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 : THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (1357)	2/18/2004 1:50:05 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 2164

Wears boots John McCaslin (archive) February 17, 2004 \| Print \| Send Have our eyes deceived us - has Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) been named one of the Top 25 "Toughest Guys" in America by Men's Journal? "Is there anyone who doubts that the toughest penalty Bill paid for the Monica scandal was at home?" ask editors of the men's magazine. And yes, Sen. Clinton - who tied for 25th - is the only woman on the list, appearing with some of the strongest, toughest, bravest men in business, sports, politics and journalism. Ranked No. 1 is Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre, followed by Michael Weisskopf, the Time magazine correspondent who two months ago lost his right hand while covering the war in Iraq. An insurgent had lobbed a hissing grenade into the back of the army patrol Humvee he was riding in with a photographer and four soldiers, the magazine notes. But instead of diving for cover, Weisskopf "grabbed it and volleyed it away just as it exploded - taking his right hand with it but saving the lives of everyone in the vehicle." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam prisoner of war, is the only other politician to make the annual tough guy list. As for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, he tied with Sen. Clinton for 25th. INCONSISTENT CANDIDATE What could birth order have to do with this year's presidential campaign? Perhaps more than you think. Dr. Kevin Leman, a medical psychologist and best-selling author, reveals that 23 out of 41 U.S. presidents (56 percent) were firstborns (natural leaders, highly motivated to achieve, reliable, conscientious, perfectionists and don't like surprises). President George W. Bush is the firstborn of three brothers. Sen. John Kerry is the second of four children. IDEAL BRIDES Teresa Heinz Kerry has said, "Men with opinions are well informed and smart. But women with opinions are opinionated. If I didn't have opinions ... I couldn't have ... done what I have. I refuse to be categorized." Once was the time the general public was largely ignorant of political wives. Not anymore. In fact, the political widow and heroine of a new Regency-era novel, "The Ideal Bride," is said to reflect the influence Mrs. Kerry, widow of Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, has on husband John's political aspirations. "(T) here is a potent correlation that can be made between the novel's heroine and Teresa Heinz Kerry," publisher William Morrow says of best-selling author Stephanie Laurens' soon-to-be-released book. The book's heroine is the widow of a legendary diplomat who finds herself facing the question of whether she wants to return to the political sphere by marrying another rising politician. "Such considerations would doubtless have played a similar part in Teresa Heinz Kerry's life," agrees Laurens, who says then or now, when it comes to "influencing policy and the way policy is communicated, the input of an experienced political wife in such arenas is a constant that can be found behind most successful politicians." UNCLE SAM CITED For the first time in its history, or so it was announced recently on Capitol Hill, the United States is found guilty of "a major human rights violation." An 11-year investigation by the Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has just been completed, its ruling seized upon by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's nonvoting representative in Congress. What on earth did Uncle Sam do wrong? "The commission concludes that the state has failed to justify the denials of the petitioners of the effective representation in their federal government and, consequently, that the petitioners have been denied an effective right to participate in their government, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, contrary to Articles XX and II of the American Declaration," says OAS. The body, if you didn't guess, is referring to the denial of voting representation in Congress to approximately 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. Norton is not allowed to cast votes, even though her D.C. constituents rank second per capita in federal income taxes paid to support the U.S. government. POWER COUPLES Seated atop the 2004 Washington "A List," as is tradition, are President and Mrs. Bush. Joining the first couple this year are 127 of Washington's most powerful party people - or at least those folks you'd like to have show up for your party. "These people don't have to be extremely social, but if you walk into a party and they're there, then it's a good party," Nancy Bagley, editor in chief of Washington Life magazine, tells this column. Compiled annually in a secret committee, this year's A List reveals the usual suspects - the die-hards of the Washington social scene - as well as a few newcomers. Making room for the new arrivals means others have to be dropped from the list, most notably this year former basketball star Michael Jordan. On the other hand, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and his wife, Vicky, could pack their bags, retire to Hyannis Port and they still wouldn't be erased from the list. Ditto for Ethel Kennedy and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Nor could one pry away Watergate editor Ben Bradlee and his socially conscious wife, Sally Quinn, Joe and Barbara Jean Allbritton, Mrs. Paul (Bunny) Mellon, Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, Sen. and Mrs. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Mr. and Mrs. Jack Valenti. We should point out the 2004 list was finalized when every Democrat and his mother was running for the presidential nomination. This year's party roster, therefore, includes Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and wife Hadassah, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and wife Bitsey, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and wife Teresa. Other notables include actor Robert Duvall (first year making the grade), former President Bill Clinton and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, and everybody's favorite survivor, Sen. John McCain. SUING FOR CREDIT For Valentine's Day, Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, sent George Washington University Law School professor John F. Banzhaf III a note saying that, "I'd like to send you a nice box of chocolates as a gift." "I do this in spite of your absurd insistence that milk companies, diet food companies, pork farmers, school boards, fast-food restaurants, and perhaps, even Mom with her apple pie should be sued for facilitating the activity of enjoyable eating. You have done as much as anyone to make the United States the most litigious country in the world," Berman noted. He enclosed a "Valentine's Day Chocolates Liability and Indemnification Agreement" - "so that I can be sure you won't sue me for providing you with a 'hazardous' gift or some such nonsense." ©2003 Tribune Media Services

