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: FaultLine who wrote (20195)12/17/2003 5:20:19 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793608
 
Bad Timing

The Left picks the wrong month to discover the value of money

Jesse Walker - Reason

Say you've spent years crusading against the role of money in politics, all in the face of a judiciary that insists your program would injure freedom of speech. Finally, just as you decide that political cash might do the body politic some good, the Supreme Court embraces the arguments you spent all that time advancing. As ironic endings go, it's not exactly O. Henry material. But it's not bad for the gray columns of The New York Times.

The disappointed crusaders, of course, are the left wing of the Democrats—the folks who bristled when Clintonian centrists took over their party but haven't been willing to light out permanently for Greener territories. Over the last two months, these activists have witnessed the following:

• In early November Howard Dean, the self-proclaimed candidate of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," declared that his campaign would not accept matching funds from the federal government, thus avoiding the spending limits that come attached to Washington's dough. The decision was precipitated by an unprecedented flood of donations to Dean via the Internet—$14.8 million in the three months prior to his announcement.

• Later that month, zillionaire speculator George Soros announced that halting Bush's reign is now "the central focus" of his life. He has pledged at least $15.5 million to removing the president at the polls.

• In December MoveOn, a pro-Democrat group partly funded by Soros, spent $1.9 million on a two-week onslaught of anti-Bush ads in five swing states. Sarah Ferguson of The Village Voice reports that the group "is also encouraging its members to make their own attack ads with a 'Bush in 30-seconds' ad competition, intended to help find the most memorable take on why Bush must go."

• And on December 10, just as MoveOn's ads were about to air, the Supreme Court upheld most of the McCain-Feingold Act, which severely restricts Americans' ability to air political advertisements in the last month before an election, First Amendment bedamned. The law also limits contributions to political parties.

There have always been rich people willing to fund liberal and even radical causes, and the intersection of big money with the left should not come as a surprise. But the drive to depose Bush has spread this appreciation for high finance to formerly skeptical realms. This doesn't mean that every Democrat has changed her mind about the role of money in politics, nor that many who did change don't see such spending as a necessary evil to be abolished once the right people are in charge. But they've still been put in the unfamiliar position of defending the intervention of multimillionaires in public life, while establishment Republicans have found themselves taking the even less sustainable stance that Soros' funds are sinister in a way that Richard Mellon Scaife's are not.

Further left, Dean and Soros and MoveOn are considered barely preferable, if at all, to Bush and Scaife and the RNC. This isn't simply a matter of declaring the moneymen insufficiently radical. It's a product of a more thoroughgoing critique of the role of money in politics—one that regards a sugar daddy as dangerous not merely to his foes but to the recipients of his largess. Sometimes this approach degenerates into silly conspiracy-mongering, wherein the mere decision to take a grant is seen as virtual proof that the awardee is now forever in his benefactor's pocket. But there's a more sophisticated school of thought that sees a difference in the dynamics of a volunteer-based grassroots group and a well-funded professional operation, a distinction magnified as the body's bank account grows. There are things the professionals can do more easily than the volunteers. But there are incentives that come into play when a substantial number of people see their activism as a means to a paycheck as well as, or instead of, a means to a political end.

Two changes in particular deserve to be mentioned. One is a new interest in keeping the organization alive—more bluntly, a newfound spirit of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. The other change, closely related, is the allure of the grant-chasing culture. Both serve to sever a group from the grassroots and their interests, a split most pronounced among the Washington-based lobbies. And both encourage a group to moderate its platform. One needn't engage in conspiracy thinking to recognize that well-heeled foundations have only a finite amount of resources to give away, and that applicants that more closely reflect the grantmakers' agenda are more likely to get a large piece of the pie.

The results are not limited to the left. You can see them on display everywhere from community radio stations to organized religion, from the environmental movement to its Wise Use opponents.

The most corrupting effect of money in politics might be not on the electoral process, where the dissident rich can help finance a Howard Dean or a Eugene McCarthy, but in the sort of activism that sees national elections as a sideshow. There's no campaign finance reform that can change that. But the law we got instead will do a lot of abuse to free speech in the meantime.

Managing Editor Jesse Walker is author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America (NYU Press).
reason.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (20195)12/17/2003 5:45:38 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793608
 
The Times Reporters try to bad mouth the poll and use individual quotes to do so, but the numbers shift is enormous.

Bush's Approval Ratings Climb in Days After Hussein's Capture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER New York Times

The capture of Saddam Hussein has lifted Americans' view of the state of the nation and their opinion of President Bush, while at least momentarily halting what had been a spiral of concern about the nation's economic and foreign policy, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

But even in the glow of Mr. Hussein's capture, Americans worry that United States forces will be mired in Iraq for years, are concerned that the attacks on American troops will continue and say that President Bush has no plan to extricate the United States from Iraq, the poll found. And 60 percent of Americans said the United States was as vulnerable to a terrorist attack as it was before Mr. Hussein was pulled from a hole in Ad Dwar.

