SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (25421)1/20/2004 11:03:11 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793731
 
Democrats need to run on optimism

That’s why criticism of the invasion of Iraq is quickly approaching its sell-by date as a campaign issue.

by Edward Cone
News & Record

Whatever else may go wrong between now and Election Day, George W. Bush will always have the months after 9/11 to his credit, and that is going to make him very tough for anyone to beat in November.

The emotional bond Bush established with Americans in the fall of 2001 is unlike any relationship between president and populace since the days of FDR. Bush earned the gratitude and trust of millions of people by leading the country through the profound, shared experience of disaster, reaction, and recovery. While those assets have, in the eyes of many, been diminished by his subsequent actions, and although the economy and domestic issues will influence voters, Bush retains this unique political asset.

It’s worth noting that Howard Dean has also ridden an emotional tide to become a leading Democratic contender as we head into tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses. These are emotional times. Our feelings are still raw, and we want to connect with our president. Thus was Joe Lieberman doomed from the start.

The Democrats running for the White House do have plenty to talk about. In the current issue of The Atlantic magazine, for example, James Fallows calls the post-war administration of Iraq a failure on the scale of the Bay of Pigs fiasco or the escalation of the war in Vietnam. That’s strong stuff. And however the job market performs in 2004, there should be serious concern about the long-term consequences of the Bush budget deficits, global trade and outsourcing, and so on.

Yet Democrats need to be careful in the way they address these issues. They must be respectful as well as opportunistic. To the degree that Bush is able to turn discussion of any topic back to the war on terrorism – back to the moment when, however briefly, he had greatness thrust upon him – he will be tough to criticize. A lot of people won’t want to hear it.

That’s why criticism of the invasion of Iraq is quickly approaching its sell-by date as a campaign issue. Look back just a few months too far, and you see George Bush in his finest hour. Anger over Iraq has played well in the pre-season, but will go only so far in the general election. Voters already know how they feel about the decision to go to war, and either way the war happened, and it’s clear that the way out is the way forward. What’s up for grabs is what comes next.

The emotion the Democrats need to stimulate is hope. Americans have had a very difficult few years, and we’re ready for some optimism. And Bush is vulnerable on a lot of the issues that voters care about, from the economy to the environment to the rebuilding of Iraq and our relationship with the rest of the world.

Is there a Democrat in the field who can carry that affirmative banner? The anger quotient of Dean’s message has been exaggerated by his rivals, Republicans, and the lazy media, but at this point people do know more about what he opposes than what he supports. Wesley Clark has the national security resume of a contender, but has yet to make much of a personal impression, at least outside a few primary states.

In terms of style, John Edwards presents the most optimistic and hopeful image, and he’s done a good job of putting out forward-looking ideas out on education and other core issues. Edwards seems to be picking up momentum in Iowa, but the February 3 primary in South Carolina could be the make-or-break moment of his campaign.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, the goodwill won by George Bush between his address to Congress in September 2001 and his Axis-of-Evil speech in January 2002 will be difficult to match. Understanding that obstacle to unseating Bush is the first step toward overcoming it.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (25421)1/20/2004 11:33:50 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793731
 
Karl Rove thinks Dean is going down the plug hole.

January 21, 2004 - NYT
REPUBLICANS
Kerry Is Seen as Strong but Beatable
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

ASHINGTON, Jan. 20 — Republicans involved in President Bush's re-election effort said Tuesday that Senator John Kerry would be a more formidable opponent than Howard Dean in November but just as vulnerable to Republican attacks.

Mr. Bush's campaign team spent Tuesday assessing Mr. Kerry's strengths, which they said were considerable but not yet enough to guarantee the nomination. They also said they believed that Dr. Dean's chances of halting his slide were slim.

Despite the upended Democratic field, Bush campaign officials and outside Republican strategists said that the outcome of the Iowa caucuses would not lead to any fundamental change in political strategy for the White House. Mr. Bush's advisers have said for months that they expect a hard-fought race with the Democratic nominee and that they are prepared to run against any of the leading candidates.

"This field is every bit as left-leaning today as it was last week," a Bush campaign official said. "The front-runner today is every bit as negative as the front-runner was last week."

