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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (4557)	3/1/2004 10:21:15 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 173976

THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS Why Kerry is Dems' choice Monday, March 1, 2004 www.sfgate.com THE POLICY differences between John Kerry and John Edwards, the two senators fighting for the Democratic nomination, are not profound. Their most significant clashes have been about trade, with Edwards taking Kerry to task for voting for the North American Free Trade Agreement, among other moves toward globalization. Kerry has responded by expressing a heightened skepticism about the side effects of free trade on workers and the environment. They argue about the death penalty, but, there again, the debate is on the margins. Kerry would only execute convicted terrorists, Edwards would apply it to murderers. Also, while both candidates oppose same-sex marriage but support an expansion of rights for gays and lesbians, Kerry is the one who is unequivocal about his intent to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military and to extend "all rights" of marriage to couples in state-recognized civil unions. On most issues, however, their positions are so similar that their debates have been more of a contrast in style than substance. It offers Democrats an intriguing choice -- which would be the most effective counter to President Bush, fire or ice? The fire is Edwards, a 50-year-old former trial lawyer finishing his first term in the U.S. Senate. He enjoys a clear edge in charisma. His delivery is sharp, his message simple, his passion contagious. He brings a sense of urgency to his critique of the Bush administration in his roaring "two Americas" stump speech. In smaller settings, he lunges for handshakes and charms new acquaintances with that extra moment of eye contact. As he said in a meeting with The Chronicle editorial board on Thursday, "I am by nature relentlessly positive. It's just who I am." Kerry, 60, a former Massachusetts lieutenant governor who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, has had a modest transfusion of common touch during this campaign -- most notably in his emotional connection with fellow veterans of the Vietnam War. Steadiness and cool are his defining traits. More important than the distinctions in style are the differences in experience between these two candidates. Kerry's two decades in the Senate are apparent in the depth of his responses to questions about trade, foreign policy, environment and other issues. During the campaign, he has been getting decidedly better at translating his grasp of policy into language that connects with Americans who don't know the acronymns or intricacies of Washington -- they just know that they're feeling anxious about the direction of the economy, the cost of health care or the deep commitment of U. S. troops and dollars to Iraq. Experience counts in the White House. As Kerry put it, "the greatest difference substantively'' between he and Edwards is the Massachusetts senator's 35 years of experience in working on progressive causes. "I come to this prepared to be president ... ready to lead our country in a very difficult period," he told our editorial board Friday. In sizing up both candidates, Kerry's ready-to-lead claim rings truer, which is why we endorse him in the March 2 primary.

To: PartyTime who wrote (4557)	3/1/2004 10:28:41 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

While you're reading GW's lips he's picking your pocket. Here's what he SAID; we know what he's doing: No government investment in private stocks or bonds Pledged to fulfill the solemn commitment of Social Security; no reduction in benefits for retirees or near retirees Called for dedicating all Social Security money to Social Security (lock box) Opposes any tax increase for Social Security Supports making personal retirement accounts part of Social Security reform Opposes government investment in private stocks or bonds Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000 issues2000.org