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: Rollcast... who wrote (21460)12/25/2003 12:35:54 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793672
 
Dean, Under Attack, Revives Feisty Style
By JODI WILGOREN - New York Times

SEABROOK, N.H., Dec. 23 — Buoyed by the backing of several major unions and the endorsement of former Vice President Al Gore, Howard Dean had just begun to change his style and broaden his message beyond his antiwar stump speech.

Smiling more than finger thrusting, Dr. Dean fancied himself as the front-runner among Democrats and above the fray. He experimented — briefly — with a more moderate tone and focused on issues that play well with swing voters, as he kept an eye on the general electorate.

But after coming under relentless battering from rival Democrats in the last two weeks, Dr. Dean has returned to the combative style that helped propel his candidacy to the front of the field. Once again, his speeches are loaded with denunciations of "Washington Democrats," even as he complains that negativity has taken over the campaign.

"Ultimately, if I'm going to be the nominee, I have to broaden the message," Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said recently in an interview as his van shuttled between town-hall-style meetings on the snowy streets of New Hampshire. "I know that, and I was starting to do it. But you can't do it if every day you know Joe Lieberman is calling you incompetent and John Kerry is whining about something else. There's not much sense in broadening the message if I'm not the nominee."

He plans to spend almost all of January here, where he enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls, or in Iowa, where he remains in a dogfight with Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and a newly emboldened Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. The only other state on the schedule is South Carolina, where he will stop next week.

Over six weeks, Dr. Dean has expanded his staff by 125 people, bringing it to nearly 400; hired directors in 13 states, for a total of 24, including Pennsylvania, which is irrelevant in the nominating process but critical in a general election; and more than doubled his Congressional support, to 28 members, gaining on Mr. Gephardt's 34.

As December dawned, Dr. Dean was fielding fewer questions from the public and the press while he was whisked through rope lines to closed meetings and $1,000- or $2,000-a-plate fund-raisers. But in recent days, he has spent mornings taping back-to-back-to-back interviews with radio stations, lingering after events until every hand is shaken, shirt signed and photograph snapped.

Even as he collected endorsements this week from the New Hampshire chapters of the Communication Workers of America and the United Automobile Workers, Dr. Dean said he awoke at night worrying about the details, and was hardly confident of victory.

"If you feel confident 30 days from an election," he said, "you're going to be the one that loses the election. Confidence leads to inattention. If you start to get confident that you're going to win, you start to slip up and make mistakes."

Most recent attacks have capitalized on Dr. Dean's candor like saying Saddam Hussein's capture did not make the United States safer, acknowledging that he would need to "plug a hole" in his résumé with a running mate experienced in foreign policy and calling members of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council Republicans.

Those are not slips of the tongue. They are calculated to appeal to his core constituency of disenchanted Democrats who have proved in the past that the attacks on him only stoke their ardor.

As a former governor of a small state and with scant national name recognition, Dr. Dean began his campaign nearly two years ago as the longest of long shots, never expecting to be, as he now says daily, the front-runner "picking buckshot out of his rear."

Having won five races for governor as the incumbent, Dr. Dean said he was used to being the target and aware of the consequences of a steady barrage of attacks.

"Mike Dukakis showed that if you don't hit back at the very next moment that it can be effective," Dr. Dean said, recalling the 1988 presidential election in which Mr. Dukakis's refusal to respond to negative advertisements helped sink him. "I usually let it go for a couple of days, because people don't like it. But I know I have to answer eventually."

While Mr. Lieberman, of Connecticut, came out swinging within hours of Mr. Hussein's capture and was soon joined by other Democratic hopefuls who issued daily attacks over Dr. Dean's refusal to unseal his papers as governor, his record of helping corporations while governor and his distancing himself from President Bill Clinton's centrist legacy, Dr. Dean stayed mum for five days. Then he hit back, re-emphasizing his antiwar stance and returning to his bashing those Democrats who had supported Mr. Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

"All these guys, they all voted for the war!" Dr. Dean shouted on Friday night at a high school in Davenport, Iowa. "Then all summer long, when all those people were being killed — they were our soldiers, nine in Iowa alone — oh, they were backing and filling, `Well, gee, you know, I meant, blah blah blah, mumble mumble mumble.

