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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (57873)	8/3/2004 8:38:36 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

NO LET UP Cori Dauber If anyone thought the 9/11 commissioners would let up one bit, or be willing to alter the terms of debate they first set out -- the terms of debate where their original set of recommendations are the only acceptable baseline for change -- you can think again. What was their response to the President's move to adopt a version of their most radical recommendations? In a statement, the 9/11 panel's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, said, "The fate of these reform ideas turns vitally on the specifics." In other words, we want the recommendations adopted as written, or it doesn't count. And just as if that message wasn't coming through clearly enough, they went one step further: They noted that, unlike the White House, Senator John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic rival in the presidential campaign, had offered "unequivocal endorsement of the commission's recommendations." I don't think that's them playing politics per se. I think it's something actually more counterproductive. They're signalling that this is a bidding war. They're using the existence of the politics of the presidential race to get what they want. Frankly, the arrogance of these people astounds me. They are so confident that they're right, that they're willing to play this kind of hardball with the presidential race to ensure that there's not even the slightest modification to their proposals. So now they aren't just working to shut down debate. They're trying to prevent any alterations to what they've proposed. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I love this argument: "If there is something that will make America safer, it should be done now, not tomorrow," Mr. Kerry told reporters on a campaign swing in Michigan. "I regret that it's taken us almost three years to get to the point where these recommendations are now being adopted." Does anyone really think this is going to make sense? The recommendations, as written, Kean and Hamilton's standard, were presented two weeks ago. If this is going to be a debate about the substance of the recommendations as opposed to Kean and Hamilton's standard, the White House is saying they've already adopted some part of 37 out of 41. rantingprofs.com