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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (20431)	12/19/2003 2:15:41 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

"The "refusal" to release gubenatorial records is a good one -- he's already handed them to a third-party to review for release, and challenged Bush on releasing his administration's papers." Isn't that review expected to take more than a year before anything actually gets released?

To: MSI who wrote (20431)	12/19/2003 9:08:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793690

The Era of Bill Clinton Is Over Howard Dean triangulates the triangulator. By William Saletan SLATE Updated Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003, at 2:59 PM PT "While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party—not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families. … I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract. We need to provide certain basic guarantees to all those who are working hard to fulfill the promise of America." So declares Howard Dean in a speech today outlining his governing philosophy. It's a perfect homage to the man he belittles: an embrace disguised as a repudiation. Everyone remembers Clinton's 1996 proclamation that "the era of big government is over." What everyone forgets are the words that followed: "But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together." In other words, big government wasn't really over. Clinton was bashing "big government" so that his audience—congressional Republicans and the moderate voters who had put them in power—wouldn't think of his programs as big government. Dean is doing the same thing. When he claims to stand for a "new era" different from Clinton's, he isn't really ditching Clinton's agenda. He's just bashing Clinton so that his audience—liberals, angry Democrats, and disgusted nonvoters—won't think of his agenda as Clintonism. Dean's speech doesn't libel Clinton; it plagiarizes him. Clinton advocated a "New Covenant." Dean advocates a "New Social Contract." Clinton promised basic guarantees to all those who worked hard. Dean promises "basic guarantees to all those who are working hard." Clinton proposed $10,000 a year in college aid. Dean proposes $10,000 a year in college aid. Clinton proposed a retirement savings program. Dean proposes a retirement savings program. Clinton created Americorps as a model of community service. Dean calls Americorps a model of community service. Clinton said his economic regulations would be pro-business and pro-jobs. Dean says his economic regulations will be "pro-business and pro-jobs." Clinton accused Republicans of trying to privatize Social Security, dismantle Medicare, and end public education. Dean accuses Republicans of trying to "privatize Social Security, dismantle Medicare, and end public education." Clinton renounced profligate spending. Dean renounces "profligate spenders." Clinton said balanced budgets led to economic growth. Dean says "balanced budgets … lead to economic growth." Clinton said social progressives should be fiscal conservatives, because only fiscal responsibility guaranteed that Americans would have the government they needed when they truly needed it. Dean says, "Social progressives should be fiscal conservatives, because only fiscal responsibility guarantees that the American people will have the government they need when they truly need it." So, what's the difference between Dean and Clinton? I see two differences. One is that Clinton ran for president promising tax cuts for the middle class. Dean is running for president promising to repeal tax cuts for the middle class and everyone else. Dean says the rich got most of Bush's tax cuts, and he's right. He says the tax cuts came with a hidden price tag—state budget crises, higher property taxes, higher state college tuition, higher national debt—and he's right again. But the first point solves the second. If the rich got most of the money, then the government can get that money back—and alleviate the hikes in tuition, debt, and property taxes—by repealing the tax cuts that went to the rich, while preserving the tax cuts that went to the middle class. That's the position taken by Wesley Clark, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and even Dennis Kucinich. But not Howard Dean. In his speech, Dean concedes, "The average wage earner did get a few hundred dollars back" in Bush's tax cuts. He says he'll "get rid of the Bush tax program"—notice the absence of the word cut—"and repeal the 'Bush Tax.' " But don't fret about losing the few hundred bucks you got from Bush: Dean says his "New Social Contract … will include fundamental tax reform to ensure that every wealthy American individual and corporation is paying their fair share of taxes—and that the tax burden on working families is reduced." He says he'll crack down on companies that use offshore shelters to avoid "$70 billion a year in taxes—enough money to bring a real tax cut to every family." It sounds like Dean is going to offer you a tax cut in exchange for taking away the one Bush gave you. But he never does. The other difference is that Clinton got elected. William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent. Article URL: slate.msn.com

To: MSI who wrote (20431)	12/19/2003 9:12:29 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

Can Dean sustain his rallying cry on the war? Jules Witcover Baltimore Sun December 19, 2003 WASHINGTON - With deposed dictator Saddam Hussein now in captivity, front-running Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is faced with intensified pressures to sustain his anti-war posture. His declaration that Americans are "no safer" with the Iraqi dictator a prisoner has brought the other Democratic hopefuls down on him like a swarm of locusts. The comment brushes aside the possibility that Mr. Hussein in custody could loosen many Iraqi tongues heretofore locked in silence, producing useful intelligence against those continuing to fight. But in terms of the physical danger to Americans at home, what matters is the state of homeland security, and it will continue to be a Dean target. He was sharply critical of the Bush administration on that front in his major foreign policy speech in Los Angeles the other day. Mr. Hussein's capture has nothing to do, either, with the former Vermont governor's basic case that President Bush erred in launching the pre-emptive Iraq invasion without explicit U.N. sanction, and without the participation of so many major member states. But his arguments that several of his congressional opponents for the Democratic nomination never should have voted for the Bush war resolution, or that the president hyped faulty intelligence about the threat to the United States to sell the invasion, could start to grow stale as time passes. Further, Mr. Hussein's capture is likely to diminish for a time public impatience with the pace of the military's ability to curb the violence in Iraq, sustained by the continuing American casualties there. That impatience has helped fuel Dr. Dean's anti-war pitch. The post-invasion chaos had encouraged not only Dr. Dean but also all of the other eight Democratic presidential contenders to criticize Mr. Bush sharply. It will not be surprising now if those others who backed his war resolution will let up a bit if they see the president's popularity rise in the wake of the capture. But Dr. Dean no doubt will persevere because his anti-war posture remains the heart of his support among the liberal Democratic activists and the hordes of new voters who were brought by that posture into political involvement. Whether he can continue to expand that base if the U.S. casualty rate drops is a key question. Dr. Dean continues to argue that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism because there was no evidence that Mr. Hussein had anything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, which even Mr. Bush has acknowledged. But Dr. Dean has been obliged to admit that Iraq has become what Mr. Bush has called "the central front in the war on terrorism." Dr. Dean blames the president for that development, but it's indisputable now that Iraq is indeed the centerpiece of that war. So it may seem to many voters that Dr. Dean is beating a dead horse in continuing to harp on the premises, and origins, of the invasion. Yet in the end, that is what most clearly distinguishes him - and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark - from the other major candidates in the field. The core of Dr. Dean's candidacy remains the argument that President Bush started a hugely costly and diversionary war that wasn't necessary, at the expense of single-mindedly pursuing the necessary war on terrorism. If the American economy were continuing to go south, all of the Democratic candidates might be tempted to switch the focus of their campaigns to that issue. But the slight improvement as seen in employment and the stock market climb appears not to offer them much traction there. In any event, once the public euphoria over the capture of the Butcher of Baghdad levels off, the campaign focus inevitably will swing back to the war on terrorism and how it is being fought. And as that happens, Dr. Dean will have the chance to recover from whatever momentary setback he may have encountered by the high drama of Mr. Hussein found in a spider hole. sunspot.net