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: carranza2 who wrote (24316)	1/14/2004 2:41:32 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793903

"New Republic" Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe 01.13.04 NO, THEY'RE NUTS, ALL RIGHT: There has been a theory floated by many of Dean's moderate defenders--many of them writing for TNR--which holds that all his radical talk is just a tactic to wrap up the liberal vote. After Dean wins the nomination, they assure us, he'll easily move back toward the political center. One problem with this theory is that it's much harder than it sounds. The things that make Dean politically alien to the center--his abrasive personality, his secularism, his opposition to the Iraq war, his cultural liberalism, and his general identification with the left, to name a few--are too deeply ingrained in his image to be discarded. A second problem is that, even if he could do it, there's little reason to believe Dean wants to move to the center. New evidence for this view can be found in Roger Simon's cover story in this week's issue of U.S. News. While the story is written in a fairly puffy way, for those holding out hope that Dean is a cunning tactician who has harnessed the left without becoming a part of it, it will be truly frightening. In the piece, Dean details his belief that he can win the general election solely by appealng to the Democratic base. "I concluded that the only way we can win is to really get our base excited: African-Americans, trade unionists, latinos, women, and now young people," he said. Of course any intelligent strategist will tell you the Democrats must excite their base and win over the center. The intense opposition to Bush among liberals would seem to give Democrats their chance: they could run a candidate who appeals to the center, and excite the base with the prospect of deposing Bush. Ignoring the center is a recipe for disaster. In the same story Joe Trippi responds to the notion that other Democrats might be electable thusly: "If these guys can't beat us, how the hell are they going to beat George Bush, Karl Rove, and $200 million?" The answer to this is so obvious it's embarrassing that the campaign manager of a front-running candidate would need to be told. Dean is currently beating other Democrats because he's running in an entirely different context than the general election. In the primary, visceral loathing of Bush, absolutist opposition to the Iraq war, and a self-identification as representing the "Democratic" (i.e., left) wing of the Democratic Party are all major assets. In the general election they're liabilities. Dean is winning in large part because the other candidates are handicapped by having made a realistic appraisal of what they have to do to remain viable against Bush. Dean, by escaping into political fantasy, is free to run as if there were no tension between winning over Democratic partisans and winning over people who like Bush. And to the notion that only Dean can raise enough money to compete with Bush, there are two replies. First, Dean is falling far short of his goals for building supporters, so there's no reason to think he can raise $200 million. And second, even though a Democratic candidate who abides by the spending caps will be broke after the primaries, outside liberal groups will be free to spend unregulated millions on his behalf. Perhaps the most alarming detail in the story is a memo from Trippi to Dean last June obtained by Simon. "Think about the fear and anger you have engendered from the DLC, the other candidates, and many in the Washington establishment," he writes. "They are not afraid you are George McGovern or Jerry Brown. No, what they are afraid of is that you are Jimmy Carter." In other words, Dean's Democratic critics fear not that he'd lose but that he'd win, and they'd lose their power. I've seen this view expressed often on Dean's blog, but I didn't think that powerful people in the Dean campaign actually believed it. Because, simply put, it's insane. Even moderate Democrats are desperate to defeat Bush. Whatever "power" the DLC has right now--the power to write memos and policy proposals--it would still have under a Dean presidency. What's most telling, and frightening, about this last point is its paranoid ideological style. A characteristic trait of the far left--which can be seen most clearly in Ralph Nader--is a steadfast refusal to concede that anybody can ever disagree in good faith. One's own views are so obviously true that those who don't accept them must be corrupt. Trippi won't concede that other Democrats even believe that Dean would lose to Bush--they must be motivated by something darker. I think Trippi and Dean are honest in their belief that they could defeat Bush. I just think they're off their rockers.

To: carranza2 who wrote (24316)	1/14/2004 2:58:54 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

This column from "Slate" nails Clark. So they got both Dean and Clark today. on the trail Wesley Clark's Loose Lips Six quotes overheard in New Hampshire. By Chris Suellentrop Posted Monday, Jan. 12, 2004, at 5:47 PM PT Whether it's true or not, Gen. Wesley Clark's rise in the polls in New Hampshire is being partly attributed to some voters having "cold feet" about former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, especially Dean's penchant for making statements that are quickly seized upon by Fox News or the Republican Party as evidence of unpatriotic disloyalty. But Clark has the same propensity for speaking imprecisely off the cuff. Here are some statements I heard him make last week during my trip with him in New Hampshire: Bush was "warned" about 9/11? "President Bush didn't do his job as commander in chief in the early months of his administration. He was warned that the greatest threat to the United States of America was Osama Bin Laden, yet on the 11th of September in 2001, the United States had no plan for dealing with the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden. The ship of state was on autopilot. There were good CIA officers and FBI officers and everybody doing what they'd been taught to do, but the essential leadership process of putting focus on the resources of the United States, and giving these agencies a real target and a mission, it wasn't done. At least, I think that's what the evidence will show if we ever get the results of this presidential commission, and if they've asked the right questions." (Jan. 6, McKelvie Middle School, Bedford.) Bush "never intended" to get Osama Bin Laden? "We bombed Afghanistan, we missed Osama Bin Laden, partly because the president never intended to put the resources in to get Osama Bin Laden. All along, right after 9/11, they'd made their mind up, I guess, that we were going to go after Saddam Hussein. That's what people in the Pentagon told me. And they capped the resources, stopped the commitment to Afghanistan, and started shifting to prepare to go after Saddam Hussein." (Jan. 6, McKelvie Middle School, Bedford.) There wasn't a single terrorist in Iraq before the war? "The president was not and has not been held accountable yet for misleading the American people. He is continuing to associate Saddam, Iraq, and the problem of terrorism. Yet the only terrorists that are in Iraq are the people that have come there to attack us." (Jan. 7, Town House, Peterborough.) Fifty-five million voters are "ill-informed" dupes of the Christian right? "Now, there's one party in America that's made the United Nations the enemy. And I don't know how many of you have ever read that series of books that's published by the Christian right that's called the "Left Behind" series? Probably nobody's read it up here. But don't feel bad, I'm not recommending it to you. I'm just telling you that according to the book cover that I saw in the airport, 55 million copies have been printed. And in it, the Antichrist is the United Nations. And so there's this huge, ill-informed body of sentiment out there that's just grinding away against the United Nations." (Jan. 7, Fuller Elementary School, Keene.) Does Islam need an Enlightenment or just Match.com? "Young men in an Islamic culture cannot get married until they can support a family. No job, no marriage. No marriage, unhappy young men. They get real angry, they feel real frustrated, they feel real powerless. And a certain number of them are being exploited in the mosques by this recruiting network." (Jan. 8, Havenwoods Heritage Heights senior center, Concord.) President Bush doesn't even want to find Bin Laden? "Newsweek magazine says he's in the mountains of western Pakistan. And I guess if Newsweek could find him there, we could, too, if we wanted to." (Jan. 8, Havenwoods Heritage Heights senior center, Concord.) Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief. You can e-mail him at suellentrop@slate.com. Article URL: slate.msn.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (24316)	1/14/2004 3:10:35 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

'I'm not ready to buy everything he says hook, line, and sinker. There is a lot of self-promotion and a tad of hysteria in what he writes. Though I see some substance, I don't have the time to pick the wheat from his chaff." That fairly well sums up what I think of Mansoor Ijaz too. He has enough credibility for his report to scare me, but not enough to post about it here after I heard it on Fox yesterday, as it may be more hype/conjecture than substance. TWT on this story.