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: MSI who wrote (16762)	11/19/2003 11:25:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

I support full disclosure. And I am for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way, MSI. lindybill@platitudes.com

To: MSI who wrote (16762)	11/19/2003 11:28:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793670

THESE AREN’T YOUR FATHER’S WAR PROTESTS Gleen Reynolds Last week antiwar protesters planned to show up as troops from Fort Lewis, Washington (near Seattle) set out for Iraq. But they were outnumbered by counterprotesters who showed up to support the troops and the U.S. effort in Iraq. And it wasn’t just the handful of antiwar protesters who were outnumbered — so were the 3,500 troops: Saturday, as men like Stroup packed duffel bags with clothes and gear, some 4,000 supporters stood on freeway bridges spanning Interstate 5 from Fort Lewis to McChord Air Force Base. There were also about 20 antiwar protesters, according to law enforcement officials. “God Bless Our Troops,” said signs held by supporters standing near the Washington Guard’s headquarters at Camp Murray. “Land of the free “Because of the brave. “Support our troops,” read another sign. Naturally, there were bloggers on hand with digital cameras, and you can see photos and read firsthand reports here and here. (Great pictures! nukevet.com medvedfans.blog-city.com ) Meanwhile, in Britain, support for the war is climbing and Bush is looking pretty good, according to this poll by The Guardian, which found: More than half of Labour supporters back U.S. President George Bush’s state visit to Britain, according to a survey. They were among an overall 43% of voters who told pollsters ICM they welcomed the visit - some 7% more than the 36% who said they would prefer the President to stay away. Twelve per cent were undecided. . . . Opposition to war in Iraq fell by 12 points since September to 41% of all voters, the poll suggested. Meanwhile, pro-war sentiment grew by nine points to 47%. And some two-thirds of those questioned said that British and American troops should not withdraw from Iraq now, but remain until the situation in the country is more stable. The story also describes British sentiment as “overwhelmingly pro-American.” It’s not your father’s antiwar movement. And that’s a good thing. Just remember that when you see film of protests in London during Bush’s visit. The protesters are, to use a charming old phrase, on the wrong side of history. msnbc.com

To: MSI who wrote (16762)	11/19/2003 11:35:04 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793670

Great speech by Bush. The BBC version left out the "Band of Thugs" comment. They have really turned themselves into the "Baathist Broadcasting Company." November 19, 2003 Bush Says U.S. Will Not Retreat From 'Band of Thugs' in Iraq By TERENCE NEILAN - NEW YORK TIMES resident Bush spelled out his global views in a major speech in London today, saying that the United States would not retreat from "a band of thugs" in Iraq, calling on the United Nations to stand behind its resolutions and, in forceful language aimed equally at Israel and the Palestinians, urging Middle East peace. He said international organizations must be equal to the challenges facing the world, "from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation" of nuclear weapons. But, in answer to critics in Britain and other countries, he stressed that, "like 11 American presidents before me," he was committed to the institutions that the United States and alliances helped to form. He also said he backed multilateralism, an attempt to negate the perception that he is a leader determined to go his own way. He added, however, that the credibility of the United Nations depended on its ability to keep its word, "and to act when action is required." "It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions," he said. "We must meet those dangers with resolve." He also said the International Atomic Energy Authority must be true to its purpose and hold Iran to its obligation not to pursue nuclear weapons. Stressing the need for democracy throughout the world, he said there was a growing desire among the people of the Middle East for freedom and the right to choose their own path. "As recent history has shown," he said, "we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard." On Iraq, he said the coalition had two options — "to keep or to break our word," adding, "The failure of democracy in Iraq will throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us." "Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq because our will is firm, our word is good and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom," he said. He said the situation in Iraq was serious, and continued to say that the almost daily attacks were mainly coming from outside forces, although American generals have said they believe that insurgents loyal to Saddam Hussein were behind most of the strikes. Mr. Bush said the coalition had not advanced into the heart of Iraq and paid "a bitter cost" of casualties, "only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." On the Middle East, he said the United States sought a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who "have been betrayed by others for too long." The United States also sought security for Israel, "which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long," he said. But peace would not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition and profit from corruption and maintain their ties to terrorist groups, the president said. "The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better," Mr. Bush added. "They deserve true leaders." President Bush urged Israel to end the "daily humiliation" of Palestinians and not to prejudice final peace talks by erecting "walls and fences," a clear reference to the West Bank barrier Israel is building. It says it is erecting the barrier to protect itself from terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush also said Israel should "freeze" construction of settlements, which have the clear backing of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. The president's visit is rife with political implications both for Mr. Bush and for Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose steadfast support of the United States over Iraq has divided his governing Labor Party and undermined his popular support. Mr. Bush has said he views the protests as a symbol of democratic freedoms. But pictures of large-scale demonstrations against him — the biggest one is scheduled for Thursday — are sure to be used by Democrats at home to buttress their case that Mr. Bush shattered international alliances and squandered good will toward the United States in leading the nation into a war in Iraq that much of the rest of the world thought was unnecessary or premature. Mr. Bush's schedule is dominated by the kind of pomp he typically disdains, most notably an official welcome ceremony with Queen Elizabeth this morning and a state dinner tonight, where he will wear tails (which, he was quick to point out to several interviewers last week, he had to rent). But his aides said he would also use the stage granted to him in the first full-scale state visit by an American president since Woodrow Wilson in 1918 to celebrate the ideals of the long partnership between the United States and Britain and apply them to the world today. Mr. Bush will spend much of Thursday and Friday with Mr. Blair. The two leaders are scheduled to discuss how to move ahead in Iraq now that the United States has changed course and agreed to transfer a measure of sovereignty to a provisional Iraqi government by June, before Iraq drafts and adopts a constitution. They are also expected to discuss a number of issues on which there is tension between their countries. Among them is the status of nine British citizens captured by American forces and held by the United States at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Mr. Blair is sure to press Mr. Bush to end tariffs on imported steel, a step that could cause political heartburn for the president in the electorally crucial states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Mr. Blair is also likely to call on the United States to do more to revive talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials, reflecting a British view that the administration has sided too much with Israel. Richard W. Stevenson contributed to this report. nytimes.com

