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: greenspirit who wrote (20091)12/16/2003 12:49:04 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
The Post says this is a minor issue, and I agree. Just too much else going on. Now that I have mine, I am all for raising the minimum age. :>)

lindybill@happyatsixtynine.com



washingtonpost.com
Candidates Tread Softly On Issue of U.S. Security

By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 16, 2003; Page A28

It's a truism of political strategy that American presidential elections are won and lost on domestic issues.

But this one might be different. And so the same degree of care and modulation that candidates in recent elections have put into displays of empathy with struggling schoolchildren, or solidarity with working moms, or brow-furrowed concern over patients in the maw of the health care bureaucracy, now goes into each utterance devoted to the events of a turbulent world.

President Bush and Howard Dean -- no strangers to the offhand remark, the boast or the sneer -- showed yesterday that they have learned this lesson. They chose their words as carefully as grammar teachers in church.

The capture of Saddam Hussein was probably the best news Bush has heard from Iraq since American tanks rolled into Baghdad last spring. But viewers saw no sign of excitement -- much less boasting -- in Bush's subdued news conference yesterday.

Instead of an aircraft carrier, Bush chose a bland room in a Washington office building as the scene for his appearance. There was no banner proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished," just the presidential seal on a familiar blue-wrapped presidential podium.

Bush strode by himself into a room full of journalists and staff members and began with an impromptu reflection on "the future of the health care system in Iraq." Hundreds of soldiers and civilians having been killed in Iraq since he announced that the war there had been won, Bush stepped cautiously in his description of the future.

"The terrorists in Iraq remain dangerous," he said. "The work of our coalition remains difficult and will require further sacrifice. Yet it should now be clear to all: Iraq is on the path to freedom."

A Republican Senate aide watched it on television and theorized: "He was on gloat-control drugs devised by NIH for just this occasion."

Dean had his own mis-calibrated remarks to avoid. The former Vermont governor, whose vigorous antiwar message has moved him to the front of the pack in the race for the Democratic nomination, greeted the liberation of Baghdad last spring with a verbal shrug. "We've gotten rid of him, and I suppose that's a good thing," he said of Hussein's defeat.

Now, after the capture, Dean chose his words more carefully. "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world," he said in a speech in San Francisco. "Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes." Only later in the speech, after citing the continuing threat from al Qaeda and the unchecked proliferation of weapons, did Dean venture this: "I hope the administration will use Saddam's capture as an opportunity to move U.S. policy in a more effective direction."

Those are very carefully chosen words. Expect to hear a lot of that. Bush, in his news conference, spent so long choosing some of his answers he might have been composing a sonnet.

White House reporters gave Bush plenty of chances to swing into the rhetorical key that once produced a promise to catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." The President was not going there.

"I've got my own personal views of how he ought to be treated, but I'm not an Iraqi citizen. It's going to be up to the Iraqis to make those decisions," Bush said carefully.

A later questioner asked whether Bush had any "greeting" for the captured Hussein.

"Good riddance," Bush said, after thinking it over a bit. "The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein. And I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole and you crawled in it."

"I know you scoffed at the idea of a negotiation" with Hussein, the questioner prodded.

"How do you know I scoffed at it?" Bush answered. "Laughing does not mean scoffing."

The only note that seemed to hint at a boast, under several layers of diplomatic caution, was that "Mister" in front of the captive tyrant's name.

Taken side by side, the Bush news conference and the Dean foreign policy speech suggest the political chess game taking shape beneath these careful statements. Like the other Democrats in the race, Dean advanced the idea that Bush has endangered, rather than strengthened, the United States by pursuing a unilateral, Iraq-obsessed strategy.

"We can advance the battle against terrorism and strengthen our national security by reclaiming our rightful place as a leader in global institutions," Dean said. "The current administration has made it almost a point of pride to dismiss and ridicule these bodies."

Bush, by contrast, repeatedly noted that "over 60 nations" have joined the United States in Iraq, and that his disagreements with a few countries -- notably France and Germany -- are not of lasting importance.

"We had a disagreement on this issue about Saddam Hussein and his threat . . . " Bush said of the disgruntled allies. "They didn't agree with [my] point of view. I can understand that."

"Both Bush and Dean had to play against type today," said one Capitol Hill staffer. "Bush the cocky gloater and Dean the angry liberal: Both were minding their manners."

