latest effort by the administration to stop the slipping support for the U.S. occupation of Iraq at home and abroad. Though he had previously mentioned the spread of Mideast democracy as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, Bush elevated that rationale to primacy yesterday, making no mention of weapons of mass destruction and only passing reference to national security and terrorism. — The Washington Post, November 7, 2003 Could this be so? Has President Bush somehow done a Woodrow Wilson makeover? Has the president changed the rationale of the war from defending the United States from terrorism to a selfless "crusade" for democracy? Well, not exactly. Bush's argument in his landmark address before the National Endowment of Democracy on Thursday was in fact far more interesting and challenging than reported. His argument has been largely misunderstood because it draws upon an almost-forgotten foreign-policy tradition in America — one that is neither strictly "realist" nor "idealist." Bush's speech hearkens back to the "idealistic realism" of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. The case President Bush made is not the Wilsonian one of making the world safe for democracy. Rather, his abiding concern, as was TR's, is to make the world safe for the United States. Here's what Bush said: He pointed out that 60 years of a cold, calculating "realism" in our foreign policy towards the Middle East — one that accommodated despots as long as they were on "our side" — made the country neither safe nor served our national interest. Now, in making this acknowledgment, Bush was hardly offering a Clinton-like apology for past wrongs committed by the United States. He was simply pointing out that the old policy in the Mideast had failed to deliver. It was, one might say, not at all realistic about the true agenda of all those "friendly" kings, princes, and strongmen who currently rule over the Arab world. Authoritarian states like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, no matter how much oil they might sell us, do not serve our genuine national interests. There can be no community of concern between democrats and non-democrats. As Bush put it, "in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of...violence ready for export." REST AT nationalreview.com