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: Lane3 who wrote (21327)12/24/2003 4:27:24 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793770
 
This Democratic Convention next year is shaping up to resemble the '72 one with McGovern.


Old Divides Growing in Dean, Centrist Rift
With some swipes at Democratic moderates, concerns mount over his ability to unite the party.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

December 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — The rapidly escalating war of words between Howard Dean and the Democratic Party's leading centrists is reopening old ideological divides suppressed during Bill Clinton's presidency and raising new fears about Dean's ability to unite the party if he won the nomination for president.

Party centrists were stunned Monday when Dean denounced the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that provided many of the key ideas for Clinton's "New Democrat" agenda, as "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

Dean's comments came just days after he delivered a speech widely seen as accusing Clinton of conceding too much ground to Republicans. The sharp verbal volleys from Dean against party centrists may help energize his liberal base as the first primary contests approach next month in Iowa and New Hampshire. But even Democratic moderates who have been sympathetic to Dean's campaign worry he could be pushing the party toward an internal upheaval that would severely erode his ability to compete as a general-election nominee.

Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a Democratic political action committee, has been as close to Dean as any leading centrist in the party.

But after his latest criticism of the DLC, Rosenberg says, the front runner "has a choice. Is he going to present a new synthesis that incorporates all the best of all the traditions in the party … or is he going to be the leader of the counterrevolution?"

Added Leon E. Panetta, the former chief of staff under Clinton: "I think he's asking for serious trouble when he attacks Clinton and attacks the DLC. Whether you like their positions or not, the reality is you can't afford to divide the Democratic Party at this point. You've got a tough enough job fighting George Bush."

During a campaign stop Tuesday in Seabrook, N.H., where he received an endorsement from the 1,000-member New Hampshire chapter of United Auto Workers, Dean said he stood by his remarks about the DLC. On Monday, he called the DLC "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party … the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

"The staff of the DLC has injected themselves into the race because they're supporting other candidates, but I think the membership of the DLC is anxious to take back the White House and understands that we have to be unified to do that," Dean said in Seabrook.

"I thought I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense, I figured I owed them a day at their expense."

Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, said Tuesday that Dean was joking in his criticism.

Ironically, Dean's swipe at the DLC on Monday came as he also stressed the need for Democrats "to pull together in order to beat George Bush."

Dean's latest remarks threw gasoline on a feud that has been smoldering for months with the DLC, an organization of party centrists founded to reshape the Democrats' message after Walter F. Mondale's landslide defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1984. The group provided many ideas and themes for the 1992 presidential campaign of Clinton, who had served as its chairman just before entering the race.

Tension between Dean and the DLC first seriously emerged early this year when Dean began identifying himself as the representative of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

That was a designation liberals sometimes used during the Clinton years to distinguish themselves from centrist "New Democrats" who pushed ideas such as welfare reform, balancing the federal budget, and completing the North American Free Trade Agreement — all ideas staunchly opposed on the left.

Dean's declaration Monday was more than rhetorical positioning; it also reflected his political strategy.

All year he has argued that Democrats' first priority should be to mobilize their core supporters, such as women's groups, African Americans, unions, and gay rights activists. That inverts the argument from Clinton, first advanced by the DLC in a 1989 study titled "The Politics of Evasion," that Democrats could only win the White House by reconnecting with moderate swing voters because their base no longer constituted a national majority.

Al From, the DLC's founder, and Bruce Reed, the former chief Clinton domestic policy advisor now serving as the group's president, sharply criticized Dean in a memo to party leaders in May that linked him to landslide presidential losers George S. McGovern and Mondale.

Their critique prompted a sharp backlash not only from liberals but centrists such as Rosenberg, who accused From and Reed of unnecessarily dividing the party. For months afterward, the DLC diminished its public criticism of Dean. That cold peace ended Thursday when Dean gave a speech on domestic policy. While identifying with Clinton's emphasis on balancing the federal budget, Dean separated himself from Clinton's famous declaration that the "era of big government is over" and suggested the former president had aimed "simply to limit the damage [Republicans] inflict on working families."

