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: Skywatcher who wrote (496647)	11/21/2003 11:28:27 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Anger isn't helping Democrats By Ellen Goodman Boston Globe - 11/20/03 BOSTON — My dad was a JFK Democrat who swore he could identify Republicans in our precinct by the way they came to the polls: mad. Back then, our neighborhood conservatives were Brahmin elders who still thought of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a traitor to his class. Anyway, I grew up thinking that Democrats were the happy warriors. Roosevelt, Truman, JFK. I thought that liberals, or progressives if you prefer, were the ones who believed in people and the possibility of change. They carried the torch for the improvement of everyday life, the flag of hope for American progress. But it doesn't feel that way this year. I'm having trouble finding a happy warrior. It's not just that the most committed Democrats in the primaries are the most angry. After all, there's much to be angry about and no one should have to smile through bad news like a TV anchor reporting disaster as if it were a pep rally. Nor is it just the passionate anti-Bush sentiment that has turned this Democratic primary season from a debate about who should be president to a debate about who can beat the president. It's something deeper, maybe even darker. When you talk to folks in the most committed wing of the Democratic Party, the deep frustration at the Bush administration often turns on one question: ‘‘How do they get away with it?'' How did they get away with tales of weapons of mass destruction? How did they get away with an underfunded Leave No Child Behind Act, a polluting Clean Water Act, a soaring national debt? This outrage at Bush morphs too easily into pessimism about the American people, a perception of the public as dupes. I have heard, even shared, some of it. After all, about two-thirds of Americans in polls believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 terrorists. How could they? On the other hand, I also know that when liberals start talking about the American people as ‘‘them'' instead of ‘‘us,'' they're done for. On Monday, Rush Limbaugh came back from rehab and after some baby steps — about 12 steps — he returned to liberal bashing. ‘‘You ever see liberals smile about anything?'' asked the man who epitomized and energized the ‘‘angry white man.'' But he's making a charge that has some Velcro. Since I lifted my personal embargo on presidential politics, I've watched several debates and joined in one. The closest thing to a happy warrior is John Edwards, and he exudes more good nature than gravitas. John Kerry is cursed with a cartoonist's delight — sad eyes and a hound-dog seriousness. Howard Dean has perfected a rallying cry of empowerment — ‘‘You have the power to take this country back!'' — but his optimism is only about Bush's defeat. There's a cloud over these candidates and, art imitating life, even my own Democratic president, Jeb Bartlett, seems to have lost the idealistic lilt in his voice in a downbeat ‘‘West Wing.'' Are we having any fun yet? Bush no longer claims to be the ‘‘compassionate conservative'' but he knows enough to work on the vision thing. In a recent foreign policy speech he staked out hope for his team. Americans were not only fighting against terrorism, he said, but fighting for a ‘‘global democratic revolution.'' Well, I don't believe pre-emptive war is a good ambassador for democracy. But Democrats who are dead-on right about this misleadership have yet to share their own ideal of how to turn enemies to allies and despots into democrats. Sometimes I think of the late Paul Wellstone, a man who loved his work. He argued that progressive politics should be less about what's wrong with the other guy and more about getting citizens ‘‘to dream again.'' Where are the big dreams about universal health care or education or jobs? I am not looking for a happy talking, cock-eyed optimist, Candidate Feel Good. This week, America is commemorating the 40th anniversary of JFK's death. But it's worth thinking of the life of the man who called on our best. A man who lightened his Cold War realism with wit and eloquence. Remember Jimmy Carter's malaise? Leaders who project an energetic belief in people and the future draw voters into their magnetic field. Politicians with that sort of positive energy hold an edge whether named Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. There is nothing contradictory about anger and idealism. But anger without idealism makes for a unhappy warrior and an unhappy election. As Clinton, who is still a better politician than Karl Rove on his best day, said recently: ‘‘We've got to fight. And we gotta look like we're havin' a good time doing it.'' Anger may win a primary. But it takes an upbeat pol to get folks to come to the party. Ellen Goodman is a columnist for the Boston Globe. helenair.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (496647)	11/21/2003 11:28:59 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

A vote to invoke cloture on the Energy bill just failed.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (496647)	11/21/2003 11:42:48 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

Chrissykins, a real General speaks. The statements made support my proffer that those who make suggestions questioning President George W. Bush honesty and intelligence are revealing idiot identification event cues. Gen. Tommy Franks says President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.” On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. “I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent. “If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?” The Pentagon’s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.’” Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden. “The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won’t say that’ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.” Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.” newsmax.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (496647)	11/21/2003 1:34:35 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Nothing has interrupted our cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan. There is no truth to the charge of shredding the alliance.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (496647)	11/21/2003 11:44:22 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

CREATE AN ANTI-BUSH AD -- MoveOn.org bushin30seconds.org Create a TV ad that tells the truth about George W. Bush. Recent additions to this website: Sick of the propaganda being beamed at you from the current administration's media mavens? Here's a new way to fight back: Enter MoveOn.org Voter Fund's political ad contest. You don't have to be formally trained in the art of filmmaking, just ready, willing and able to create an ad that tells the truth about George Bush. All eligible submissions will be posted on this web site and rated by visitors. The top rated ads will then be voted on by our panel of esteemed judges, including Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant. The winning ad idea will be broadcast on television during the week of Bush's 2004 State of the Union address, and the winner will receive a recording of the ad as broadcast. To enter, just make a 30 second ad and submit it through this web site. Submissions will be accepted between November 24th and December 5th, 2003 and voting on the site will run between December 15th and December 30th, 2003. Before you make your entry, you'll want to review the submission guidelines, and if you really want to know all the details, you can review the official rules. Good luck! We look forward to seeing your submission. Want to help spread the word about the contest? Just download and post this poster in places where entrants might hang out.