"Now that Saddam's been caught, I think one of them said the other day on a talk show, `I'm proud of my vote in Iraq.' Well how come you didn't say so all summer long? We cannot have a Democratic candidate who can beat George Bush if we're afraid of our own shadow."

In a way, the dynamic of the Democratic race in recent days is just an intensified version of the last six months, with Dr. Dean gaining momentum and the others in the pack scratching to emerge as the one to take him on. Dr. Dean helped create the pattern by positioning himself as the outsider running against a group of Washington hands. His opponents have fueled it by making him the prime target in debates, advertisements, mailers and speeches.

"If you wrote the headline `Blank Attacks Dean,' you could fill that in with any number of names," Dr. Dean said in the interview. "I always get the `Dean.' But then they have to rotate their five or six names.

"It certainly isn't helping me in the long run, because Bush will eventually use their criticisms in his ads. But in the short run, I think it makes them look smaller."

On Saturday in Maquoketa, Iowa, Dr. Dean suggested that the Democratic contest needed a "character transplant" because "Dick Gephardt is sending around things saying I'm against Medicare and Social Security that's a total lie."

The next day in Manchester, N.H., he dismissed Mr. Kerry's viability as a candidate, noting that he was "mortgaging his house in order to finance his campaign."

Dr. Dean all but called Gen. Wesley K. Clark dishonest, responding to his contention that Dr. Dean had offered him the No. 2 slot if he became the nominee, by saying, "I can tell you flat out I did not ask him to be my running mate."

Dr. Dean said his constant criticism of "Washington politicians" was different from the barbs directed his way because "I disagree with their positions, and they make their attacks personal."

Some rivals — Dr. Dean often refers to them as "Bush Lite" or says he is tired of Democrats who lack the courage to stand up for what they believe — have said Dr. Dean's comments are pretty personal, too.

"That's this week," Dr. Dean said, "because the gloves have really come off."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



To: Rollcast... who wrote (21460)12/25/2003 3:02:14 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793672
 
Winston Churchill warned his country in 1933 that England's "worst difficulties … come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength." While Churchill was trying to stop the rise of Hitler, Britain's leading intellectuals were busy casting the country into a "mood of unwarrantable self abasement."

Ameliorative Action
By Charles G. Kels
American Spectator
Charles G. Kels is a recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania law school.


"I announce this necessary change to our policy with deep sadness," wrote Dean Michael A. Fitts of the University of Pennsylvania law school.

In a memorandum to "The Penn Law Community," the dean unhappily proclaimed that the military would henceforth be permitted to recruit directly through the law school's career planning and placement office. Faced with the prospect of losing an estimated $500 million in annual federal funds to the university as a whole, the law school had decided to treat military interviewers "like all other recruiters."

In a similar memo, Mr. Fitts's counterpart at Columbia called the federal government's leverage of funds to gain access for military recruiters "abhorrent." Mr. Fitts settled on the less-incendiary adjective "troubling," but vowed to take "ameliorative action."

The dean's memo was dated March 20, 2003. The men and women in America's armed forces were just heading into harm's way in Iraq.

PERHAPS IT SHOULD COME AS NO surprise that roughly half of Penn law school's faculty have sued the Department of Defense over its enforcement of federal legislation linking government grants to military access. "Ameliorative action," indeed.

In their role as plaintiffs, Penn's 21 litigating professors are far from alone -- they enjoy ample and distinguished company among the ranks of legal academia.

Then again, maybe these lawsuits should surprise us. After all, the very same military that so many law professors deem unworthy of access to the nation's preeminent law schools was their staunchest and most influential ally in last summer's legal battles over affirmative action. Legal scholars, it appears, have an unconventional way of saying thank you.

In her majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the limited use of race in the admissions process at the University of Michigan law school, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made it abundantly clear that the support for affirmative action from "high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military" was crucial to the Court's decision. The Legal Times reported that the military amicus brief supporting the University of Michigan "had a direct impact" on the outcome of the case.

The influential amicus brief, signed by 29 former leaders of the armed forces, was not just another stack of paper sitting amid the reams of predictable briefs submitted by legal scholars. It was, arguably, decisive. When it comes to affirmative action, the military is its most persuasive advocate.

