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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (568262)	4/23/2004 4:22:48 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

Wait 'till you see what we victims of the Social Security Fraud have planned for the welfare queens who are ripping us off...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (568262)	4/23/2004 4:27:47 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Enjoy Kenneth.... Why the race is looking so good for Bush From 9/11 panel to Kerry's manner, here are 9 reasons By Howard Fineman MSNBC contributor Updated: 11:08 a.m. ET April 22, 2004 WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry's spin doctors claim that they haven't lost ground to George Bush in recent weeks, and they are staging what they insist is the "launch" of his general election campaign this week with new TV ads airing and a trip next week to the Midwest. But the fact is that Kerry has lost ground — ground he has to make up if he hopes to win in November. The more interesting question is why? My reasons: Richard Ben-Veniste & Co. The media loved the 9/11 commission hearings. By instinct, we thrilled to watch a prosecutor such as B-V on the hunt, creeping in on a witness like a big cat. But the commission, which served as a platform for the theatrical Richard Clarke and the cross-examinations of Democratic members, eventually came off as too political and partisan to damage the president. Just the opposite, I think. Too many of the commissioners ended up looking like they were pressing to prove that Bush could have and should have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe — a theory the public doesn’t buy. In fact, most Americans tend to blame the rise of terrorism here on the eight-year Clinton administration. Bush, without having to say much, was able to play the political victim. Fallujah and Najaf. Politics is a game of context. And for now, this early in the campaign, the context isn’t Bush versus Kerry — it’s Bush versus the murderers and thugs. The first reaction of Americans wasn’t “what were those contractors doing in Fallujah in the first place?” It was “we must punish the beasts who killed and savagely mutilated them.” As a political analyst, my first thought was: All this video is bad for Bush, because it makes his Iraq policy look like a failure. I was wrong, of course. His may pay politically for Iraq at some point, but not right now. For now, it’s still rally ’round the commander-in-chief, if for no other reason than to show that we are not Spain. “Resolve.” In politics, you can’t beat something with nothing. Bush has a plan and a vision: His goal is to protect the American homeland by spreading democracy (by military force if necessary) to the cockpit of Islamic fundamentalism. This idea strikes many serious people as naïve and grandiose at best, dangerously imperious and counter-productive at worst. But what, precisely, is the better idea? Kerry certainly hasn’t made that clear. “Winning hearts and minds” sounds nice, but how do you do that these days? Relying on the United Nations sounds good, too, except that the U.N. has little real credibility. Reinventing the CIA clearly is necessary, but it will take America years if not decades to approach the sophistication of the British — and even they are eyeless in Gaza. Polls show that voters still think it was a good idea to go to Iraq, though they think that by an ever-dwindling margin. But they probably won’t abandon that belief — or Bush — until they can clearly see an alternative answer. Indeed, in most important ways, Kerry seems to basically agree with Bush on the goals and current strategies in Iraq. Bob Woodward’s blessing. He certainly didn’t intend to do so, but the great Watergate reporter’s new book, “Plan of Attack,” gives President Bush some cover — which is why it’s listed on the Bush-Cheney ’04 Web site as recommended reading. No, Bush didn’t convene the war cabinet to assess the risks of going to Iraq. But Woodward portrays the president as insisting on the need to prove the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. According to Woodward, CIA Director George Tenet told Bush that making such a case would be a “slam dunk.” Stories about the president’s reliance on faith and on a “higher father” to give him strength scare many voters. But most of those particular voters lost to Bush long ago. On the other hand, I can think of swing voters I’ve interviewed in Ohio and Florida who would be reassured, not shocked, that Bush would pray as he leads. Tony & Trump. Let’s face it, as a people we tend to like simple answers and strong leaders who propound them. That may be especially true in these, the early years of what is likely to be a long, twilight struggle against terrorism. The “Sopranos” were popular before 9/11, but even more so now. In these parlous times, Tony Soprano is the king of cable, Donald Trump the king of broadcast TV. There is a full-speed-ahead, damn-the-consequences aura to them both. An oversimplification, for sure: I’m obviously not proposing moral equivalence between a mob boss and the estimable real estate developer. But this is