Even so, for months there had been a general assumption within the Bush campaign and among the pollsters and strategists who work with the White House that Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, was the most likely nominee. But Mr. Bush's team had always hedged its bets and continued to plan for the possibility that another candidate could break out of the pack and overtake Dr. Dean.

In an effort to show that they were not caught completely off guard, Republicans cited on Tuesday an internal memorandum written in November by Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's director of strategy, which said that the Democratic field was "very fluid" and that Dr. Dean was showing signs of vulnerability. Among them was a "1.1 to 1 image ratio," jargon meaning that as Dr. Dean became better known, "as many people in America dislike him as like him," the memorandum said.

Looking ahead to the Democratic convention in Boston in July, several Republicans suggested they would cast Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, as a second coming of Michael S. Dukakis, the state's former governor who, as the 1988 Democratic nominee, lost badly to Mr. Bush's father. Mr. Kerry, they noted, was once Mr. Dukakis's lieutenant governor.

A prominent Republican who works with the Bush team said that Mr. Kerry would be tagged as a "Kennedy Democrat" whose long record of Congressional votes provided a rich vein for Bush campaign researchers looking to define him as out of step with the country on social and economic issues.

The Bush team has assembled thick files on the records of all the major Democratic candidates and has devised tactics for running against any of them. In recent weeks, it has dispatched Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, to Arkansas, the home state of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, to deliver an attack on him, reflecting concern at the White House that he could emerge as a challenger with a case to make against Mr. Bush's foreign policy record.

Mr. Kerry, they said, offers a particularly big target. Unlike Dr. Dean, who as a governor did not take positions on many national issues, or Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who has been in the Senate only six years and has a thin record of votes and policy initiatives, Mr. Kerry is serving his fourth term in the Senate, with positions on nearly every public policy issue.

Unlike Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose record on Capitol Hill includes many votes that deviated from liberal orthodoxy on both domestic and foreign policy, Mr. Kerry, they said, has a record — especially on social and economic issues — that is easier to portray as too far left for the country.

"He's got one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate," said Charlie Black, a longtime Republican strategist, previewing the way in which the Bush campaign would try to define Mr. Kerry. "Unlike a Lieberman or someone without a voting record, it's going to be very hard to get him out of the left corner."

But Republican strategists said Mr. Kerry had attributes Dr. Dean did not, including a credible claim to experience in foreign policy and a compelling biography.

"In comparison to Dean, I see Kerry as being much more presidential," said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster. "He has made a transition you don't often see senators or congressmen make when they run for president. When you run for a legislative body, voters ask if you are smart enough to legislate. When they are voting for presidents or governors, they ask if you are strong enough to govern. Through the back and forth, Kerry has grown into emphasizing the strength of leadership."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (25421)1/21/2004 4:18:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793731
 
Ya gotta quit "bad mouthing" your country, Ann. Life is good!

to avoid becoming poor in the U.S. "you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of 20, and marry before having your first child." Only 8% of those who do all three become poor; 79% of the poor failed to do them. Contrary to pessimist mantra, democratic capitalism forces poverty on no one.

Don't Worry, Be Happy
There's no reason to be pessimistic about life in America.

BY PETE DU PONT Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:01 a.m.

In 1958 liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith's best-selling "The Affluent Society" assured us that living standards had risen so far they couldn't rise any further. In 1960 Prof. Paul Erlich concluded that 65 million Americans would perish from famine in the 1980s and food riots would kill millions more. Scientific American predicted in 1970 that in 20 years the world would be out of lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver. And Jimmy Carter's 1980 "Global 2000" report forecast that mass starvation and superplagues would ravage the globe in the final year of the millennium. They all more or less agreed with English philosopher Thomas Hobbes that our lives would be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short."
And they were all dead wrong. Gregg Easterbrook's new book, "The Progress Paradox, How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse," documents the opposite:

