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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (62783)	6/9/2005 8:22:34 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 81568

Kerry today is considered a traitor...at best he is very careless... Brad Carr once said with regards to the whole Valerie Plame affair that those that outted security agents and officials were "traitors". They tried to pin it on the White House and President Bush only to later have it discovered that it was her own husband (Joe Wilson whom liberals LOVED!) that outted her role. Brad Carr of course is a left wing political hack. And the left wing simply adored his comments about Robert Novak...that was until their claim that it was Novak that outted Ms. Plame fell apart. So now we have this story from Yahoo: Senators May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent. The story reports that Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass both referred to a CIA agent (previously identified anonymously in hearing) by name. Thus outing him and blowing his cover. Looks like John Kerry didn't stop his traitorous ways after Vietnam either. Tough luck old boy. Now you are a traitor even by left wing standards...which makes for unanimous consent.

To: tonto who wrote (62783)	6/9/2005 8:44:18 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Ground Zero is a phony fraud. I proved that. In fact it's pretty sad. I almost feel sorry for him except he's such a deceitful prick.

To: tonto who wrote (62783)	6/10/2005 8:30:30 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 81568

No to Hillary Robert Novak June 9, 2005 LOS ANGELES -- Back east, well-placed Democrats have agreed that the party's 2008 nomination is all wrapped up better than three years in advance. They say that the prize is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's for the asking, and that she is sure to ask. But here on the left coast, I found surprising and substantial Democratic opposition to going with the former first lady. Both the Hollywood glitterati and the more mundane politicians of Los Angeles are looking elsewhere. They have seen plenty of Sen. Clinton over the past dozen years, and they don't particularly like what they've seen. Two far less well-known Democrats -- Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- were hits on recent visits to California, mainly because they were not Hillary. The concern here with Clinton is not borne in fear that she might fail to carry California. Almost any Democrat would be likely to win in the nation's most populous state, where the advent of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an exotic event that has not changed the GOP's minority status in California. Rather, the fear here is pronounced that Clinton cannot win in Red America, guaranteeing a third straight Republican term in the White House. Party insiders in Washington and New York, including many who ran the last two losing Democratic presidential campaigns, say they have never before seen anything like the way Clinton has sewed up the nomination. In particular, they say, she has cornered Eastern money in a way nobody else ever has done at such an early date. At a dinner party in a private room of a Los Angeles restaurant attended by eight Democratic politicians (including City Council members and a county supervisor), I was asked to assess the political scene. I concluded with a preview of the distant events of 2008. While there had not been so open a race for the Republican nomination since 1940, I said, Clinton was dominant for the Democrats. For someone who is neither an incumbent president nor vice president to have apparently locked the nomination so early is without precedent. As I made this analysis, the liberal Democratic functionary across the table from me shook his head in disagreement. He left his seat between courses, and then returned with this announcement: "There are eight Democrats in this room. I've taken a little poll, and none of them -- none -- are for Hillary for president. They think she is a loser." Talking to some of them, I found concern that Hillary carries too much baggage from her turbulent marriage and her husband's presidency to do any better than John Kerry did last year. One female office holder was looking hard for another Southern moderate who could bite into the Confederacy as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had done. Another woman office holder was hostile to a Clinton candidacy on a more personal basis. "Don't think that Hillary has the women's vote," she told me. "I will never forgive her for sticking with her husband after he humiliated her. It's something I can't get over." Eight Democrats, no matter how prominent, constitute a tiny sample. But I checked with Democratic sources in California and found broad early resistance to Clinton. Warner wowed listeners on a recent trip, though he was not as big a hit as Bayh on his L.A. sojourn. The Hoosier senator may be a dull, moderate Midwesterner to the party cognoscenti who already have bestowed the nomination on Clinton, but he looked like a winner to the Hollywood crowd. These anti-Clinton Democrats are not reassured by what Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Moderator Tim Russert asked: "Do you think that Sen. Clinton would be a formidable presidential candidate?" "I do," Mehlman replied, adding: "Sen. Clinton is smart. She's effective." As Mehlman himself said, Republicans don't want to repeat the 1980 mistake of the Democrats when they relished the nomination of Ronald Reagan as an easy mark. Nevertheless, in private, Republicans say they would much rather run against Hillary Clinton, who votes a straight liberal line, than an unknown moderate from Virginia or Indiana. Savvy Democrats in Los Angeles agree.

To: tonto who wrote (62783)	6/10/2005 8:32:12 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 81568

Dean's Identity Crisis New York Sun Staff Editorial June 9, 2005 The latest gaffe by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, is a classic illustration of his penchant for offending both sides in an argument. As a presidential candidate in the Democratic primary, Dr. Dean pandered to voters by saying, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." The comment offended conservative whites for its condescension as well as liberal blacks for its apparent endorsement of the Confederate flag. He soon had to apologize to both: "I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African-American or Southern white voters," he said. In February, Dr. Dean told the DNC Black Caucus, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." His remarks not only accused Republicans of racism but also identified minorities with menial labor. Evidently, all the fat cats are white Republicans, for Dr. Dean said last Thursday that many Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives." In California earlier this week, the Vermonter elaborated: "You know, the Republicans are not friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same ... It's pretty much a white Christian party." Which prompted the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Kenneth Mehlman, to retort - via Fox News - that "a lot of folks who attended my bar mitzvah would be surprised" to learn he leads a monolithic Christian party. Aside from the factual inaccuracy, Americans are scratching their heads over Dr. Dean's dizzying reversals. Last month, he was telling NBC's Tim Russert, "I'm a committed Christian" and bragging, "I pray every night ... I grew up in a Christian household." Quoth Dr. Dean: "You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don't. I do." And now he's launching into Republicans for expressing the same identity. Yet at the presidential debate in Iowa last year, the man from Montpelier said, "You know, I have grown up in the Northeast my entire life, and in the Northeast, we do not talk openly about religion." Now Dr. Dean is back to chastising Republicans for expressing their faith openly. It seems he deploys the emotionally charged rhetoric of race and religion when it suits his purposes. Identity politics was originally intended to be affirmative, to foster pride in oneself and mutual recognition of cultural and religious attachments, to promote social unity and inclusion. Dr. Dean now deploys this politics to promote divisiveness and resentment, trading on crude stereotypes for perceived political advantage. For the current Democratic chairman, identity politics is about attacking others. What a poor strategy for winning elections and what an illustration of the depths of hypocrisy into which the left has by now descended.