a time, it seems, when we are enamored of harsh methods. “Bring it on!” Fifty million bucks worth of ads. The Bush campaign has been nothing if not methodical. They laid out their program in February, adapted it to Kerry late that month, and have been playing out the plan since: starting with “positives” about Bush and 9/11 (the controversial “firefighter” ad); then a series on taxes and the economy timed to the approach of Tax Day; now, since April 15, going at Kerry full bore for his vote against the $87 billion funding for the war. In the 18 or so battleground states, Bush-Cheney has been on the air big time. Competing spinners assess the magnitude of the results differently. Listening to both sides, I assess it this way: BC04 drove all of the Republicans away from Kerry in the battleground states, and back into the Bush fold. But BC04 probably still has a long way to go — all the way to Election Day — to get the swing voters who will decide the destiny of those states. The Economy. It is improving in most places in most ways. West Virginia is a good example. Bush won it in 2000 on the strength of protectionist promises made to steelworkers there. He has since dialed back on protection, and you would think that that presented a big opening to the Democrats there. But, for other reasons (voracious demand in China, mostly) the American steel industry is booming. There are other local and national trends out there. Some of that good news is getting out, which is why Bush’s numbers — still not great — are improving for handling the economy. And, as in Iraq, Kerry’s proposals aren’t radically different. He’s even in favor of keeping most of Bush’s tax cuts in place. Nader. I went to see him at a breakfast with reporters the other day, and expected to see a doddering fellow ready for the retirement home. Nothing could be further from the truth. Still sharp and energetic — and still possessed of his radar-like ability to hone in on the faults of the corporate/political establishment — Nader is a dagger pointed straight at the Kerry campaign. In the Washington Post poll, for example, he draws six points in a three-way match, compared with 48 for Bush and 44 for Kerry. Nader insists that he will draw equally from Democrats and Republicans; I don’t see it. And with Kerry taking a carefully modulated line on Iraq (made necessary by his $87 billion vote), Nader is free to be the Peace Candidate and the all-out anti Big Business candidate, too. Kerry, of course. John Kerry is durable, unflappable and determined. He works to be in the right place at the right time, and often is. He has no illusions about his own star power or charisma. He is a wooden campaigner, and his 20 years in the Senate have left him unable to see that bragging about legislative maneuvers is the last thing you want to do. Kerry explained to supporters recently that he’d voted for the $87 billion before he’d voted against it. In his mind, evidently, he was merely explaining (with a mordant sense of humor) how the Senate works. But now that line is the centerpiece of a BC04 attack ad. Kerry told financial supporters in New York the other week that his objective, for now, was to “preserve my acceptability.” That’s a pretty low standard — but one he won’t meet if that is his only goal. So far, his strategy has amounted mostly to: Vote for me, I’m not Bush. That’s not enough, especially if Kerry is seen by most voters the way the BC04 ad portrays him: as a flip-flopping manipulative insider. Howard Fineman is Newsweek’s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst msnbc.msn.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (568262)	4/23/2004 4:29:08 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 769670

Enjoy this one too, Kenneth... A FLYING SQUIRREL By HOWIE CARR April 19, 2004 -- BOSTON ON the issue of affluent Americans paying more income taxes, John Kerry is, as always, consistent in his inconsistency. On the campaign trail, he's in favor of raising taxes on everybody who makes over $200,000 a year. Unless, of course, he's the one being asked to pay more, in which case, forget about it. We know this because of a little whoopee cushion recently inserted into the income tax forms of his home state of Massachusetts. Weary of liberals always clamoring for higher taxes on other people, an anti-tax group managed to place a line on the tax form giving Bay Staters the option of paying at the old, since-repealed 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the current 5.3 percent rate. For two years now, John Kerry has had the opportunity to pay his "fair share." But like some Benedict Arnold CEO, the Democratic Party candidate for president has taken the money and ran. "Why do you even call asking about this?" his spokesman, Michael Meehan, said Saturday morning. "He has made the same decision as 99.9 percent of his fellow Massachusetts residents." Actually, it's more like 99.97 percent. Of 2,104,326 Massachusetts state returns filed by April 15, exactly 624 taxpayers had opted to pay at the higher rate, a very small number indeed, considering that in a statewide referendum, 1,055,181 good liberals voted against cutting the income