The reason is simple. No issue on the public agenda cuts as deeply entering this election year as the question of U.S. security in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era. Candidates have to talk about it -- often.

And carefully.

washingtonpost.com



To: greenspirit who wrote (20091)12/16/2003 12:54:12 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
If Bush runs as strongly as I think he will, sixty seats in the Senate is within reach.



washingtonpost.com
Breaux Will Not Run for New Term
Senator Hands Democrats Setback

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 16, 2003; Page A01

Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), whose penchant for dealmaking contributed to the recent enactment of legislation to revamp Medicare, announced yesterday he will not run for a fourth term next year, handing Democrats a new setback in their efforts to regain control of the Senate.

Breaux, 59, is the fifth Democratic senator from the South to announce retirement plans in what could be a boon to Republican efforts to expand their strong base in the region and widen their narrow Senate majority.

The other four are John Edwards (N.C.), Bob Graham (Fla.), Ernest F. Hollings (S.C.) and Zell Miller (Ga.), most of whom -- like Breaux -- would have been strong bets for reelection had they decided to run again.

But, without incumbents in those races, political strategists see all five as competitive and leaning toward the GOP in some cases. Except for Florida, President Bush carried those southern states comfortably in 2000.

With Republicans holding 51 of the 100 Senate seats, Democrats must minimize their losses in the South and pick up several non-southern seats to have any chance of winning a majority. But if Republicans pick up seats in the South without losing ground elsewhere, they could strengthen their hand in marshaling the 60 votes needed to cut off Democratic filibusters against GOP bills and nominations.

Bush beat Al Gore by 8 percentage points in Louisiana in 2000, but the state went Democratic in reelecting Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2002 and electing Democrat Kathleen Blanco as governor last month. Louisiana has not had a Republican senator since Reconstruction.

The leading early contenders for Breaux's seat are two House members, both in their early forties: Democrat Chris John, who represents the state's Cajun region and is close to Breaux; and Republican David Vitter, who represents suburban New Orleans.

At a news conference in Baton Rouge, La., Breaux, a veteran of 35 years in Congress, fought back tears as he disclosed his decision, which he described as difficult.

"There comes a time in every career when it is time to step aside and let others step up and serve," he said. "And for my family and me, that time has arrived."

But he rejected rumors that he might quit early, saying he had unfinished business in the Senate. "There's still a lot to get done in this Congress," he said, saying he wanted to work next year for passage of energy legislation and "to get started on legislation for the 40 million Americans who have no health insurance" -- a concept that has considerable support in both parties.

Breaux, the only child of an oilfield worker and a dressmaker, was the youngest member of Congress when he was elected to the House in 1972 after several years as a staffer for then-Rep. Edwin Edwards. When Edwards was elected governor in 1972, Breaux ran for his seat and won.

A self-proclaimed political centrist and dealmaker, with a quick mind and Cajun charm, Breaux lined up with moderates of both parties to try to broker bipartisan deals on a range of issues, especially after moving to the Senate in 1987.

He reached out to Republicans on issue after issue, including health care, energy production, tax cuts and welfare, often to the dismay of more liberal Democrats who felt he bargained away too much. He relished the dealmaker image, often saying he would "always rather have half of something than 100 percent of nothing."

His deals did not always work, but he kept trying. The persistence paid off last month when Breaux became one of the two Democrats allowed by Republicans to help negotiate the final version of legislation to inject more private-sector competition into Medicare while adding a prescription drug benefit. The measure included initiatives that Breaux had pushed for years.

Earlier, Breaux's willingness to work with Republicans led to an invitation to join Bush's Cabinet, which he rejected. He was instrumental in helping pass Bush's huge 2001 tax cut after working with other moderates to whittle it to $1.35 trillion. He was one of few Democrats to support John D. Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general and also broke with most Democrats to support oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which the Senate blocked.

But he kept close ties with Democrats who did not always share his views. Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) called him a "valued colleague" who was always "eager to reach across the aisle and find common ground on issues that mattered most to Americans."

At his news conference, Breaux said nothing about what he might do after leaving the Senate. But many former colleagues have left in their late fifties and early sixties, after several Senate terms, to pursue careers in the private sector, some of them as lobbyists.

washingtonpost.com