To: MSI who wrote (16762)	11/19/2003 12:41:01 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793670

David Broder says "Wake up and smell the coffee!" Campaign finance law is a joke. Cash Flow By David S. Broder washingtonpost.com Wednesday, November 19, 2003; Page A27 First it was President Bush, scorning public financing of his pre-convention campaign and unleashing his fundraisers to collect something close to $200 million for a head start on his bid for a second term. Then former Vermont governor Howard Dean, with his Internet army of small donors, opted out of the limits attached to public financing and declared he would try to match Bush dollar for dollar. And then Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, married to the wealthy heiress of the Heinz fortune, announced he would reject the taxpayer subsidies as well. Seven others in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination are still operating within the framework of the system of tax-supported and spending-limited campaigns that began in 1976. But the precedent has now been set on both sides -- with Bush and Steve Forbes having gone solo in 2000 and Bush again this year. So one has to assume that in future years, more candidates will follow the Bush-Dean-Kerry pattern, if the rules remain the same. Those rules needed revision even before this. As I wrote recently, the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute made a compelling case that the current limits on primary election spending (approximately $45 million) are unreasonably low, the state-by-state spending ceilings are so impractical they invite evasion, and the taxpayer checkoff that provides the financing is badly in need of expansion. The chances of any or all of these changes being approved in a Republican-controlled Congress are not great; most GOP senators and representatives have been skeptical about publicly financed campaigns, and some are outright hostile to them. So what exactly has been lost if the presidential nomination campaigns are stripped of their element of public financing? Not that much. Public financing has two rationales -- reducing corruption or the appearance of corruption and equalizing the playing field among the contenders. The current system, which offers federal matching funds for up to $250 of individual contributions, provides a healthy incentive for seeking and giving small contributions -- and a reward that could be almost one-third of the $45 million allowed for the primary campaign. But it does not and cannot even out the resources available to contestants for the nomination. Early on, Kerry, with his establishment support, and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a favorite of his fellow trial lawyers, far outdistanced their rivals in collecting campaign cash. When Dean developed his Internet appeal to antiwar Democrats, he zoomed past both of them. But serious rivals such as Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut are at a serious financial disadvantage, and would remain so even if Dean and Kerry stayed inside the system. You cannot equalize financial support in the primaries any more than you can equalize speaking ability, organizational skills or television appeal. What about preventing corruption? Dean has an irrefutable answer. He has collected an average of $77 from more than 200,000 donors. No one can suppose he is in hock to any one of them -- or any clique. Kerry is in a position to tap his personal wealth and to borrow against joint property held with his wife, Teresa Heinz, an advantageous situation but not a corrupting one. Bush presents a harder case, because he has organized an efficient system for collecting the maximum $2,000 individual contributions allowed by current law. But the best answer to the practice of "bundling" high-dollar gifts is to identify the key collection agents. Thanks to Ruth Marcus, the editorial writer who has made a specialty of campaign finance, The Washington Post editorial page has pressed all the campaigns to identify their fundraisers -- the people to whom a candidate might very well feel obligated. The Bush campaign has complied, and thus far Democrats Kerry, Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark have agreed to cooperate. So far, Bush has indicated he will once again accept full public financing of his general election campaign, and indications are that the Democratic nominee will do so as well. That spares them the necessity of fundraising in September and October, when campaign time is better spent on stumping the country. But no one should think it ensures equality or ends the potential for big contributors' influence. The parties can raise money on their own, and since the McCain-Feingold law -- now before the Supreme Court -- has limited the size of gifts they can receive, a variety of semi-official vehicles have sprung up to take big-dollar contributions. Liberal financier George Soros has pledged more than $15 million to two avowedly anti-Bush political movements. In a nation as open as this one, with the constitutional guarantee of free expression we enjoy, it is virtually impossible to shut down the flow of money from the private sector to the political world. The effort to do so leads only to frustration. washingtonpost.com