tax rate. Kerry claimed income last year of $395,338, which means had he decided to assist the "most vulnerable members of society" etc., he would have owed an additional $2,174 - chump change, considering that his second wife is the 391st richest American, according to Forbes magazine, with a fortune of at least $550 million. You can learn a lot about a politician by studying his tax returns. In John Kerry's case, one thing you can quickly figure out is what years his name actually appears on the ballot. If it's an election year, he makes charitable contributions. Last week, for example, he claimed $43,735 in charitable donations for 2003, more than he'd given in the prior two years combined. In 1990, running for reelection to the Senate, he donated $1,835 to charity. After winning, he ponied up a total of $975 in the next three years. Still, to understand the Kerry tax situation, you would need to study his 65-year-old wife's returns. But the widow Heinz files separately and adamantly refuses to release her tax records. What is undisputed is that Kerry's jet-setting lifestyle is completely financed by Teresa Heinz Kerry's late first husband, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. His trust funds throw off millions in dividends and capital gains - what liberals often disparage as "unearned income." No such outcry has arisen in the case of Teresa. But even with her stonewalling on the release of her income tax returns, a glimpse into her financial worth is available in her tax bills that are public, for the five mansions she owns: * On Nantucket Island, for a $9.1 million beachfront "cottage," technically owned by Windy Point Trust, she pays $23,552.09 a year in property taxes. * In Pittsburgh, she owns a $3.1-million home on Squaw Run Road, a name that would definitely not be tolerated if a Republican lived there. The taxes are $14,632.80. * In Georgetown, her O Street mansion is worth $4.3 million, and costs her $41,627.14 annually in D.C. property taxes. * In Boston, she purchased a palace on Beacon Hill with an assessed value of $6.4 million, and was kind enough to put her 60-year-old husband's name on the deed. Annual property taxes: $62,794.08. * In Idaho, she hobnobs with her fellow Beautiful People in the only county in Idaho to vote for Al Gore in 2000. Her rebuilt barn, "outsourced" from the U.K., is assessed at $2.7l6 million, and her annual real-estate taxes are $30,728.78. That's close to $175,000 a year in property taxes alone, but Teresa has no cash-flow woes. Much has been written of the senator's 42-foot Hinckley powerboat, which cost at least $800,000. Less noticed has been Teresa's much more expensive plaything - a Gulfstream V private jet. It's named the Flying Squirrel, not after Bulwinkle's pal Rocky, but after her favorite ski run in Sun Valley. Aviation industry sources say the Flying Squirrel is worth about $35 million. It's the deluxe model . "To charter a Gulfstream V costs $5,000 to $6,000 an hour," says one pilot. "Hers has everything - plasma TV, two bathrooms, fancy mahogany and burlwood paneling, gold-plated fixtures." The only possible aviation upgrade, in other words, would be Air Force One. Which would certainly reduce the Widow Heinz's household expenses. Maybe then her husband could afford to pay his "fair share" of state income taxes. Howie Carr is a columnist for the Boston Herald and a nationally-syndicated radio talk-show host. nypost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (568262)	4/23/2004 4:32:04 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ooh, this story has poll numbers. Enjoy this one too, Kenneth... 51% STILL BELIEVE SADDAM HAD WMD By ALY SUJO April 22, 2004 -- Most Americans continue to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the war began, a new poll yesterday showed. The Harris Poll found that 51 percent believe Iraq had WMD, compared with 38 who don't believe the White House claim, a leading rationale for the U.S. invasion. The numbers have barely changed since February, when the last poll was conducted, despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction have yet to be uncovered. The poll also showed that 74 percent of Americans still believe that no clear evidence of WMD has been unearthed, while 19 percent believe proof exists. Forty-three percent believe the U.S. government exaggerated the reports of WMD in Iraq to increase support for the war, while 50 percent believes the government tried to be accurate. The poll also found by 49 percent to 36 percent Americans continue to believe that evidence showing Iraq's support for al Qaeda has been found. The poll also showed Americans concerned about a Vietnam-like "quagmire" in Iraq. The Harris survey found that 45 percent of Americans - up from 37 percent in February - think the United States is "very likely" to get bogged down "for a long time" in Iraq. The poll found that this had no significant impact on the number of people who favored keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq (42 percent) or those who favor "bringing most of our troops home in the next year" (51 percent). The nationwide poll was conducted April 8-15. nypost.com