Almost everything about American and European life is getting better for almost everyone. Public health is improving by almost every measure. . . . Environmental trends are nearly all positive. . . . Drinking, smoking and most forms of drug use are declining. Teen pregnancy is declining. Welfare rolls are shrinking without increase in poverty. . . . Crime has declined. . . . Education levels keep rising. . . . Armed conflict and combat deaths worldwide are in a cycle of decline. Global democracy is rising, military dictatorship and communism are on the run.
Mr. Easterbrook's data on the escalating quality of American and global life are broad and deep, and if you are a CNN/New York Times buff, astonishing and irritating. Optimists have turned out to be fully correct; pessimists alarmingly misguided:
• Life expectancy in America has increased from 41 years at the beginning of the 20th century to 77 in 2000; we live almost twice as long as we did a century ago. And both longevity and health are bound to get better. Infant mortality is down 45% since 1980, and we spent 50% more on health care per person in 2002 than in 1982. For example, there were 200,000 knee replacements in 2001. and average cost of $26,000. That's $5.2 billion for a health-care procedure that didn't exist a decade ago.

• Incomes are up. Inflation-adjusted per capita income has doubled since 1960. And we're working less for more money. The average American worked 66 hours a week in 1850, 53 hours in 1900 and 42 today. The total number of working hours in the average lifetime has declined linearly for 15 consecutive decades. In 1880 the typical American spent two hours a week relaxing; today it is 40.

• Poverty is down. Twenty-two percent of Americans lived in poverty in 1960; by 2001 that rate had declined to 11.7%. Mr. Easterbrook concludes that to avoid becoming poor in the U.S. "you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of 20, and marry before having your first child." Only 8% of those who do all three become poor; 79% of the poor failed to do them. Contrary to pessimist mantra, democratic capitalism forces poverty on no one.

We are not running out of any resource--oil, natural gas, copper, aluminum or anything else. Pollution is down; today's new cars emit "less than 2% as much pollution per mile as a car of 1970." Man and technology are not the enemies of the natural environment. In Connecticut the population tripled and agricultural production quadrupled in the 20th century, yet the state is 59% forested today compared with 37% in the 19th century.

• Illegal drug use, alcohol consumption, teen pregnancy and the divorce rate are all down. Crime is substantially down. Food production, educational attainment (12.3 years on average, the highest in the world), white-collar jobs (which now outnumber blue-collar ones) and house size and ownership (70% own their own homes today, compared with 20% a century ago) are all up.

• The goods available to us are overwhelming, and getting cheaper all the time. Mr. Easterbrook notes there were 11 million cell phones in the world in 1990; there are now more than a billion. Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. Cheeseburgers that cost 30 minutes of work at typical wages when the first McDonald's opened now can be bought for three minutes of work. The 1880s prairie farmer knew little of what was happening in the outside world; today television and the Internet give him hourly access to global information on the economy, war and peace and the NFL playoffs, and of course he can see every fire, crime, disaster and political accusation produced.

All this progress is not just in America or wealthy nations. Middle-class men and women in Europe and America live better than 99.4% of humans who have ever lived. In 1975 the average income in developing nations was $2,125 per capita; today (inflation adjusted) it is $4,000. Global adult literacy was 47% in 1970; 30 years later it was 73%.

And democratic capitalism triumphed over communism without a shot being fired. The best governmental and economic system the world has ever known simply crushed the century's worst idea.

Mr. Easterbrook identifies problems that remain, from poverty that shouldn't exists at all in such a prosperous America to the fact that one-third of us are obese today, vs. 12% in 1960--the latter a byproduct of prosperity. Yet with all the progress we have enjoyed, why aren't we happier about it? He concludes that our genetic pessimism--an internal bad-news bias--plus the championing of victimhood by elites, intellectuals and the media, along with the material abundance that pressures us to seek more abundance, are the reasons that people don't feel better off.
But feeling worse and being worse are two different things, and calamities are no more around the corner in 2004 that they were four decades ago in Messrs. Galbraith's and Erlich's minds. But elitist global pessimism lives on--recall that in the 1992 presidential campaign Al Gore stated that America "faced the greatest calamity in the history of man."

There are calamities--terror attacks, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions--but they are not caused by global progress or democratic capitalism. Today's America can be improved--and is constantly improving--but that is no reason to insist falsely that it is calamitous, dysfunctional, or doomed. Rather than nasty, brutish and short, 21st century life is good, comfortable and long, and getting better all the time.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.