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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (566872)	4/20/2004 11:21:29 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Bush and Specter on Same Page When It Comes to Re-election By ELISABETH BUMILLER April 20, 2004 nytimes.com PITTSBURGH, April 19 — Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has never been President Bush's dream Republican. Mr. Specter, a member of an endangered species of Capitol Hill centrists, did not support Mr. Bush's full tax cut. He voted against removing former President Bill Clinton from office and counts among his supporters such well-known Bush foes as George Soros, the financier, and Harold M. Ickes, Mr. Clinton's onetime deputy chief of staff. Most pointedly, Mr. Specter supports revising parts of the antiterrorism legislation known as the Patriot Act, which Mr. Bush said on Monday must be left intact. But never mind. On Monday night in a crowded Pittsburgh convention center, there were Mr. Bush and Mr. Specter side by side, heaping praise on each other as if their political futures depended on it. In many ways, they do. Mr. Specter needs the president to support him in his toughest primary challenge since his election in 1980. And Mr. Bush needs Mr. Specter to ensure that he has a veteran Republican in place to try to help him win a critical swing state in November. "I'm here to say it as plainly as I can: Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate," Mr. Bush said at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in downtown Pittsburgh, speaking to a crowd of cheering Republicans who raised $400,000 for Mr. Specter's campaign. Mr. Bush added that Mr. Specter was "a little bit independent-minded sometimes, but there's nothing wrong with that." Mr. Specter, the president said, is "a firm ally when it matters most." Mr. Specter in turn piled accolades on Mr. Bush. "President Bush's leadership has been tremendous on the war against terrorism," Mr. Specter said. He added that Mr. Bush had made a "courageous stand" in Iraq, where "the establishment of a democracy" will be a "historic event." Mr. Specter is facing Representative Patrick J. Toomey, a conservative who has attacked Mr. Specter as a Ted Kennedy liberal too supportive of abortion rights and the United Nations. "I represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party," Mr. Toomey said recently. Mr. Specter has said Mr. Toomey is "not far right, he's far out." Republican officials said Mr. Bush was inserting himself into a Republican primary campaign, something the White House has done infrequently and with mixed results, because Mr. Specter had a five-term record of success and could help Mr. Bush attract moderates. Bush campaign officials also believe that Mr. Specter would do better than Mr. Toomey against a Democratic challenger in the general election and so would help Republicans hang on to their majority in the Senate. Supporting Mr. Specter is not that much of a stretch for Mr. Bush, since Mr. Specter is fairly low on the list of Republican senators who regularly irritate the White House. Mr. Specter is easily outdone by John McCain of Arizona, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Trent Lott of Mississippi. Perhaps more important, Mr. Specter does not irritate the White House as much as Stephen Moore, president of the antitax group Club for Growth, which happens to be the biggest financial supporter of Mr. Toomey. Mr. Moore has been a frequent critic of Mr. Bush's economic policies, and has angered Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political aide. Earlier on Monday in Hershey, Pa., Mr. Bush called on Congress to renew major provisions of the Patriot Act. "Congress must give law enforcement all the tools necessary to protect the American people," Mr. Bush told a crowd of 2,000 in the Chocolate Ballroom at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. Although the major provisions of the law do not expire until 2005, Mr. Bush is using his strong support of the act to portray himself as tough on terrorism. The White House goal is to set up a national security debate in an election year with the Democrats, who oppose provisions of the act that they say undermine civil liberties. For his part, Mr. Specter said in an interview last week that there had to be more balance between enforcement of the act and civil rights and that he was particularly concerned about a section of the act that gives the F.B.I. greater power to demand records from businesses and institutions like libraries. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (566872)	4/20/2004 11:23:40 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

