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 (25443)	1/21/2004 3:09:01 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793757

For gosh sakes, think how it would look to other countries. The axis of weasels would love it. So would the ME. He could spend his time smoozing while DOD cleaned house. It would make Bush look very strong. Actually, I was thinking that it would work best when Hillary lost in 08. Then the Republican winner could present it as a "Coalition Government." But "give the devil his due." He is enormously popular and effective overseas. And much more Neocon than people suspect.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25443)	1/21/2004 3:16:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793757

There's an old joke that George Bush 41 reminds women of their first husband. Howard Dean last night reminds women of their first husband against whom they had to take out a restraining order.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25443)	1/21/2004 4:02:23 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793757

Back Words by Andrew Sullivan Only at TNR Online Post date: 01.20.04 Bill Clinton's State of the Union addresses were often derided as laundry lists of new proposals without any larger, unifying theme. But last night George W. Bush seemed to do him one better (or, rather, worse): A laundry list of past achievements. The tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act--all of these could reasonably be described as notches in the president's belt. But they're not much as an agenda for the future. Even the speech's high point--the president's aggressive defense of the war against Saddam and the war on terror--was extraordinarily backward-looking. It's not exactly the best strategy for kicking off an election year. The speech's finest moments--the zingers that will do most damage to Bush's Democratic opponent--came early on. Here's the best response yet to the lame Democratic demands that the war in Iraq be "internationalized": Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people. Devastating. So too the critical debate about whether the United States is in a war or not--another clear divide between the Dean-Clark wing of the Democrats and the president: I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime--a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States--and war is what they got. These passages strike me as the smartest and best of the entire speech. But what of the future? How do we deal with Iran or Syria or Pakistan or North Korea? Barely a squeak. What are our plans with regard to the hand-over of power in Iraq? Nothing but bland assurances that everything will be okay. A State of the Union shouldn't be an answer to every criticism. It should surely be a guidepost to what lies ahead. But almost all of the president's agenda was micromanaging the tax code or demanding the retention of initiatives already passed. What especially amazed me was the lack of any recognition that job growth is lagging economic growth. There was no statement of concern for those still struggling in the economy, no rhetoric of empathy. That surprised me. It leaves a huge opening to the Democrats, who will argue that the president is out of touch. Indeed, John Kerry immediately made that criticism in New Hampshire. Doesn't 43 remember 41? It's extraordinary he didn't make even a token statement of empathy with those whom the recovery has yet to carry along. On the deficit, Bush proposed no real change. A continuation of the tax cuts, the creation of personal savings accounts within Social Security (with no attempt to explain how this will be paid for), and a vague pledge to restrain the increase in domestic discretionary spending to 4 percent over the next year. If you're a fiscal conservative, that's hardly reassuring. It suggests a president who believes the country faces no fiscal problems at all right now--or at least none that can't be solved by more tax cuts and more spending increases. His insouciance is alarming. But, more profound, the president revealed his deep suspicion of human freedom. Yes, he says he supports it. But in every instance--even charitable and religious institutions--he believes that government needs to get involved. He wants to maintain the Patriot Act intact; he wants to extend the war on drugs to steroids; he wants to prevent gay couples from having the ability to form their own families and be treated equally under the law. He suggests not a single government program to be cut. On social issues, he shifted to the hard right: abstinence programs rather than contraception; an assault on gay couples and families; and millions of dollars in order to subject children to mandatory drug testing in schools. This is not Reaganism. It isn't Gingrichism. It's Big Government Moral Conservatism: fiscally liberal and socially conservative. It will please the hard right and the base. And it will alienate libertarians and moderates. It struck me as a speech that comes out of a political cocoon, from a president who doesn't grasp that he is in fact politically vulnerable, and who intends to run not on what he plans for the future but on what he has done in the past. That's a high-risk strategy. We won't know how high a risk until the Democrats produce a nominee.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25443)	1/21/2004 4:24:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793757

Wesley Clark Speaks Out The general explains why the president isn't a patriot and only Democrats are devout. by Hugh Hewitt HOWARD DEAN'S BELLOWING the roll call of the states on Monday night may capture the weird sweepstakes this election season, but Wesley Clark can't be counted out just yet. Most of the cameras were in Iowa while the general tromped around the Granite State, but the record he left is promising when it comes to snap potential. Rick Lowry had a tape recorder on when Clark delivered some choice words on faith and the president's patriotism, and was kind enough to send the tape along to me for broadcast. Here are the money quotes: Clark as Martin Luther: "What we've got in this country is one political party that, if you listen to them, you'd think they were connected to the Lord God Almighty with a telephone line. They're always talking about religion and so forth. But you know the other party, our party, is not like that. See what I saw about religion in every religion that I have studied and been part of works like this. They all agree on one thing. That if you're more favored in life, if you've been luckier, if you've had more advantages, then you should help the people who are less favored in life and have less advantages. There's only one party that lives that faith in America, and that's our party, the Democratic party, and that's why I'm proud to be a Democrat." Put aside Clark's crackpot theology and ask yourself what is he really saying here: That you can't be a Republican and be a devout person? And since he brought up the charity business, can we get a look at those tax returns please? Then there's the attack on President Bush. Recall that Democrats and their boosters like Jonathan Chait at the New Republic justify "Bush hatred" in part because the president supposedly countenances attacks on Democrats' patriotism. Such attacks have never occurred, of course, but the rhetoric is a staple of the unhinged Bush crowd. So here's Clark: "But I don't think it is patriotic to put on a flight suit and prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier looking for a photo-op. We have a president of the United States who did not do his duty to take care of America. If you're patriotic, you do your duty. That's the duty of the president of the United States--to take care of the country. He didn't do everything he should have done before 9/11." Now that we have an actual impugning of patriotism by a major public figure, the outrage merchants are busy elsewhere. No matter. Questioning the patriotism of the president or the religious sincerity of every Republican in the country are just evidences of a bedrock unsuitability to lead a country even in peacetime, much less in wartime. WHAT HAPPENED TO DEAN in Iowa is that his trail of outrageous overstatement and personality tics caught up with him. Now Clark gets the spotlight, and the very same quirks get a national audience. They don't play well, not even among the hardcore activists, who can hear the creepy "Twilight Zone" music playing when they talk. John Kerry is long in tooth and face, but he's not given to nutty outbursts. In 2004, that may be the best the Democrats can hope for. Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, In, But Not Of, has just been published by Thomas Nelson. © Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25443)	1/21/2004 7:48:12 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793757

Sharon Waxman has turned out to be one hell of a good hire for the "New York Times." She has been working the Hollywood beat for the "Washington Post" for years, and has good connections. She broke the CBS/Jackson payoff story that caused red faces at CBS. Now she has nailed NBC on Jackson also. NBC Offered Jackson Deal to Pre-empt Documentary Criticizing Him New York Times, by Sharon Waxman Original Article nytimes.com NBC came late to the network bidding war last year over an interview with Michael Jackson, which was to be timed for the February sweeps. On the auction block were a proposed interview with Mr. Jackson and videotapes taken by the Jackson camp, including a rare interview with his former wife and another of a conversation between Mr. Jackson and a British journalist, Martin Bashir.