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 (6933)12/2/2003 11:39:14 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Dean crushing Kerry on Amazon.

Kerry's "A Call to Service..." is now ranked number 11,044 on Amazon.

amazon.com

Howard Dean's "Winning Back America" is ranked 131.

amazon.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (6933)12/3/2003 3:25:29 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
Hollywood Political Event Stirs Up Storm

By Anne-Marie O'Connor and Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writers

latimes.com

It was the kind of evening Hollywood is known for: a gathering of deep-pocketed entertainment industry liberals to discuss a strategy for electing a Democratic president next year.

But as guests arrived at the Beverly Hilton on Tuesday night, the meeting had become a target of conservatives, who attacked it as a symbol of excessive liberal rage toward President Bush.

Campaign finance reform advocates, meanwhile, worried that it exemplified efforts to dodge new campaign finance laws banning unlimited political contributions.

The session — initiated by Laurie David, wife of HBO star Larry David, and co-hosted by actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and 20 others — was an attempt to acquaint the liberals with America Coming Together, an initiative to mobilize Democrats in 17 states that may prove crucial to the outcome of the 2004 presidential race.

The event also was intended to build support for the Media Fund, an effort organized by Harold M. Ickes, a former key aide to President Clinton. This group hopes to raise as much as $80 million to fund an independent advertising campaign for the eventual Democratic presidential nominee.

The invitation to the gathering, which was closed to the media and lacked the glitz that usually marks such events, said the fund "will provide a strong message on television and radio by trumpeting the shortcomings of the Bush Republican agenda and articulating the positive differences in Democratic policies."

It added: "This is the most important meeting you can attend to prevent the advancement of the current extremist right wing agenda."

Leaders of America Coming Together and the Media Fund say they are simply pursuing the type of political activities that have helped the Republican Party for years. They note that the GOP has benefited from ads and other political efforts financed by numerous pro-GOP business organizations and advocacy groups that oppose abortion and restrictions on gun ownership.

But by Monday, Matt Drudge, the creator of the online Drudge Report, was reporting on the Internet that the event's organizers were billing it as a "Hate Bush Meeting" — a charge its orchestrators vehemently denied and seemed to stem from wording added to the invitation by someone as it percolated through e-mail.

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh called it a meeting of "Left Coast Hollywood Kooks" and on his Web site posted photos of Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand and liberal filmmaker Michael Moore — though they were not associated with the event.

But behind these attacks was another issue — the way substantial sums of money continue to flow into the political process, despite the campaign finance reform law approved last year that was sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.).

Critics charge that groups like America Coming Together and the Media Fund are providing an outlet for the unlimited contributions known as soft money that the law banned. The Democratic Party — more so than the Republicans — relied on these large donations to finance its grass-roots organization and national advertising campaigns.

With the Democratic National Committee likely to have far less money for such activities in 2004, the two groups that held the meeting in Los Angeles are hoping to fill the gap, partly by tapping the same wealthy donors who provided soft money to the party.

"You've got these backdoor channels for soft money," said Bill Allison, managing editor of the Center for Public Integrity. "A lot of it's being done — surprise, surprise — to benefit some candidates and attack others in the same way a lot of the parties used soft money."

Such critics also are concerned that these new groups will receive less oversight from federal officials than the political parties do.

Ultimately, the low-key nature of Tuesday's gathering was a striking contrast to the controversy that surrounded it. Attendees arrived in jeans, denim jackets, black pants, black turtlenecks and, in some cases, sandals. Three people walked into the hotel's Versailles ballroom wearing T-shirts with an image of Bush with a red line through it.

America Coming Together is intended to act as an umbrella organization for mobilization efforts by a broad range of Democratic interest groups. Its members include representatives of the Sierra Club, powerful unions such as the Service Employees International Union, and other left-leaning groups such as Emily's List, which raises money for Democratic female candidates.

Ellen Malcolm, president of Amercia Coming Together, said that group was already operating in Ohio, canvassing voters, and hopes to be active in eight states by year's end. It and the Media Fund have held similar meetings to solicit donors in other cities, including Seattle and New York, without attracting such attention.

"We're operating totally within the law," said Ickes, president of the Media Fund.

The fund-raising drive, Ickes said, is meant to replace the soft money funding that helped the Democratic Party run $75 million in issue ads in 2000. The Media Fund, he said, can raise unlimited amounts to finance radio and television from late March until the conventions.

"The critical distinction here is we are not a party committee," Ickes said.

Ickes said the "Hate Bush Meeting" label may have been tacked on by one of the many people who received the e-mail invitation before it eventually reached Drudge.

The New York Daily News reported Tuesday that a man in the Midwest who declined to reveal his name added the "hate Bush" phrase in the e-mail's subject line.

Jim Dyke, communications director of the Republican National Committee, said wherever the phrase came from, it was "descriptive of the liberal elites' " view of Bush.

Dyke added: "I doubt that anyone who is going [to the Tuesday meeting] disagrees with the e-mail title."

The e-mail received by The Times billed the event only as a "Big Meeting."

But Ickes said: "Those of us who are involved in these organizations on a day-to-day basis don't hate Bush. We don't like his policies."

What coalition supporters are concerned about, he said, is the war in Iraq, job losses, the federal deficit, the weakening of environmental protections and the prospect of a federal judiciary — especially the Supreme Court — with a number of Bush appointees.

"We see him as representing very radical policies and leading the country in the wrong direction," he said.

America Coming Together has already received a $10-million pledge from billionaire philanthropist George Soros — a contribution that infuriated some Republican leaders.

Marge Tabankin, a Hollywood political consultant and one of the hosts of Tuesday's meeting, said Republicans "are looking at what the Democrats are doing and they're getting really nervous and they're trying to blow it up. What they're realizing is that this time around, there is likely to be a more level playing field, financially."

If the meeting demonstrated the depth of opposition to the Bush administration among many in Hollywood, it also underscored the hostility many conservatives feel toward what they term the "cultural elite."

Calls and faxes attacking the gathering's sponsors — some of them anti-Semitic — came in from around the country from people who heard about it on conservative talk radio.

But in Los Angeles, the unexpected buzz caused the event to mushroom from 100 people to 230 — prompting the organizers to find a bigger room at the Beverly Hilton and to turn away many people who wanted to come, organizers said.

Among those expected to attend were Christine Lahti, Aaron Sorkin, Rob Reiner, Heather Thomas, producer Paula Weinstein, and "MASH" television star Mike Farrell.

Director Robert Greenwald, a co-host, joked that organizers would have to thank their detractors — "or put them on retainer."

*O'Connor reported from Los Angeles; Brownstein from Washington. Times staff writer Allison Hoffman contributed to this report.



To: American Spirit who wrote (6933)12/4/2003 3:11:40 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Politics of hate won't beat Bush

Susan Estrich

December 4, 2003

indystar.com

Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.