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: Sully- who wrote (21805)	12/27/2003 6:02:41 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793587

Cheney's Mentors Robert Novak December 27, 2003 WASHINGTON -- When Vice President Dick Cheney was asked in a recent taped television interview what has "best prepared you for where you are now," he quickly replied that it was working for Gerald Ford and Donald Rumsfeld. "(President) Jerry Ford gave me the opportunity at 34 to run the White House (as chief of staff)," Cheney told columnist-commentator Armstrong Williams. He added: "Don Rumsfeld (as Nixon administration anti-poverty chief) taking me under his wing when I was a green would-be academic, 27 years old, when I first arrived in Washington, and teaching me (as his chief of staff) a great deal about how this city works, about how politics work." A footnote: Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are close allies in the Bush administration, often aligned against Secretary of State Colin Powell. CALIFORNIA SOUNDINGS A private statewide survey by pollster Jim Moore portrays California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger flying high but President George W. Bush still facing trouble in the Golden State. The survey shows only 17 percent unfavorable for Schwarzenegger against 43 percent favorable, with 40 percent stating no opinion. Bush recorded 43 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable (in interviews before the capture of Saddam Hussein). A footnote: State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who came under fire for announcing his vote for Schwarzenegger in the recall election, led Democratic prospects for governor in 2006 with 35 percent favorable, 15 percent unfavorable. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who has been assailing Schwarzenegger, was 28 percent favorable, 20 percent unfavorable. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who ran against Schwarzenegger Oct. 7, is California's most unpopular politician at 54 percent unfavorable, 32 percent favorable. SENATE TEST When the Senate reconvenes Jan. 20, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will call a risky cloture vote on the House-passed omnibus appropriations bill providing funds for 11 government departments. Frist is betting that earmarked money for special projects in the states of individual senators will get him the 60 votes necessary for cloture in the 100-member Senate. However, Republican Sen. John McCain and other foes of congressional "pork" will oppose cloture in an effort to improve the bill. The deadline for renewal of spending authorization is Jan. 27. A footnote: Senate Republican leaders are trying to revive the House-passed energy bill, also branded by McCain as pork-filled. A Senate cloture attempt failed before Congress quit for the year. DEMONIZING ASHCROFT Two days before Christmas, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan opened a national Democratic campaign for 2004 accusing Attorney General John Ashcroft of racial disenfranchisement in the Texas congressional redistricting case. Conyers, an African American leader who is senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a Dec. 23 letter to Ashcroft. He demanded that Ashcroft and other Justice Department officials appointed by President Bush withdraw from the Texas case. Refusal to do so, said Conyers, "has placed both the reputation of the Justice Department and the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy." The racial disenfranchisement accusation is based on Democratic claims that the Republican-drafted Texas redistricting packs minorities into as few congressional districts as possible. It follows continuing Democratic complaints of racism behind the 2000 Florida vote controversy. WHO WINS LOUISIANA? Although Sen. John Breaux is spreading the word he never would have stepped away from seeking a fourth term in 2004 unless he were certain a Democrat would succeed him, national Democratic operatives are not so sure of winning. Breaux's optimism is based largely on the failure of Republicans ever to elect a senator from Louisiana in an open election. His handpicked successor is Rep. Chris John, a Breaux protege who is slightly more conservative than the moderate liberal senator. However, the last two election triumphs of Democrat Mary Landrieu for Louisiana's other Senate seat were very close. The designated Republican nominee for 2004, Rep. David Vitter, appears to be much stronger than the two candidates defeated by Landrieu. One Democratic rating organization privately classifies the seat as "leaning Republican."

To: Sully- who wrote (21805)	12/27/2003 6:07:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793587

they delivered those words very matter of factly. Exactly. Don't you understand that that's what they're supposed to do? If they deviate from that, it's supposed to be very subtle, which it was. That's journalism 101. Haven't you ever seen a news reader report an earthquake or mass murder matter of factly? That's what they teach in J school. They call it professionalism. When Chronkite reported Kennedy's asassination he showed a bit of personal feeling about it. Anything short of that is supposed to be matter of fact. there was no other context, like telling viewers that voting for anyone besides Saddam was a death sentence There's no reason to say that. We know that Saddam got one hundred percent of the vote and why. They don't need to explain that every time any more than they need to tell us that Saddam is the head of state of Iraq or that Iraq is in the Middle East. Or that we're at war with Iraq. Or that George Bush is President of the US. It's a given. If they kept telling us that stuff, we'd be complaining that they're talking down to us. They already do too much of that IMO. Let me rephrase that. I'll ask you. Do you really think that sort of thing needs to be explained with every news bit? If so, why? If you're not buying my argument about the "he-saids," then why do you think she emphasized that? Was she just stuttering?