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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22516)	1/2/2004 12:15:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793550

"Gods and Generals" I will buy it when an extended version comes out. The problem with it is that people today are repelled by Jackson. Unless they are Southern Conservative Christians. I loved it because it was so true to the era. None of the slick falseness you see in "Cold Mountain." But that made it fail. Just not "commercial" enough.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22516)	1/2/2004 12:19:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793550

Krugman is now a "Running Dog" for Dean. And "running scared" January 2, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST Who's Nader Now? By PAUL KRUGMAN n the 2000 election, in a campaign that seemed driven more by vanity than by any realistic political vision, Ralph Nader did all he could to undermine Al Gore — even though Mr. Gore, however unsatisfying to the Naderites, was clearly a better choice than the current occupant of the White House. Now the Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in the race for the nomination who seem more interested in tearing down Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush. The truth — which one hopes voters will remember, whoever gets the nomination — is that the leading Democratic contenders share a lot of common ground. Their domestic policy proposals are similar, and very different from those of Mr. Bush. Even on foreign policy, the differences are less stark than they may appear. Wesley Clark's critiques of the Iraq war are every bit as stinging as Mr. Dean's. And looking forward, I don't believe that even the pro-war candidates would pursue the neocon vision of two, three, many Iraq-style wars. Mr. Bush, who has made preemptive war the core of his foreign policy doctrine, might do just that. Yet some of Mr. Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. And I don't buy the excuse that it's all about ensuring that the party chooses an electable candidate. It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads. Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault — I am not making this up — over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in "denial mode." That's not to say that a candidate's qualifications don't matter: it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero. But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark. Mr. Dean's rivals may well believe that he will lose the election if he is nominated. But it's inexcusable when they try to turn that belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark. More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.) The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22516)	1/2/2004 12:59:01 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793550

I don't think Hillary will be asked to make this trip. Although she might force here way in. Laura Bush might go. U.S. Makes Overture To Iran Sen. Dole Could Head Aid Mission By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 2, 2004; Page A01 The United States has approached Iran about dispatching a high-level humanitarian mission to Tehran, headed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and including a member of the Bush family, U.S. and Iranian officials said yesterday. The delegation would carry additional assistance for survivors of the devastating earthquake last week that killed more than 28,000 Iranians. The overture, made by Washington on Tuesday, awaits a response from the government of President Mohammad Khatami, U.S. officials said. The mission would be the first public U.S. official visit since the 1979-81 hostage ordeal, when Iranian students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The only diplomacy since then was during the arms-for-hostages swap in the mid-1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff secretly visited Tehran. The idea for the trip grew out of two simultaneous moves earlier this week, according to U.S. officials. In conversations with senior advisers on Sunday, President Bush asked if there was anything more the United States could do to help Iran cope with a natural disaster that destroyed the 2,000-year-old city of Bam and killed or left homeless its population of 80,000 people. Washington had already dispatched one round of material and personnel to Bam, a city that Iranians consider a national historic treasure. At the same time, Dole, former head of the American Red Cross, independently contacted the State Department about traveling to Iran with a Red Cross delegation to provide additional aid material, U.S. officials said. The administration embraced the proposal and began exploring the idea of expanding the mission to include an as yet unspecified member of the Bush family, and others, U.S. officials said yesterday. The administration continues to discuss the makeup of a possible U.S. delegation as it awaits Tehran's answer. The new tone toward Iran since the earthquake was reflected Wednesday in statements from the White House and the State Department in announcing further steps to ease the transfer of money and material for relief efforts in Iran, which would otherwise be banned by U.S. embargoes. "The Iranian people deserve and need the assistance of the international community to help them recover from the catastrophic results of last week's earthquake. The American people want to help, and share great concern and sympathy for those families and individuals who lost loved ones, their homes and possessions," the White House said in a statement released Wednesday. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "At this time of great emergency, we must do everything we can to help people in desperate need." U.S. officials insisted that the mission would be humanitarian, not diplomatic, despite the unavoidable symbolism of any official American delegation visiting the Islamic republic. After hunting quail yesterday, President Bush was asked by reporters whether easing the aid restrictions represented an easing of the U.S. relationship with Iran. "What we're doing in Iran is we're showing the Iranian people the American people care and that we've got great compassion for human suffering. I eased restrictions in order to be able to get humanitarian aid into the country," Bush said. The president said the United States still has serious differences with Iran. "The Iranian government must listen to the voices of those who long for freedom, must turn over al Qaeda that are in their custody and must abandon their nuclear weapons program. In the meantime, we appreciate the fact the Iranian government is willing to allow our humanitarian aid flights into their country," he said. The administration's overture follows steps by Iran to address key U.S. and international concerns about a suspected nuclear weapons program. Last month, Iran signed an agreement allowing snap inspections of facilities that might be used for secret weapons production. In an interview earlier this week, Powell said he found Iran's decision and other recent actions "encouraging." Powell also signaled that Washington was deliberating the possibility of resuming the behind-the-scenes dialogue suspended last May after three suicide bombings in Riyadh were linked to al Qaeda operatives held in Tehran. Before resuming the talks, the United States wants Iran to deport more than 70 al Qaeda members as a sign that Tehran is willing to cooperate on terrorism. Officials expressed some skepticism yesterday about whether Iran is willing to welcome a U.S. delegation, because of opposition from hard-line religious clerics and because of sensitive parliamentary elections scheduled next month. "If they really wanted our help, they would have answered already," said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Some influential Iranian officials, including the brother of Iran's president, signaled yesterday that arrival of the initial U.S. aid has begun to change the atmosphere in Tehran on the sensitive issue of the United States. "In parliament right now we are evaluating the American government's positive behavior, and I'm sure that goodwill will be answered with goodwill," Mohammad Reza Khatami, deputy speaker of parliament, told Reuters yesterday. He also said the government considered Powell's remarks "positive and especially what the Americans did yesterday to lift the embargo." The president's brother told Reuters that relations with the United States since the 1979 Iranian revolution have been rocked by ups and downs but that Tehran now seeks "to remove the wall of mistrust." During a visit to Bam , former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also told reporters that the United States has "shown positive signals in recent months." Pressed on whether recent development could affect the relationship, he said, "I'm not sure, but the signs indicated that," Iran's news agency reported. Staff writer Mike Allen in Crawford, Tex., contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company