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 (83915)	11/4/2004 9:23:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

The Dangers of Lopsidedness By WILLIAM SAFIRE Washington Nobody "blew" it. Both the Kerry and Bush campaigns successfully turned on and turned out their troops, resulting in the kind of massive vote - the highest percentage of eligible voters taking part since 1968, also a wartime election - that should make America proud. Fierce partisanship, rooted in policy disagreement and driven by 2000's "we wuz robbed" resentment, left the former voter apathy dead. This year's hot competition served a great purpose in putting millions more selves in self-government. But there is a rhythm to politics - a time to divide and a time to unite. Kerry's heartfelt and eloquent concession speech yesterday, hoping "to bridge the partisan divide," was in stark contrast to the fire last time. President Bush, re-elected with a substantial popular majority, properly responded with "a new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation." It would be foolish to deny the continued reality of that divide. On foreign policy, it pits hawk vs. dove, idealist vs. realist, uni- vs. multi-. On domestic affairs, liberals and conservatives will clash, now more one-sidedly, on taxes and paternalism. On cultural values, 11 states rose up against gay marriage, which had much to do with mobilizing the evangelical right. Can Bush stick to principles that elected him while taking some of the poison out of the political atmosphere? The atrophy of the usual checks and balances requires a certain internal restraint. Danger comes from the temptation to bull ahead that awaits lopsided government. Bush has the re-legitimated White House power backed up by a more rightist House of Representatives, now bolstered by a Senate with a 55-to-45 Republican majority. On top of that array of political muscle, a Supreme Court already tilted slightly rightward will soon be ready for an infusion of new justices. This imbalance will ultimately trigger Rayburn's law: "When you get too big a majority," said Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat, after F.D.R.'s 1936 landslide, "you're immediately in trouble." Another danger to Republican self-restraint is the Democratic Party's post-Clinton ideological split, the central cause of its widespread losses this year. The isolationist, union-financed Deaniac left will unfairly attribute Kerry's defeat to his ambivalence on Iraq. This will erode the minority discipline that had been enforced for a decade by the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who was just trapped in the G.O.P.'s senatorial avalanche. Republicans are hoping that Democrats will pick Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a well-liked journeyman politician who is only fair on television, to replace Daschle as minority leader. A stronger choice to speak for the Democrats and dicker with the majority leader Bill Frist for compromises on Bush's initiatives would be Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The strongest choice would be the well-known John Kerry, world-class TV debater, who now understands where the nation's power center lies. (Bush should offer a domestic cabinet post to Daschle, an understanding pol who can be depended on to turn it down.) What initiatives would bridge the divide while keeping campaign promises? Legislation to set up personal retirement accounts in Social Security, along with appointing a commission that would recommend raising the retirement age to 70 for those now under 50. In Iraq, follow Kerry's campaign advice to attack Falluja, the terrorist haven, and take up Kerry's suggestion of a cordial summit with Chirac, Schröder and other allies seeking rapprochement before their own dreaded election tests. Then I would urge the further development of the president's thoughtful compromise of two years ago granting federal support for research using lines of discarded embryonic stem cells. This would not double-cross Bush's base; on the contrary, it would be a natural progression of his cautious, ethical policy. And for the Supreme Court, find a brilliant, moderate female Hispanic strict constructionist from Massachusetts. Elections are wondrous things. Yesterday's losers of squeakers, as I recall from 1960, can come back to win another day. At the moment, we are on a democratic election roll: the recent victories of John Howard in Australia, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Bush in the U.S. augur well for a democratic election a few months from now in Iraq. In democracies, the pendulum always swings. Cheer up, this week's saddened losers, and take heed, this week's euphoric winners - Hillary Clinton's restoration campaign is already under way. E-mail: safire@nytimes.com Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: LindyBill who wrote (83915)	11/4/2004 4:12:04 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793955

Maureen doesn't realize, or doesn't want to realize, that she too caused the election to go to President Bush. She and the biased, and very wrong rants, are a good deal of the problem. For example, she rants: The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel. W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.