Times/CBS News polls spanned the days before and after Mr. Hussein's capture, offering a vivid demonstration of the extent to which public opinion can shift in reaction to a momentous event. From Saturday night to Sunday night, Americans' view of the success of the war soared, as did their opinion about whether the nation is on the right track and their approval of Mr. Bush.

There was even a slight bump bein the number of Americans who thought the economy was on the mend, a number that had already been growing in polls since October.

In the most apparent demonstration of the shift, 47 percent of respondents said the war was going well for the United States in the poll that ended Saturday night. That number jumped to 64 percent in the second poll. Before the weekend, 47 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Mr. Bush was handling foreign policy, the worst rating of his presidency. After the weekend, that number had slid to 38 percent.

Mr. Bush's approval rating jumped to 58 percent after Mr. Hussein was captured, from 52 percent, and the number of Americans who disapproved of his performance fell to 33 percent, from 40 percent.

The first poll's findings included red flags for President Bush as he heads into next year's re-election campaign, particularly in the measure of people who thought the country was heading in the right direction, a historically reliable early indicator of the political strength of an officeholder. In that poll, 56 percent of respondents said the nation was heading in the wrong direction, compared with just 39 percent who said it was on the right track.

But by Monday, that measure had nearly flipped, with the number of Americans who said the nation was heading in the right direction rising to 49 percent, with 43 percent saying things were going awry, the second poll found.

Even the perception that the economy is getting better, which has been something of a weak suit for Mr. Bush, improved to 39 percent this week from 34 percent last week.

The two nationwide telephone polls were taken back to back, one going from Wednesday to Saturday and the other Sunday to Monday. The sample in the first poll was 1,057 adults, and it had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Another 635 adults were questioned in a second poll, and that had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Public opinion can sometimes react dramatically in the days after a big event, and the findings of the second Times/CBS News Poll could reflect excitement and patriotism stirred by the images of Mr. Hussein being taken into custody.

Even through the prism of this victory, the poll reflected continued ambivalence in the American public about the war, and Mr. Bush's handling of it. That sentiment that was reflected in follow-up interviews with poll respondents.

"It's a great thing; it's one less threat to the world," said Shari Cook, 44, a school cook from Farnam, Neb., and a political independent. "He's a horrible, horrible man, but I don't know that his capture makes up for all the lives that are being lost every day over there."

Michael Grimaldi, 34, a Republican who is an ambulance dispatcher from Fairfield, N.Y., predicted that the capture of Mr. Hussein would result in a decrease in the bombings in Iraq. But Mr. Grimaldi said he was concerned that the United States was now stuck there.

"It seems to me that another Vietnam is happening," he said. "I'm just hoping that since we've caught him, we can get our soldiers back home and let them deal with their problems on their own."

Nearly half the respondents said that they now believed that the United States, with the capturing of Mr. Hussein, had won the war. A majority said that the war was not over yet and that they expected troops to stay in place for years, rather than months. Most of those polled said they believed that Mr. Hussein had orchestrated the attacks on American soldiers, but a majority also expected those attacks to continue.

About 53 percent of respondents said the administration did not have a plan for rebuilding Iraq, and respondents were evenly divided over whether the White House had a plan to deal with terrorism or was only reacting to events.

Before Mr. Hussein's capture, the number of Americans who said the war was a mistake had jumped 19 points since last April, to 43 percent. It slipped back to 30 percent in the second poll this week.

There was also clear public disapproval about some ways that Mr. Bush has responded to the war at home. For example, two-thirds of Americans, including most Republicans, said they disagreed with the White House policy of prohibiting news photographers from ceremonies where the coffins of Americans troops are brought home.

The White House says that the policy is intended to protect the privacy of the families of the deceased; Democrats and some critics of the White House say it is intended to avoid the publication of emotionally charged photographs that might harden opposition to the war.

Along those same lines, two-thirds of respondents said Mr. Bush should make it a practice to attend the funerals of some Americans killed in Iraq. (That said, a quarter of respondents said, incorrectly, that Mr. Bush was attending those funerals.)

Democratic presidential candidates have been stepping up their attacks on Mr. Bush's policies on terrorism and Iraq, in the face of some criticism by Republicans who suggest that such attacks are improper at a time of war. But a clear majority of respondents, 64 percent, said such criticism was appropriate.

Kim Baatz, 25, an independent voter from Sheldon, La., said in a follow-up interview that her opinion of Mr. Bush had shifted because of the success in Iraq this weekend.

"I was leaning away from approval until the capture because I felt like the progress in Iraq was going nowhere; there were so many of our military men getting killed," Ms. Baatz said, adding, "One of the goals has been achieved."

nytimes.com