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 (97878)	1/31/2005 9:07:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793846

Instpundit - MICKEY KAUS offers an explanation for the Democrats' political tin ear this week: Internet fundraising is tilting their message toward the fringe. Sounds plausible. What Was Teddy Thinking? Explaining the Dems' bizarre behavior. By Mickey Kaus Updated Monday, Jan. 31, 2005, at 3:39 AM PT It seems insane for Senator Ted Kennedy to give a high profile speech, three days before the Iraq election, publicly declaring the administration's Iraq policy a "catastrophic failure" and a "disaster." Even if that's what Kennedy thought, why would he put himself in the position where a successful election could make him look at least temporarily like a fool (as, apparently, it has)? ...It's not as if Kennedy differed all that much from Bush in the way of actual recommendations for the future. (Even his much-publicized "timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops would be something we'd "negotiate;" his 2006 deadline is only a "goal.") ... And why would John Kerry go on Meet the Press even after the election's success was obvious and offer only the most grudging, complaint-drenched words of praise. ("It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But ...) Kerry's pathetic, but is he that pathetic? ... Fred Barnes offers an explanation for this seemingly bizarre behavior: Democrats think the lesson of Newt Gingrich and Clinton is that you have to ruthlessly criticize an incumbent if you want to win back Congress. Yet, as Barnes notes, this monotonic Democratic opposition is only further alienating the middle-class suburban voters whose support the party needs. Kennedy and (especially) Kerry must know this. It's January 2005, after all. Democrats can afford to jump on the "Yay--Iraqi Elections!" bandwagon now--they'd still have plenty of time to ruthlessly attack Bush in the 22 months before the next U.S. election ... Here's an alternative theory: Money. It used to be that at this stage, opposition party leaders would be making conciliatory noises in an attempt to please voters, and conservative or centrist noises in an attempt to please business lobbyists and PACs. But maybe the amount of money that can be raised over the Internet from Democratic true believers is now more important than PAC money. And if you want to draw a Dean-like share of this Web loot, you have to be ruthless in bashing Bush. Not all the consequences of Internet politics are benign. ... P.S.: Note that this theory explains Barbara Boxer's behavior too. ...

To: LindyBill who wrote (97878)	1/31/2005 9:08:02 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 793846

though he got 58 million votes, I know Hersh is not into accuracy, but someone should tell him that Bush got 62 million votes.

To: LindyBill who wrote (97878)	1/31/2005 10:33:12 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793846

I get the impression from Hersh that we are the bad guys, that our conduct at Abu Ghraib is far worse than all the the body burning, hangings, beheadings by the insurgents. Would I, if captured. prefer to be stacked in a pile with my naked buddies, who I have seen naked in showers for years or at shortarm inspections.... OR participate in a video showing my throat being cut with a dull knife and body hung off a bridge? If what Hersh says about our Administration is true, we certainly have the Iraqi citizens fooled. They are now celebration and enjoying the freedom our actions have provided. Well I guess we will get "ours" one day, a big payback when they find they have been "had" As a Democrat or MSM editor would say: " We fooled all of the people some of the time, but we cant fool all of the people all of the time" Sig