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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (7277)	12/8/2003 11:21:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Why I Gave ______________________ By George Soros Editorial The Washington Post Friday, December 5, 2003 I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in the 2004 presidential election. We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the United States and the world. If Americans reject the president's policies at the polls, we can write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume our rightful place in the world. If we endorse those policies, we shall have to live with the hostility of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence. In this effort, I have committed $10 million to America Coming Together, a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that is airing advertisements to highlight the administration's misdeeds. This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by conservative groups. Rather than a debate on the issues, there's been a lot of name-calling by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law. In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit of the law. Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are "527" organizations -- referring to Section 527 of the tax code -- which are entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals. Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities. Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and to level the playing field between the two parties. My contributions are made in that spirit. President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000. Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit." They are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to collect $200 million. To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies. I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a different way to level the playing field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best approach I have found. I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation. I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned. Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of the 2004 experience. Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the major sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This bill should be supported. Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for candidates who accept public funding to $75 million -- changes that would reduce the bias toward big-money donors. Free airtime for candidates is also important. This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of commercials. Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is important that people know where financial support is coming from. I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they have sparked. In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to reelect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process. ___________________________________ The writer is chairman of the Soros Management Fund and author of "The Bubble of American Supremacy." washingtonpost.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (7277)	12/9/2003 12:27:55 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 10965

Might not be over yet if Clinton endorses Clark Could get wild and crazy More conspiracy minded folks see things completely differently. They see Dean as the designated President. Here's a sample. I received this in email today from one of my activist buddies: <COPY> An correspondent wrote: Frankly, his meteoric rise has much more to do with the enormous hype that he's gotten in the national media.... What should one make of the enormous hype Dean has been given by the National Media? What does their narrowly focused attention upon Howard Dean suggest to you??? Here's an indication of what it suggests to me... The press in this country is now and always has been so thoroughly dominated by the wealthy few of the country that it cannot be depended upon to give the great masses of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people shall have in order that they shall vote and in all ways act in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing class. -- E.W. Scripps (newspaper publisher ca 1900 in memorandum sent to his editorial executives) The mass media become the authority at any given moment for what is true and what is false, what is reality and what is fantasy, what is important and what is trivial. There is no greater force in shaping the public mind; even brute force triumphs only by creating an accepting attitude toward the brutes. --Ben Bagdikian (The Media Monopoly) An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. - Joseph Pulitzer "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -William Colby, former Director of the CIA. In an authoritarian society there is a ministry, or a commissar, or a directorate that controls what everybody will see and hear. We call that a dictatorship. Here we have a handful of very powerful corporations led by a handful of very powerful men and women who control everything we see and hear beyond the natural environment and our own families. That's something which surrounds us every day and night. If it were one person we'd call that a dictatorship, a ministry of information. -- Ben Bagdikan During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information. -- Joseph Goebbels --- Finally --- please ask yourself how does this next piece of wisdom fit the case of Howard Dean? And how does this fit the other candidates? Who do you suppose is the National Media's annointed Democratic candidate??? "Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness." --George Orwell "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true." -- Henry Kissinger

To: American Spirit who wrote (7277)	12/9/2003 12:35:09 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

From Joe Conason's Journal... Salon Premium [4:50 p.m. PST, Dec. 8, 2003] salon.com Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean may shock Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, but it's a principled stand by a man who's changed profoundly since 2000. - - - - - - - - - - - - Dec. 8, 2003 \| Gore's epiphany Although Al Gore's impending endorsement of Howard Dean must be disturbing news for all of the front-runner's rivals, it will strike most sharply at Joe Lieberman. John Kerry also badly wanted and needed the endorsement of Gore, who nearly selected the Massachusetts senator as his running mate in 2000. Tomorrow, someone will probably ask Gore why he assured the nation three years ago that Lieberman was the Democrat best qualified to serve in the Oval Office should any exigency befall President Gore -- but is today less worthy of voter support than the former governor of Vermont. If the former vice president were to answer candidly, he might admit that his own politics have shifted since 2000, when the experience of losing the presidency he had won seems to have changed him radically. The most obvious evidence of this change during the past year came in his powerful speeches against the war in Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties. A related signal is his close and continuing cooperation with MoveOn.org, which sponsored those speeches. A year ago, Gore reentered public debate with his startling New York Observer interview about the right-wing media. Since then he has displayed little of the tentative, calculating style that did such damage to his political fortunes. In fact, the once-cautious, painfully moderate DLC Democrat from Carthage, Tenn., has sounded much more like the fiery candidate whose prospects he will do much to improve tomorrow. In truth, the old Al Gore wouldn't have spent much time with any of these people. Lieberman may feel betrayed by his ex-running mate's decision, but he and Gore simply have very little in common anymore. Agree with Gore or not, his endorsement of Dean is a principled, brave decision by someone with an intimate understanding of what has gone wrong with the political system to which he dedicated his life. Gore is probably no more "radical" than he ever was, which isn't radical at all in the left-wing sense. But he clearly realizes that the hard right poses a real threat to American democratic values. I suspect he also believes that the most effective defense is the kind of grass-roots movement that drives both the Dean campaign and MoveOn. When he puts his arm around Dean, he may also wish that such an epiphany had occurred while he was still a contender.

To: American Spirit who wrote (7277)	12/9/2003 12:37:42 AM
From: Don Green	Respond to of 10965

Not likely You MUST remember if the Democrats were to win then Hillary would not be able to run for office until 2012. You must also remember Bill was only a front for the brains and brawn in the family, Hillary! Message 19576490

To: American Spirit who wrote (7277)	12/9/2003 7:59:00 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 10965

HATE SPEECH AND VULGARITY GO HAND-IN-HAND: JOHN KERRY By J. Grant Swank, Jr. Dec 8, 2003, Now it’s cursing, using the f-word. John Kerry’s at it. So there goes the ivy-league rich boy running his mouth in the pig trough. You bet. It’s right there in print: Rolling Stones mag. It’s an obvious sign that Mr. Kerry has not a quiet nerve in his prexy wannabe bod. He’s traumatized. Does he really think that by kissing up to the young adult-focused periodical that he’s making points where votes count? I guess so. Or is it that he’s panicked over getting far behind Dean in the latest polls? Could be. Whatever it is, Mr. K is starting a new lowbrow trend for presidential candidates in interviews. Go, Kerry, go — down down down. "I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." That’s locker-room Mr. K in the lip department. According to New York Post’s Deborah Orin, "Struggling 2004 Democratic wannabe John Kerry fires an X-rated attack at President Bush over Iraq and uses the f-word -- highly unusual language for a presidential contender -- in a stunning new interview with Rolling Stone magazine." Let ‘er rip, Mr. K. You’re only digging that six feet under a couple more inches below. By this time next November, we’ll hardly be able to find you. That’s fine. Keep at the dig job, Mr. K. All power to you. michnews.com