To: calgal who wrote (1357)	2/18/2004 1:50:18 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 2164

'That This Nation Shall Not Perish' What Bush learned from Lincoln. URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110004704 BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST WASHINGTON--The third Monday in February is the day set aside to honor our great presidents. And accordingly thousands of tourists made their way to this city over the weekend. Visiting the Lincoln Memorial, I saw many of them climb the steps and study the massive statue of the 16th president before reading the "Gettysburg Address" inscribed on the south wall. Many also stopped to gaze out from the spot from which Martin Luther King Jr. stood to deliver his "I Have a Dream" speech. This wasn't simply a momentary pause for history, an empty exercise of genuflecting. Sept. 11 awoke a new sense of patriotism in America and President's Day is a chance to reconnect with the ideas and the past struggles of this nation. And at the beginning of this election year it is also a chance to get above the minutia and mudslinging of a presidential campaign and reflect on the qualities that helped past leaders triumph in office. It's fitting then that in addition to the books on Lincoln and other presidents inside the memorial's store, visitors can buy a book on Sept. 11 "A Day of Tragedy." Terrorism is, of course, the big issue now facing America. That's not to say George W. Bush is of the stature of a Lincoln or even that the war on terror is as serious of an issue as the dissolution of the union. Today's war isn't even as divisive as the Vietnam War had become by the late 1960s. Fighting terrorism, however, is increasingly dividing this country--and not always along party lines. There are two distinctive camps developing. One comprised of Americans who don't think the war is something that should touch their everyday lives. And another that sees combating terrorism as a fundamental struggle not just between good and evil but also over the soul of this nation--a struggle over who we are, as a people, and what we will tolerate on the world stage. This is where presidential leadership is crucial. America is now at a crossroads. In one direction is complacency, a return of the mindset the nation was in before 9/11. It is here that staying within the consensus of "world opinion" is valued above acting on moral principles. It is here that, we are told, the ethos of the "everything goes" culture must not change. Schools and other civic institutions need more money, but shouldn't come in for fundamental reform. In the other direction lies a wholly different mindset. Here Sept. 11 is still seen as a turning point not only for foreign policy, but culturally as well. That day marked the coming of an era where America is again confident enough in her ideas of individual liberty to not only encourage their spread abroad (sometimes through forcibly removing dictators) but also to teach them in her schools at home. This isn't the first time the nation has come upon such a fork in the road. The four presidents that preceded Lincoln--Zachary Taylor, Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan--stayed within the political consensus on slavery. They chose complacency and therefore didn't move the country any closer to solving the most pressing moral problem of their day. President Bush is not making that mistake. He is taking on the most pressing issue of our times with fundamental changes. He's overhauling the Middle East and other incubators of terror. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Bush is creating liberal democracies in the Muslim world that will serve as bulwarks of liberty and the first line of defense against terrorism. On the domestic front, Mr. Bush is pushing to change the landscape as well. Citizens who do not have a sense of the goodness of their nation or even of their own history cannot long be counted on to confront the evils of despotism and terrorism. Teaching civics, raising education standards and shoring up other religious and civic institutions is perhaps the best way to address this domestic problem. So President Bush has his Faith Based Initiative to end decades of discriminating against religious organizations in government contracts and the No Child Left Behind Act to address failing public schools. And at the National Endowment of the Humanities, the administration has developed a "We the People" initiative. With a relatively small amount of money--about $100 million over three years--the NEH is supporting projects to teach civics and history around the country. Some grants go to creating new curriculums for public school teachers. Others to giving social-studies teachers refresher courses in American history. A grant to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is making research on early American slavery in the Chesapeake region publicly available. This isn't necessarily a partisan vision for America. Plenty of members of both parties are in favor of instilling a belief at home and abroad of the fundamental goodness of America, even while recognizing her flaws. However, the critics--the crowd that prefers that the war be fought out-of-sight and out-of-mind--will always attack President Bush for recognizing terrorism as more than just another foreign-policy issue. They hate him because he brings the ugliness of the war into their living rooms; because he makes them confront the reality of it. He makes them decide what they will do to combat terrorism. Thanks to Mr. Bush, they must take a stand on liberating Iraq, renewing the Patriot Act and dozens of other issues. This election year it's clear where John Kerry, for one, stands. He promises to take his hat in hand and walk back to the United Nations. Under his leadership, national security will again be treated as a law enforcement matter and schools will likely be left to be run by the teacher unions. The question remains, will America choose his complacency over Mr. Bush's vision? One thing is certain, with Americans dying abroad for the cause of freedom the war on terror is neither "out of-sight" nor "out-of-mind." At this important crossroads in our nation's history, the hallowed words inscribed on the south wall of the Lincoln Memorial are infused with new meaning: "[W]e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