ketchup head foot stuck in his mouth alert PAYBACK: NOW GOP WANTS KERRY TO SHOW ALL RECORDS Tue Apr 20 2004 09:50:22 ET After months of Dems haggling over President Bush's military records, the GOP now moves to demand full-disclosure from John Kerry! The day after Kerry told MEET THE PRESS he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material. Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie is planning to deliver a speech later today calling on Kerry to make good on his promise to release all his records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. [The Bush military records commotion intensified earlier this year after DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe challenged Bush to show records after Bush made a similar promise on MEET THE PRESS.] Coming Gillespie in a speech to be delivered in Ohio: "John Kerry's pattern of caveats, qualifications, disclaimers, policy reversals and vacillation are not the qualities voters are looking for in times of change that demand steady leadership. "The Boston Globe reports today that when a reporter went to Kerry's headquarters yesterday to follow up on the pledge Kerry had made on Meet the Press Sunday that he would make all his military records available, 'the campaign staff declined' and said 'the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper.' The campaign is withholding formal evaluations from superior officers and other documents they have yet to release. "Guess it depends on what your definition of the word 'all' is. "When President Bush committed to release all his military records on the same program, he kept his word. John Kerry should do the same. Voters aren't stupid, and he shouldn't treat us as if we are." ON HIS WIFE'S TAX RETURNS, HE HAS SAID 'NO'. ON HIS HEALTH RECORDS, HE HAS SAID 'NO'. ON HIS COMPREHENSIVE MILITARY RECORDS INCLUDING NAVAL RESERVE RECORDS, HE HAS SAID 'NO'... Developing... drudgereport.com

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (566872)	4/20/2004 2:09:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

IRAQ COULD DOOM BUSH Dick Morris nypost.com April 13, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush had a narrow brush with disaster last week as the casualties mounted amid escalating Iraqi violence. The daily tracking polls of Scott Rasmussen show that 10 days ago Bush was three points ahead of Kerry. His attack ads had the Democrat reeling. Then, from April 3-7, Bush fell by nine points and ended his crash trailing Kerry by six. Only Condeleezza Rice's testimony stopped the bleeding. By two to one, voters were favorably impressed by her testimony while they rated her antagonist Richard Clarke, negatively by 27 percent to 42 percent. So, by this past weekend Bush had again moved ahead of Kerry, this time by two points. But it was a close call. The bloodshed in Iraq has left Americans unsure of Bush's leadership. Only 48 percent now believe we're winning the War on Terror, down six points from last week. More seriously, Bush's lead over Kerry on the question of who would do better at handling the War on Terror dropped from 54-36 to only 51-40. Almost half of Americans now give Bush a negative rating on handling Iraq. Bush will be in real trouble if the situation in Iraq deteriorates. The reported boast of one anti-American demonstrator that he and his ilk "cannot drive America out of Iraq, but we can drive Bush out of the White House, like we did to Carter" is not far-fetched. So what is Bush to do? Procedurally, the June 30 deadline for handover of power to the Iraqi government looks like an essential element in the president's escape from political danger. But behind it must lie a humility and a realization of our limited means and the even more attenuated patience of the American people. We were willing to support Bush in Afghanistan and over the Patriot Act. We backed the invasion of Iraq and agreed that Saddam needed to be removed. Even when no weapons of mass destruction turned up, the American people still supported Bush. But last week's polling suggests that Americans are not prepared to sacrifice their sons and daughters to assure democracy in Iraq. That nation, which has never known freedom, may or may not be able to achieve democracy. But Americans are not willing to bet our children on the outcome. Nor should Bush wager his presidency. As long as Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Party is out of power - and does not return - the United States will have accomplished its essential objective in Iraq. Saddam is an evil man. His villainy, coupled with his access to oil wealth, made him a potent threat to peace and freedom. He had to go. To make sure he remains out of power, we must keep a large garrison, safely ensconced at a secure base, in Iraq once we hand over power to the Iraqi Governing Council. But democracy may be a bridge too far in Iraq; even peace may be elusive. We must heed the lessons of Nixon's successful disengagement from Vietnam. As Nixon did, we must turn the war over to the locals, a process he called Vietnamization. But, this time, we must not let the Democrats in Congress tie our hands. We've got to retain the freedom, flexibility and logistical ability to intervene again if the forces of evil come back to power. If Bush hangs on in Iraq, insisting on "nation building," he will leave public opinion behind. The resulting bitter alienation will cripple our ability to act against terror in other places, cost him the presidency and probably make future intervention in Iraq impossible. Bush is leading America in a crucial crusade to rid the world of terrorism. He needs an energetic, committed and largely united nation behind him. He must not squander those priceless assets in a dead-end pursuit of an ideal Iraq. A Saddam-less one is enough for one administration to achieve and to be thankful for.