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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jagfan who wrote (526467)	1/20/2004 10:18:38 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

There are disturbing aspects of the Iowa experience as well. Two candidates -- Mr. Dean and Mr. Kerry -- competed under different, looser rules than the rest of the field. They were not subject to the state spending cap that constrained their rivals, because they have opted out of the federal campaign financing system -- a situation that created a distressingly unequal playing field. As impressive as Mr. Kerry's win was, he was able to obtain that outcome only because of his capacity to reach into his deep pockets and lend his campaign more than $6 million. It's not healthy for democracy for a candidate's shot at the presidency to depend on his personal wealth. This is a primary season that was deliberately front-loaded in hopes of picking an early nominee, unbloodied by internecine fights and, so the thinking of party bosses went, better able to compete against President Bush. To the extent that voters aren't dutifully complying, that's all for the best. The more voters who get their say, the longer the candidates are tested in the crucible of the primaries, the more time voters have to assess more candidates, the better it will be -- for the eventual nominee, for the Democratic Party and, ultimately, for the system as a whole. washingtonpost.com

To: Jagfan who wrote (526467)	1/20/2004 10:19:26 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

>>>In fact, it [the Democratic Party] has become a poor defender of our civilization. Period.<<< That's funny. I always thought both political parties over the past decades were responsible for propping up dictators in third world nations so that the resources from those nations could come here, to no benefit of the people who were from those rich-resource nations. And when has raping resources from third world nations ever been considered as "defender of our civilization?" Whose civilization was that writer you referenced talking about?