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: Dayuhan who wrote (17871)11/27/2003 12:39:27 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
Attributing the current economic cycle to Bush's intervention is as silly as attributing the '90s boom to Clinton (or Reagan, or Bush I), but hey, politicians will be politicians, and there will always be a journalist to suck up.


They brought his father down with the economic cycle, so I would expect the son to take credit for it. The Dems can't complain, because they always take credit for the "Clinton Boom."

The truth is, of course, that "nobody knows."

My attitude on the deficit is if we can keep our National Debt, long term, rising at no more than the same percentage of rising National income, we are safe. BWTFDIK

And right now the attitude is "spend, spend, spend!"

I still think the number one thing that brought down 41 was the "Grocery Scanner" incident.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (17871)11/27/2003 5:23:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans expressed strong religious beliefs when asked questions designed to measure these attitudes.



A Spiritual Struggle for Democrats
Silence on Religion Could Hurt Candidates

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 27, 2003; Page A01

The nine Democratic presidential candidates all consider themselves religious, though most keep their faith and spiritual views to themselves when campaigning.

Their silence stands in contrast to President Bush, among the most overtly religious presidents in generations, and could undermine the Democratic nominee, as polls consistently show that voters want to hear more about faith from their national leaders.

Democrats "have been very hesitant to talk about faith . . . and in doing so we have lost a connection with a lot of people," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an Orthodox Jew and one of only two candidates who frequently talk about God. Long-shot candidate Al Sharpton, an ordained minister, is the other. "Democrats ought to pay attention to the fact that the two Democrats who have been elected president since [Lyndon] Johnson were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton . . . and both talked a lot about their faith," Lieberman said.

In interviews, most of the candidates said they are uncomfortable discussing their faith as publicly as Bush does or Clinton did. Yet most agreed the party must do a better job of connecting with religious voters, or risk not winning the White House in 2004.

Voters "want leaders, particularly a president, who they trust and who they think is a good person," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who was baptized a Southern Baptist at age 16 but has joined the Methodist Church. "If you are a person of faith, I think it adds weight to that issue of whether you are a good person."

Bush's faith plays a big part in his political strength, pollsters say, as he receives high marks from the public for providing moral and trustworthy leadership. Bush is a born-again Christian who frequently studies the Bible, prays and candidly discusses his faith in God.

"If you can connect with people spiritually, that is an important connection," said retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a Catholic who frequently attends Presbyterian services. "That's what George Bush tries to do."

Clark, in one respect, is trying to emulate Bush: He recently talked in depth about his faith for the ecumenical Web site Beliefnet.

An overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves religious. A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans expressed strong religious beliefs when asked questions designed to measure these attitudes.

A Pew study in June found that nearly twice as many respondents said "There has been too little reference to religious faith and prayer by politicians" (41 percent) than said "There has been too much" (21 percent). While Bush is sometimes criticized for his references to New Testament theology, only 14 percent said he mentions faith too often; nearly two-thirds said he is striking the right balance. What voters said they do not want are politicians who obviously pander or moralize.

In a recent briefing for national, state and local politicians, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council cited Bush as a model for how to talk about religion without offending voters. The DLC's policy director, Ed Kilgore, told the audience that "natural use of scriptural language and allegories connects with people of faith," and he urged them to "connect policies with religious values." For example, they should talk about "God's green Earth" when advocating environmental policies, he said.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a Catholic, said Bush sometimes mixes too much of his religion into his administration's policies. "The faith-based initiative crossed that line overtly," Kerry said.

Bush's base includes conservative white Evangelicals, those Christians who, among other things, see abortion and homosexuality as going against the Bible. They have become an increasingly powerful and loyal voting bloc for the GOP over the past two decades and are unlikely to vote for any candidate who does not share their religious and cultural beliefs.

Bush is relentless in courting these voters and frequently sprinkles his speeches with references to New Testament teachings. When asked about gay marriage at a news conference, he said, "I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own." To the secular voter, this may sound odd. To Evangelicals and other Christians, it is a reminder straight from the Gospel of Luke to be careful not to judge, lest be judged.

Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, tends to this flock of voters, meeting with Christian leaders and communicating through Christian publications such as World magazine, which often features interviews with top White House officials.

Democrats do not anticipate breaking through to these voters, though even a small shift could make a difference in states such as Tennessee, Virginia and Florida, where a few thousand votes could decide next year's winner. But there are millions of devout Christians, Jews and Muslims who desire a candidate of faith and do not cling as tightly to litmus-test issues such as gay rights and abortion.

Political scientists have coined names for two groups of swing religious voters: "freestyle Evangelicals," who tend to be suburban, socially conservative and politically independent, and "convertible Catholics," who tend to be culturally moderate to conservative and committed to social justice. The candidates are also looking to increase their support among black Christians, many of whom are socially conservative on issues such as gay rights and school choice. Clinton and Carter were popular with this group; Bush's efforts to make similar inroads have largely failed, according to polls.

In some ways, Democrats see their opening revealed in the philosophical splits dividing the Episcopal and Catholic churches in the United States. On the one side are conservative Christians who interpret the Bible more literally and see abortion and homosexuality as incompatible with scripture and, therefore, incompatible with their political views. This group leans strongly Republican, pollsters say. On the other side are the millions of Episcopalians who supported the confirmation of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and Catholics who support abortion rights. These voters are considered very gettable for Democrats. Al Gore narrowly won the Catholic vote in the 2000 election.