That drew a furious response from former Clinton officials and prompted the Dean campaign to issue a two-page statement denying that he had intended to criticize the former president.

In an interview Tuesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of Dean's rivals for the nomination, said the front-runner's comments about the DLC pushes Clinton and other New Democrats out of the party.

Dean said in an interview with ABC News on Tuesday that his criticism of the DLC was not intended to disparage Clinton. "That's all spin from the other campaigns."

But in Walter Shapiro's book "One Car Caravan," on the 2004 race, Dean also suggests — as critics charged he did in his speech last week — that Clinton had failed to confront Republicans forcefully enough.

"What a lot of people learned from Bill Clinton is that if you accommodate and you co-opt [the other party] you can be successful," Dean told Shapiro this year. "And Bill Clinton was very successful. But that role doesn't work for everybody, and it's not the right time for it anymore."

From said Dean's criticism of party centrists may help him with the liberal base at the core of his primary coalition, but would create longer-term problems if he won the nomination.

"If Dean says everybody who is for a strong security posture, who wants middle-class tax cuts, who wants reform of poor schools … are a poor form of Republicans, that doesn't leave many people to be Democrats," From said.

latimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (21327)12/24/2003 4:57:10 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793770
 
This is the best "fisking" of Al Gore I have ever read. Where was Miller when Bush needed him in 2000? :>)


Al Gore, Our Christmas Fruitcake

By Henry I. Miller, MD Tech Central Station


The New York Times editorialized that more medical information about Vice-President Dick Cheney should be made public because where the president and vice-president of the United States are concerned, "privacy concerns are less important than the public's confidence that its leaders are fit." [22 December]

Fit? Fit? Where were the Times' concerns about the fitness of politicians in the face of Al Gore's obvious personality disorder and poor reality testing while for eight years he was a heartbeat -- and later, a few electoral votes -- away from the presidency?

While a Senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence during hearings. A favorite trick was to pose a question and as the witness began to answer, Gore would begin a whispered conversation with another committee member or a staffer. If the witness paused in order that the senator not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, I won't even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it.

As vice-president, Gore and his staff purged the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Gore himself dismissed Will Happer, a senior scientist at the Department of Energy, because he refused to ignore scientific evidence at hand that conflicted with the vice president's pet theories on ozone depletion and global warming. Similar incidents occurred at the departments of State and Energy as civil servants were hounded out of government, moved to less visible positions, or replaced by other officials during interactions with the White House for their own "protection."

On personal as well as public issues, Gore demonstrated repeatedly that he had difficulty in discriminating reality from fantasy. He claimed, for example, that he and wife Tipper were the model for the novel, "Love Story," an assertion that author Erich Segal denied. Then, there was the (in)famous instance when Gore implied that he had been responsible for creating the Internet. He also accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated the families of persons with Down syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

Gore's delusions also ran riot on issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances, while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally placed science and technology at odds with "the natural world" and by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind.
Gore's patronizing, apocalyptic and overwrought "Earth in the Balance" offers disturbing insights into its disturbed author. In it, Gore trashed the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature. "But for the separation of science and religion," he lamented, "we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth's climate balance." He ignored that but for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. (Recall that historians call the last epoch when religion dominated science the Dark Ages.)

It gets worse. Throughout the book, Gore employed the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister, and polluters are as evil, as the perpetrators of the World War II Holocaust. He accused Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights . . . Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on. Makes you wonder why he bothered to create the Internet.

The New York Times' neglect of mental aberrations in the man who for so long was so close to the presidency is yet more evidence of their highly selective sense of propriety.

Perhaps the Times is not concerned about psychiatric disease in politicians. Or perhaps it just specializes in the "illnesses" of Republicans.

Henry Miller is a physician and a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was an official at the National Institutes of Health and Food & Drug Administration from 1977 to 1994.

Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (21327)12/24/2003 5:34:55 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793770
 
Their criticism was one of literally thousands of
legitimate instances of obvious media bias this site has
catalogged. And you pooh pooh nearly every one that gets
posted here regardless of its legitimacy or its
outrageousness.

Your glib response on the "imminent threat" article was
revealing however.

Perception is reality..... regardless of the facts.