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: John Carragher who wrote (24299)	1/14/2004 1:48:46 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793905

THE NOTE:NEWS SUMMARY There are the knowns. And then there are the unknowns. And then there are the unknowables. The Knowns: 1. Iowa is tight and New Hampshire has gotten tighter. 2. If someone tells you they can predict win, place, and show for Iowa, recommend that they apply to fill the old Novak chair on "The McLaughlin Group," but don't listen to a word they say on anything about politics. 2. Deanforamerica is not on a trajectory to end this pre-voting stage on an upswing. (Insider e-mail to The Note from smart source: "truth is, dean's fav-unfav is pretty tattered right now. press finally kicked in, he can't stop pumping lead into his own (manhood) … that elusive quality of 'presidential-ness' matters a lot in the end, especially to late-tuning-in voters and confused voters.") 3. Despite his holier-than-thou posture, Governor Dean's new negative attack ad — or harsh contrast ad, depending on your definition — is simply the latest step in a campaign that has relied in part on negative attacks — or harsh contrast rhetoric-- against its Democratic rivals from the beginning — and this time it could backfire with Iowans who are sick up and fed with this stuff. (Insider e-mail to The Note on the ad from a source who watches Dean closely: "huge risk of undermining his non-pol image, his greatest strength. not sure the potency left in the war attack per se, but apparently Maslin must think it's still got juice. … gotta admire their instincts, though. when in doubt (and they are) they just kick somebody in the balls. and they know the liberal hand wringing over attacks are over-rated, overstated.") 4. On the other hand — despite the script — the Dean ad's lilting female narrator and warm-n-fuzzy music makes it distinctive and, perhaps, less likely to boomerang. The woman's narration makes us think she has done voiceover work for Maine Public Television. 5. On the other, other hand, Dean himself has been the subject of many, many attacks in the last several months — many demagogic and unrefereed by the press — and the fact that his standing hasn't sunk more is testament to what we have all been talking about for more than a year — the playing-by-different-rules nature of the Dean campaign. And that could allow him to survive all this. 6. Despite the occasional hit job (Clark and Iraq, for instance), no other candidate besides Dean has gotten meaningful press or unfurled oppo research scrutiny in months and months. If Burlington and/or the media begin to hold these other candidates accountable, who knows what will happen? 7. It might not be an endorsement, but at least one thing is true about Dean's planned Sunday appearance with Jimmy Carter — the former POTUS isn't appearing with any of the OTHER candidates. 8. If Dean stumbles coming out of Iowa and/or New Hampshire, the notion that there will be only one Dean Alternative who emerges just might be wrong. This field still has five other candidates with various strengths, any of whom could end up making a plausible alternative. And no one has their arms around which candidates are best positioned to do well on February 3. 9. Dick Morris, Mark Penn, and Bill Clinton would all approve of 43's high-profile space (Kennedyesque) and pro-family (Reaganesque) initiatives — which are, of course, both Clintonesqe as well. The contrast with the squabbling, small, political Democratic candidates is JUST what Rove and Bartlett envisioned way back in November during their long-range scheduling meetings planning the January sequencing leading up to the SOTU. The Unknowables (or, at least, unknown to us): 1. On what polling data did the Dean campaign base the decision to launch the new ad? 2. What are the hard counts of the Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards campaigns in Iowa? 3. Just how hot can the son of a mill worker get? 4. Who is in charge at each campaign of making sure ABC News finds out about your opponents' direct mail and persuasion phone calls ASAP? 5. Stylistically and practically, how will Clark react to being attacked? What investigative stories about Clark are in the hopper? 6. How many different candidates will claim to be the Comeback Kd next Monday night? 7. Just who does Howard Dean think Jimmy Carter appeals to? 8. When does Dean get away from a process message and back to a message of substance? 9. What will Sunday's Register poll show? How will the media interpret it? 10. Will Howard Dean's decision to spend the Sunday morning before the caucuses outside Iowa backfire? abcnews.go.com

To: John Carragher who wrote (24299)	1/14/2004 3:08:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793905

Martha and the Tall Poppies By Robert Tracinski Ayn Rand Institute aynrand.org. As the Martha Stewart case finally goes to trial, it is clear that Ms. Stewart has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Observe the undisguised delight with which reporters and pundits describe the prospect of seeing Stewart hauled up before the courts. Listen to the constant stream of jokes about jail cells with matching curtains—the malicious glee of news anchors and commentators contemplating the idea of Martha Stewart behind bars, before any of the evidence against her has been formally presented. Then ask yourself: Why do so many people have a reflexive hatred of Martha Stewart? How has a home-decorating expert with a wholesome public persona come to be regarded as a major cultural villain? The answer: Martha is hated because she's a tall poppy. There is a notorious saying in Australia: "You have to cut down the tall poppies." In other words, anyone who dares to poke his head above the crowd must be attacked, denigrated, and brought down to the common level. I don't know whether this "Tall Poppy Syndrome," as it is called, is really typical of Australian culture, but it is a widespread trend in American culture—and Martha Stewart has long been one of its favorite targets. Long before she was accused of insider trading, Martha-hatred was already an established industry peddled in dozens of books and television profiles purporting to reveal Stewart as a shrewish employer, a neglectful mother, a cold wife, an ungrateful daughter, and everything else you could dream up. One charge keeps recurring as the central thread—and real motive—of all these claims: Martha is too perfect. The problem with Martha Stewart, we are told, is that the lifestyle she promotes in her books, magazines, and television shows projects an "unattainable" perfection. Her kitchen is too clean, her house is too beautiful, her parties are too elegant. She gets too much done in a day. Such perfection, the charge goes, merely makes everyone else feel inadequate because they can't measure up. This attitude is not shared by Martha's many fans (and customers), even those whose housekeeping is not as lavish as hers. Most people are able to appreciate the accomplishments of others, even if they cannot match them. But for those who suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome, other people's achievements are an affront, an intolerable reminder of their own shortcomings. These are the people who desperately search for dirt to sling at celebrities, to show that they aren't so good after all—and who rush to join any witch hunt. The Martha Stewart prosecution is a case study in the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Consider the arbitrary nature of the charges against Stewart, which include the non-crime of "insider trading." The initial accusation against Stewart was that she was tipped by her broker that ImClone executives were selling the company's stock. This "inside information" supposedly gave Stewart an "unfair" advantage. In a "fair" world, apparently, investors are forced to hold on to their stock even when they know it's going to crash. Martha's alleged "crime" is not wanting to lose money. But even the evidence for this pseudo-crime is thin—which is why federal prosecutors did not actually indict Stewart on criminal insider-trading charges. Instead, she is on trial for lying to prosecutors (about a crime they can't prove she committed). More ominously, she is on trial for the mere act of publicly proclaiming her innocence—a declaration protected by the Fifth Amendment, but described by prosecutors as a "fraud" against her shareholders. Stewart's lawyers suggest she is being targeted because she is a successful woman in a "man's world." But ask Bill Gates what kind of welcome a successful man can expect today. In fact, both are the target of a deeper hatred. The basis for this hatred is not mere envy, but a moral code that makes that ugly emotion seem legitimate: the morality of altruism. We have been told for centuries that the weak, the incompetent, the most down-and-out bums on the street are the most worthy objects of our moral concern—while the highest achievers are at best the bum's servants, at worst his exploiters. The result is an upside-down morality, a code in which the better you are, the worse you are. The more you achieve, the more you are hated. This hatred of the good is not merely ugly; it is destructive. A culture that attacks its highest achievers will mow down its tall poppies—and end up with nothing but weeds. Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.