To: calgal who wrote (1357)	2/18/2004 10:43:47 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2164

Tony Blankley Kerry's pre-emptive war policy newsandopinion.com \| Consider the following hypothetical situation. In September 2005, the president is informed by his CIA director that they have concluded there is a one in two chance that North Korea will transfer five nuclear bombs to bin Laden within the next month, and that after the transfer, despite our best efforts, the CIA judges that it is more likely than not bin Laden will succeed in detonating at least one of them in a major American city, resulting in one to three million deaths. Should the president consider taking pre-emptive military action? And let's assume that the president is named John Kerry. Returning from the hypothetical to the current reality, Senator Kerry and the Democrats have severely chastised President Bush for advocating and practicing pre-emptive war. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University last year, Mr. Kerry said that the Bush administration relies "unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations." Two months ago, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry accused President Bush of being "enthralled by the idea of preemption and American military might ... " Virtually across the board, the Democratic Party's national leadership has condemned President Bush's September 2002 National Security Strategy Document, which embraces (where justified) preemptive military action. Also, not only Mr. Kerry and the Democrats, but most of the major media have harshly criticized the president for going to war in Iraq without having proof beyond a doubt that Iraq then had weapons of mass destruction. And yet, I would hope that a notional President Kerry confronted with the hypothetical described at the beginning of this column would not stand by his — and his party's — purported policy on preemption and certainty. It makes fine campaign rhetoric to proclaim that he will never "take America into war" without absolutely certain intelligence, and never to do it unilaterally or preemptively. But, as Henry Kissinger has written, the advantage that critics after the event have over statesmen is that statesmen must act with inadequate information within an inadequate time. If Senator Kerry is president in September 2005, according to the above hypothetical, even if he has busily been reforming the CIA, he would be faced with making a command decision with ambiguous intelligence assessments. Would he be willing to take a one in two bet on the lives of millions of American citizens? Those odds are pretty good if you are betting on a horse. They stink if you are betting on your constitutional duty to protect Americans from foreign attack and slaughter. Senator Kerry appears to be an intelligent, rational person. Surely he would at least consider preemptive action on ambiguous information in the hypothetical case cited. Unless he is prepared to categorically reject such considerations, he has no principled difference with President Bush. His differences with the president are merely ones of case-by-case judgment calls and implementing skills. It would be good if sometime during the election campaign Sen. Kerry were confronted with such a proposition. After all, this election campaign is going to be about more than individuals; it will be about first principles of governance in the age of terrorism. We know President Bush's first principles — they are written by his war decisions over the last three years. The Democratic contender's principles can only be written in his words. The media should compel maximum precision in those words over the next nine months. But regarding Bush's Iraq diplomacy, Senator Kerry has already provided some specific words at his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in December. They are revealing. In the question period after the speech, a Newsweek reporter asked whether Kerry, who faulted the president's diplomacy, could have done a better job. "Yes. Absolutely. Let me explain," Kerry said. The senator went on to say: "Now at the time, (the French and Germans) were pushing for a second vote. But there was a way through that path ... I don't think it took a lot of skill or analysis to understand that the politics of their populations at that time were not ready to move. And any president ought to understand the politics of other people's electorates ... "He then suggested we could isolate the French and German governments by co-operating with their delays for a little while. Was Sen. Kerry being naïve or disingenuous with that answer? Surely he knew that German Chancellor Schroeder had himself whipped-up anti American fervor to win his election. And France's Chirac — riding a wave of anti-Americanism out of his own corruption scandals — had already admitted the Iraqi WMD threat but categorically rejected an armed response. This was great domestic politics for both those European leaders. Sen. Kerry would have held American security hostage to fanatically anti-American French and German public opinion being cheered on by their cynically calculating leaders. Senator Kerry's portentously delivered criticisms of President Bush's foreign policy sound credible to the credulous listener. But when one looks closely, his foreign policy strategies seem to be well described by Blanche DuBois' last words in the Tennessee Williams play, "Streetcar Named Desire": "Whoever you are — I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."