In their brief, the amici professed to be "deeply interested in this case, because its outcome could affect the diversity of our nation's officer corps and, in turn, the military's ability to fulfill its missions." Such an assertion, expressed by a group of luminaries in the realm of national defense, informed Justice O'Connor's pragmatic view that the benefits of affirmative action "are not theoretical but real."

If there is ever such a thing as a "compelling governmental interest" that the courts must recognize, national security fits the bill. To call diversity compelling, the military need not rely on esoteric arguments about its benefits on the mind and soul. All the amici had to do was draw upon history and point to a frightening specter: "the dangerous and destructive environment of a racially diverse enlisted corps commanded by an overwhelmingly white officer corps."

Scholars can wax poetic (and legalistic) all they want about the benefits of affirmative action, but there is no image more haunting and persuasive than that of minority enlisted troops looking to their officer corps and seeing no one of their own race. When someone like retired General H. Norman Schwarzkopf signs his name to a document calling diversity "critical to national security," you tend to listen -- whether or not you happen to be a Supreme Court justice.

IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S 5-4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, admissions offices at institutions of higher education expressed a sense of relief and celebration. Harvard Magazine congratulated Crimson alumni on the amicus brief their university had filed, and on the references that Justice O'Connor made in her opinion to the 1978 case lionizing Harvard's admissions program as a model for narrowly tailored racial preferences.

What has been lost to some scholars, unfortunately, is not only the impact that the military brief had on the outcome of the law school affirmative action case, but also the implicit message that the brief contained for our nation's educators: Making life difficult for military recruiters is incompatible with a commitment to affirmative action, not to mention national defense.

The military amici wrote that "the military must both maintain selectivity in admissions and train and educate a racially diverse officer corps to command racially diverse troops." Clearly, if we are to have the highly qualified and diverse officer corps that the military wants and needs, it has to come from somewhere. Due to financial and space constraints, the service academies and officer training schools can only commission so many new officers each year.

That leaves us with one remaining option for commissioning the majority of new second lieutenants and ensigns to lead our troops: the ROTC, which "continues to be a particularly significant vehicle for increasing [minority] representation in the officer ranks."

As the military amici astutely point out, there's only one catch: "To obtain an ROTC scholarship, a candidate must be admitted to the hosting college or university. The pool of minority candidates at any given ROTC member institution is thus limited to the number of minority students admitted."

Thus, our nation's best colleges and universities must play a part, even an integral one, in the military's quest for a diverse and top-notch officer pool. If not, they are shirking their duty -- both to the national defense and to the very goal of diversity that they profess to cherish.

If our elite educational institutions are as proud as they say of their record of diversity, and if the military feels that diversity in its ranks is crucial to national security, then surely our great universities have an extraordinary opportunity to do a patriotic service and at the same time score a big victory for racial diversity. To make this happen, all they have to do is let their student bodies be as accessible as possible to military recruiters and opportunities.

Sadly, when our top undergraduate schools keep ROTC off campus, and when our top law schools keep military recruiters at a distance, they are acting in a manner antithetical to both the interest of the country and the notion of diversity. Indeed, they are merely reinforcing what Colin Powell called the "antidemocratic disgrace" of Vietnam. As the Secretary of State wrote in his autobiography My American Journey, "I can never forgive a leadership that said in effect: These young men -- poorer, less educated, less privileged -- are expendable but the rest are too good to risk."

NOW THAT AMERICAN FORCES HAVE captured Saddam Hussein, legal scholars will no doubt have plenty of opinions about how he should be tried. Probably some of the 21 Penn law professors now suing to keep military recruiters out of their career office will show up as talking heads on TV, telling the military what they should do. Of course, when the government came to them looking for potential JAG officers, it received the cold shoulder… and a lawsuit.

Winston Churchill warned his country in 1933 that England's "worst difficulties … come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength." While Churchill was trying to stop the rise of Hitler, Britain's leading intellectuals were busy casting the country into a "mood of unwarrantable self abasement."

Today, as the United States wages war against a global terrorist threat that seeks our destruction and has struck civilians on our own soil, the nation's elite law schools seek to deny the military the benefits of their resources and student body. The courts should not aid them in this endeavor.