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 (22092)	12/30/2003 1:24:31 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793640

So, in less than 10 minutes you read that whole speech, considered precisely what Bush laid out in detail & thoughtfully penned your reply. Ya right! Bottom line. What Bush laid out in that speech clearly articulated why Saddam's regime had to either fully comply with all UN resolutions immediately & fully or face the consequences. And failure to comply made Saddam's regime a legitimate target in the global war on terror. But you didn't read that speech or consider what Bush really said. You just shot off your mouth with the same tired BS the left continues to cycle through regardless of how discredited it is & regardless of facts & reality.

To: MSI who wrote (22092)	12/30/2003 6:00:32 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793640

"Mark Schmitt"Blog - (very Blue) "The Defection Card" One of the contributions that weblogs can make is by drawing out the truly outrageous aspects of those comments, quotes or events that seem to pass benignly through the studied neutrality of the daily press. And no one does that more consistently, while never overdoing it, than Josh Marshall, whether it is calling Trent Lott out on his Dixiecrat nostalgia or catching the absurdity of the "flypaper" theory of Iraq. (Draw all the terrorists there and then we've got 'em!) He brings exactly the right tone to Howard Dean's comments about what would happen if he is not the Democratic nominee: Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 28, 2003 - January 03, 2004 Archives From the New York Times story on Dean's demand to DNC chair Terry McAuliffe that he tell the other candidates to stop attacking him: Dean says his supporters "'are certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.' Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was 'not transferable anymore' and that endorsements, including his own, 'don't guarantee anything.'" I don't care if Dean says he'll endorse whoever wins. He's playing the defection card. And that crosses the line....The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination. Absolutely correct. This attitude, as much as the electability question, is the basis of my wariness about Dean. And it is surprising, frankly. Dean of all people should know how dangerous the left-wing's tyranny of small differences can be: He almost lost his last race for Governor of Vermont because of it. In 2000, Anthony Pollina ran for governor on the Progressive Party, charging that Dean was just too close to being the kind of conventional politician he now disdains. Pollina won 10% of the vote, Dean just barely 50%. Up until the day of the election, there was a real worry that Pollina's vote would hold Dean under 50%, in which case, under Vermont law, the legislature would have decided the election, and there was also reason to think that the legislature might have gone Republican. In the event, Dean squeaked by with just over 50%, the Republican conceded gracefully, and the legislature remained narrowly Democratic. (Here's a CNN story on how this race looked just before the election.) But, having come through that scare, shouldn't Dean know just how dangerous this kind of threat can be? It is certainly true that a prolonged battle for the nomination, loaded with bitterness and vicious attacks, that extends well into the spring will be hurtful to the eventual nominee. The Kennedy-Carter battle in 1980 is the classic example. There is a point at which the party establishment, such as it is, needs to say, enough, and perhaps tell a candidate who still has a mathematical possibility of winning the nomination that it's time to join the team. But that point is sometime in March or April. It is most certainly not in December of the year before the election, when not one vote has been cast and not one delegate has been chosen. The way a party finds its strongest nominee is through campaigns, voting, and a vigorous contest of ideas. Such a contest need not be destructive, and often leaves the eventual candidate stronger. So far, everything that the other candidates have said about Dean, even Lieberman's charge that his economic policies would lead to "the Dean Depression" are entirely within the bounds of normal, healthy political back-and-forth. There has been nothing comparable to Gore's use in 1988 of Willie Horton, which did allow George H.W. Bush to use the same loaded imagery with impunity against Michael Dukakis. We don't choose a party's nominee on the basis of money, standing in the polls, or Meet-up attendance. If we did, we would have all had to coalesce around John Kerry a year ago. If you believe in "people power," you have to let the people actually vote before you can act as if you've actually accomplished anything. markschmitt.typepad.com