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 (600013)	8/5/2004 11:43:42 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Kerry's a captive of the overbearing, elitist wing of his party In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon." I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November. It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the Red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland. This alone might be enough to put Bush over the top in a tight race. But despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves. Since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate. John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable. These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans. Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972. Kerry now has 90 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, "four more years of hell." The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality. Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub. Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead. Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too. Calling a presidential race in August is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, well, even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while. Originally published on August 4, 2004

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (600013)	8/5/2004 11:46:11 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

John McCain is upset...fyi... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suit - RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer Thursday, August 5, 2004 (08-05) 07:20 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush. The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict. "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000. "I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts." Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt." The White House did not immediately address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot. Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Kerry's record and statements on the war on terrorism -- not his service in Vietnam -- are fair game. "The Bush campaign never has and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam," he said. In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team. McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because he believes it's bad for the political system. "It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said. "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War." McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign. The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased. URL: sfgate.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (600013)	8/5/2004 11:47:18 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769670

And if he didn't, malcontent nutcases like you would complain he wasn't doing enough! LOL!! Aren't you tired of looking like a fool yet Kenneth?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (600013)	8/5/2004 11:48:05 AM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Jobless claims fall Government report shows 336,000 filed for first time benefits, less than week earlier and forecasts. August 5, 2004: 9:08 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of people filing for initial jobless claims declined last week, according to a government report Thursday, with fewer filings than analysts expected. The Labor Department reported that 336,000 filed for first time jobless benefits in the week ended July 31. That's down from the revised reading of 347,000 who filed the previous week. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast 340,000 would be filing for assistance. The four-week moving average for initial filings was 343,500, an increase of 6,750 from the previous week's revised average of 336,750. The report comes the day before the much anticipated July employment report and ahead of Tuesday's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets short-term interest rates for the nation's central bank. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast that the July employment report will rebound from a disappointing June reading to show 243,000 jobs added to U.S. payrolls, with the unemployment rate staying unchanged at 5.6 percent. The June report showed only 112,000 jobs added, less than half the 250,000 forecast at that time. money.cnn.com