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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (10277)	2/19/2004 10:32:34 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Now for the issues By David Limbaugh One blessing likely to result from John Kerry's rapid clinching of the Democratic presidential nomination is that Democrats will finally be forced to give us their solutions for the nation's problems. Up to this point, most of their candidates have fueled their campaign engines only with high-octane anti-Bush. Once Mr. Kerry becomes the putative nominee — assuming he isn't there already — perhaps we'll begin to see a fleshing out of his alternative proposals, instead of merely his empty criticisms. A few questions that I'd like to see him answer are: • Health care: Your party acts like it owns this issue, lamenting we have more than 40 million uninsured. You tell us, essentially, that your highest economic aspiration is to restore the Clinton economy, at which point we'll be able to provide health insurance for nearly everyone. But if you'll recall, after Bill Clinton shamelessly exploited this issue against the first President Bush, he barely made a dent in the problem despite the considerable economic prosperity that coincided with his tenure. How will you be able to do more with a Clinton economy than the master himself could? • National defense: In your incessant complaints about Iraq, you seem long on process and short on substance. You talk about the president's failure to build a sufficient international coalition through "multilateralism." How many resolutions would Iraq have had to violate and for how long for you to believe American military action was warranted — even without the participation of every nation whose blessings you seem to prefer over American security? Do you truly believe any amount of persuasion would have convinced these intractable nations? Let's put it in terms you can better understand. Mr. Bush bent over backward to set a new tone in trying to get along with your party, and you rebuffed him at every turn. If you Democrats won't go along with him, and often aren't even civil about it, what makes you think other nations with vastly different agendas would? And how in good conscience could you effectively entrust to other nations your constitutional duty of safeguarding America's interests? Stated more bluntly, do you believe America should ever act unilaterally to protect its strategic interests, or would your presidency defer those decisions to the United Nations, as you suggested in the '70s and seem to be repeating today? In retrospect, despite your bellyaching about multilateralism and weapons of mass destruction, can you bring yourself to admit Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein? Was ousting him a moral cause? • War on terror: You say George Bush hasn't been effective in leading the war on terror and has diverted too many of our resources to Iraq. Do you base your claim on the fact we routed the Taliban in short order despite your party's predictions of quagmire, that we've captured or killed some two-thirds of known al Qaeda members, or that we haven't been attacked again since September 11, 2001? Or is it that you just have no confidence in our military and intelligence services? • Tax populism: George Bush's tax cuts, despite your rhetoric, were skewed against the rich — that is, the rich got a lesser percentage reduction. Why, then, do you mischaracterize them as "tax cuts for the wealthy"? • Budget: You complain about President Bush's budget imbalances, yet if your plans are implemented on "health care, education and the environment," not to mention others, Mr. Bush will look like a fiscal Scrooge. Given that your tax increases are likely to retard the recovery, how will you balance the budget without dangerous reductions in defense spending? • Education: Since we have proof that throwing ever-increasing federal dollars at education doesn't improve the quality of education, at what point will you quit demanding more? Is there any amount of domestic liberalism Mr. Bush could implement that would satisfy you? • Leadership: I've noticed a disturbing pattern in your approach to issues. You have not only flip-flopped on the most important ones. You have tried to "nuance" your way out of your reversals, always using the same template. You voted for: the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq war resolution. On every one, you refuse to own up to your vote and insist it was not the legislation that was objectionable but the way it has been implemented. Doesn't presidential leadership require you to own up to your decisions? What part of Harry Truman's "the buck stops here" do you not understand? David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: calgal who wrote (10277)	2/19/2004 10:32:48 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Edwards blunders on bundling With his impressive and surprising last-minute surge in the Wisconsin primary, John Edwards, the increasingly populist and protectionist senator from North Carolina, may finally get the two-man contest he has been seeking. Capitalizing on the concern generated by the nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Wisconsin over the past three years, Mr. Edwards finished a close second to Democratic front-runner John Kerry. In recent weeks, Mr. Edwards has repeatedly hammered Mr. Kerry for his 1993 vote in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Indeed, on the night of Mr. Edwards' only primary victory — South Carolina, whose textile industry has been decimated by low-cost imports — Mr. Edwards told MSNBC's Chris Matthews about his two major "policy differences" with Mr. Kerry. "I opposed NAFTA. I have opposed a number of trade agreements. Senator Kerry has taken different positions on that issue," he said. One very important trade issue on which Mr. Edwards agreed with Mr. Kerry was the establishment of permanent normal trading relations with China — though one would never know it from Mr. Edwards' recent plunge into unmitigated protectionism. Compared to the $41 billion balance-of-goods trade deficit in 2003 with NAFTA signatory Mexico, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $124 billion, more than three times the deficit with Mexico. Moreover, China provides far more manufactured goods to America's consumers than Mexico does, especially the textiles that have so decimated the mill towns of Mr. Edwards' beloved Carolinas. Mr. Edwards told Mr. Matthews that his other major policy difference with Mr. Kerry was Mr. Edwards' refusal to accept contributions from lobbyists. Mr. Matthews countered: "But when you take money from lawyers who do legislative work in Washington, they are, in fact, in most cases, if not in all cases, compensated for their contributions by their clients. Isn't that just a pass through that cleans up or launders money that's really from special interests?" Feigning confusion, the aw-shucks former personal-injury-attorney-turned-populist, who won more than $150 million in jury verdicts from insurance companies and other corporate adversaries, replied: "Boy, that was way too complicated for me." "Let me explain. It's called bundling, Senator," Mr. Matthews replied. "You get bundles of $2,000 maximum contributions from individuals. Those individuals are lawyers working in firms. The managing partner in a firm bundles together a lot of $2,000 maximum gifts." To which Mr. Edwards replied, "All I have done is draw some voluntary lines that I think are important." Yet, unlike every other major presidential candidate, including President Bush, whose campaign Web site lists the names of his bundlers, Mr. Edwards refuses to make such information available. While the bundlers remain anonymous, however, the Center for Responsive Politics has determined that lawyers alone have contributed more than $8 million, or two-thirds, of the $11.9 million in contributions to Mr. Edwards from individuals whose occupation could be identified.