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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (52815)	8/5/2004 10:22:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

MITCH ALBOM: Don't tell us, we'll tell you who's a leader _________________________ BY MITCH ALBOM DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST July 11, 2004 freep.com I always laugh when politicians tell voters who is "fit to lead." It reminds me of a cat telling mice where they should hide. Last week, John Kerry told us John Edwards, his new vice presidential candidate, was fit to lead, even though earlier this year he criticized Edwards, saying the White House "was no place for on-the-job training." Edwards, for his part, told groups of cheering fans that his new boss was fit to lead, even though a few months ago, Edwards was doing his best to knock Kerry out of the race. President George W. Bush, when asked to compare Edwards to his vice president, Dick Cheney, responded by setting his jaw and quipping, "Dick Cheney can be president." To which pundits immediately replied, "We thought Dick Cheney was president." Let's face it. When it comes to the White House, who really knows what it takes to be a good president -- let alone a good vice president? Bush's father once joked that the vice president was the man who got sent to funerals overseas. Yet people accuse the current vice president of creating funerals overseas. Which is it? A who's who in the race The fact is, there is no formula for the White House. And the people running for that office should show enough respect to, please, finally, stop trying to define it for us. After all, does Bush really want to tell people that Edwards' one term as senator isn't enough to warrant a vice presidential nod? Bush himself had only five total years in politics before he became president. Before that, Bush had been a failed businessman and a bit of a runabout, bailed out by his father's connections numerous times. Is that really the profile of a leader? Conversely, too much experience doesn't seem to be a good thing, either. Cheney certainly put his time into public office. He served as Defense secretary, White House chief of staff and Wyoming congressman. But his critics say his secrecy, cronyism and Cold War approach are the kind of thinking that needs to be expelled. Too much experience? Or too little? Which is it? Make up your mind. Looks can be deceiving John Kerry has been in politics for a quarter of a century. What has that gotten him? Critics rifle through his voting record and pluck it apart, using his years on the job to define him as a hypocrite (as if none of us has ever changed our mind on anything in 25 years). And then there's the military factor. Kerry, who makes such a big deal of his admirable Vietnam days, chooses a vice presidential candidate with no time in the military. Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney, who claim Democrats don't know how to lead a war, have zero years of war experience between them. So do you need to have served, or don't you? What about being "a man of the people"? Bush walks and talks like a Texas farmhand, but he's a rich kid from Yale. Kerry likes to tell you he plays hockey, but he's blue blood all the way. Cheney points out that Edwards is a rich trial lawyer, a loathsome profession. But Edwards will claim he got rich by sticking it to loathsome, insensitive corporations, like the one Cheney used to run. History shows that there is no perfect footprint here. John F. Kennedy had relatively little experience, yet people adored him. Richard Nixon had a pedigree a mile long, yet many hated him. Ronald Reagan had bad movies in his past, yet he got elected twice. The elder Bush, a Washington insider, couldn't hold off a Washington outsider named Clinton. When Al Gore ran against him in 2000, George W. Bush claimed it was time for a change. With Kerry running against him, Bush says stick with experience. Kerry's rival is now his partner. Edwards' rival is now his boss. Cheney does too much. Edwards does too little. With all this confusion, it's almost a relief that, in the end, the November election will, as always, come down to that one essential American quality: Who looks best on TV? _____________________________ Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or albom@freepress.com. "The Mitch Albom Show" is 3-6 weekdays and "Monday Sports Albom" 7-8 p.m. Mondays on WJR-AM (760). Copyright © 2004 Detroit Free Press Inc.

To: elpolvo who wrote (52815)	8/5/2004 10:28:09 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Kerry has the support of "another Buffett"...though I have heard through the grapevine Warren is actually related to Jimmy <G>...fyi... news.bbc.co.uk usatoday.com

To: elpolvo who wrote (52815)	8/5/2004 11:12:47 AM
From: abuelita	Respond to of 89467

elpie- "i'm a lover, not a hater." he writes that way too. i like it that's a good way to be. -joser

To: elpolvo who wrote (52815)	8/15/2004 7:56:37 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Springsteen Can Make Election Impact _____________________ by John Nichols Published on Thursday, August 12, 2004 by the Capital Times / Madison, Wisconsin To hear conservative pundits tell it, endorsements from rock stars won't help John Kerry beat George Bush. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the usual suspects rushed to dismiss the significance of the announcement that some of the nation's most prominent musicians - including Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp and the members of the Dixie Chicks, R.E.M. and other bands - would be hitting the road this fall to stir up opposition to Bush's re-election. But one of the savviest political players in the Senate, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, takes a decidedly different view. As Feingold sees it, Springsteen's decision to come out for the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards could turn out to be one of the more important developments of the 2004 election season. Feingold has followed the New Jersey singer's career for years, listened closely to his music, and attended concerts by Springtseen and the E Street Band with his wife, Mary, an enthusiastic fan of the man who has written songs such as "Thunder Road," "Dancing in the Dark" and "The Rising." "It is a big deal. It is a very big deal," Feingold said of Springsteen's decision to get involved with this year's campaign. Feingold noted that, while Springsteen's songs often deal with social and economic themes that have a political edge, the singer has meticulously avoided endorsing candidates over the years. "The biggest thing he did before this was 20 years ago, when (former President Ronald) Reagan tried to use one of his songs," Feingold recalled. "Springsteen objected; he said listen to the song, listen to the words."The song in question, "Born in the USA," had a rousing patriotic-sounding chorus. But the lyrics of the song formed a bitter indictment of the poor treatment of Vietnam veterans and working Americans that stood in marked contrast to the "morning in America" appeal of Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign. Even as he put distance between himself and Reagan, however, Springsteen avoided endorsing the Democratic candidate that year, former Vice President Walter Mondale. This year, though, Springsteen announced his support for Kerry in an appearance on ABC television's "Nightline" program and in an opinion piece he wrote for The New York Times. "For him to explicitly do this is confirmation of what we all know: that this is the most important election of our lifetime," Feingold said of Springsteen's decision to take a stand for a candidate, and to back that stance up with concert appearances this fall that will encourage his fans to register and vote and that will aid the efforts of groups such as MoveOn.PAC and Americans Coming Together. "It really is symbolic of how unusual this campaign is." Not all Springsteen fans will be thrilled with the more explicitly political stance of the man they call "The Boss." Springsteen's audience is broad, ranging from college professors who regard him as a blue-collar Bob Dylan to New York cops and factory workers who describe him as one of the few entertainers who understand their lives. At a Springsteen concert, there are certainly Democrats. But there are also Republicans. And there are probably a lot of folks who would prefer their music free of politics. "He will take a hit," Feingold said. "I've been to some of these concerts and the people who come, clearly, are not all progressives. There is a risk involved when he speaks up. It could be tough for him with some of his fans." But Feingold says that is why the Springsteen endorsement matters so much. The singer is not merely preaching to the converted. "People who normally wouldn't be political are speaking up," said Feingold, who argued that Springsteen's new activism could draw people into the process who might otherwise stay on the sidelines, even in so politically charged a year as this. Springsteen could also convince some Republican-leaning voters to cast a rare vote for a Democrat. "This won't be a realignment election. This will be a 'yes, I voted for a Democrat one time - 20 years ago' election," said Feingold, whose maverick stances have often attracted Republican support. "People will tell you that they voted for a Democrat only once. This will be the year." In such a year, Feingold argues, a gentle prod from Bruce Springsteen could matter more to a lot of swing voters than a thousand sound bites and television commercials. ________________________________ John Nichols is associate editor for The Capital Times. Copyright 2004 The Capital Times commondreams.org