This is the camp the Democratic candidates mostly fall into. In interviews, those candidates who described themselves as Christians said homosexuality and abortion are not sinful, and all described the New Testament as focused on helping the poor and needy. They mostly talked about it as a broad guide of principles not to be taken too literally. It is a very "different set of teachings some in the more fundamentalist parts talk about," said Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), a Baptist who once considered joining the seminary.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- a Congregationalist Christian who said he prays almost daily and reads the Bible but rarely attends church these days unless it is for a political event -- compared some fundamentalist leaders to the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of religious law but who have come to be associated with self-righteousness.

The trick for Democrats, Dean said, is to push the debate beyond abortion and gay rights, which he believes are the two biggest issues dividing Democrats from many Evangelicals and Catholics. "The Bible isn't fixated on homosexuality. We shouldn't be either," said Dean, who said he has read the Bible from cover to cover.

Some Democrats think Dean, the top fundraiser in the field, would have a harder time than others defeating Bush in the South because he is so closely affiliated with gay rights, which is replacing abortion as the top target for some religious conservatives. As governor, he signed the nation's first civil unions law. In Houston recently, Dean tested a new line that some Democrats see as offensive to some religious voters he is courting. "We've got to stop voting on guns, gods, gays and school prayer," he told the crowd.

As part of his strategy to broaden his appeal, Dean has started spreading a secular political message at black churches after singing and swaying along with gospel choirs and praying with mostly black congregations.

"Democrats should not write off communities of faith, including Evangelicals," Dean said. If he wins the nomination, Dean said, he will seek "common ground" with Christians on helping the poor get jobs, housing and health insurance.

"Democrats have to tip their hat to religion," said Andrew Kohut of Pew. "But they also have to acknowledge their own base takes a different view on social issues than highly religious voters do. That's the dance they have to do."

Not only were most of the Democrats raised to practice a quiet faith, they also are seeking the nomination of an eclectic party that includes Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, a high percentage of Jews, and a large number of atheists and agnostics. During campaign appearances this year, the party's activists frequently expressed strong feelings about the mixing of church and state, which makes some candidates wary of talking too much about their religious views.

This has left most of the candidates silent on spirituality. Take Edwards. The senator drifted away from religion during his college days but found God in a powerful way after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident in 1996. Soon after, Edwards, whose father is a deacon, intensified his study of the Bible, including with his Senate colleagues, and co-chaired a national prayer breakfast. His faith came "roaring back," he said. By his admission, though, he talks about his faith only when asked and is "very, very careful" not to allow his faith to guide his policies. "Most people in this country do not want you to be beating them over their heads with your religious views," Edwards said.

washingtonpost.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (17871)11/28/2003 9:56:54 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
Kowtowing to Iran
New York Daily News
Friday, November 28th, 2003

For readers born with a substantial supply of optimism and always hungry for more, here is a gift that will make them happier than ever. It is a mound of information collected by the U.S. and some of its allies that shows Iran and North Korea have achieved technological advances in nuclear weapons that startle even Western experts.
The optimism grows from the belief of some of these experts that they will be able to get Iran and North Korea to stop making more nuclear weapons, and even destroy some of their existing weaponry.

But some of these optimistic Westerners likely will sink into pessimistic holes. After that, they will collapse into still deeper gloom, because their own countries could be sinking deeper into danger.

Just a few weeks ago, the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency got swift kicks in the ankles and other parts of their anatomies for discovering a couple of unpleasant surprises. Iran is far along in producing nuclear weapons, and North Korea's program is even broader and deeper.

Then on Wednesday, the atomic energy agency, which is an arm of the UN, met in Vienna and said some decidedly nasty things about those two countries. But the agency did not demand that they destroy the nuclear weaponry they have stored in forts they call warehouses.

Many of the nations of the world wanted a resolution about all this sent to the UN Security Council. However, the international agency has decided it wants the resolution sent not to the Security Council but to itself.

That's just part of the story. It was revealed by Western nuclear specialists less than two weeks ago that Iran has been working on a nuclear program for 18 years. Yes, 18 years, almost the same length of time Saddam Hussein worked on his nuclear weapons, a program that received a major setback from an Israeli air attack on an atomic reactor in 1981. (The reactor was built, by the way, with French equipment.)

Exactly why the board of governors of the atomic energy agency took some sharp slaps at Iran but not North Korea is a bit of a mystery because North Korea is already a nuclear power, has a huge army and is controlled by a near-mad ruler. It is also in a perpetual state of hunger. Any sign of nuclear weapons being prepared for action against North Korean revolutionaries probably would destroy the government - and most of the rest of the peninsula. One part of Korea would destroy the other.

Still, the international agency did speak out against Iran's program. And while there is no hope that rulers of Iran will now turn their country into a placid nation, the statement could be a weapon against those who are tyrannizing Iran. There are enough Iranians who are sick enough of the dictatorial clergymen not only to long for freedom, but to achieve it. The statement makes clear what a rogue nation they are living in.

Here's what Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said:

"By today's decision, the international community affirmed, in no uncertain terms, the integrity of the nuclear nonproliferation regime by strongly deploring Iran's failures and breaches to comply with its obligations under the safeguards agreement.

"The international community also laid down a marker that Iran must strictly adhere to its nonproliferation obligations in both letter and spirit through a policy of active cooperation and full transparency. Importantly, and in addition, it made it clear that any serious failures in the future by Iran to comply with its obligations will be met with an appropriately serious response."

nydailynews.com