SI
SI
discoversearch

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: American Spirit who wrote (63642)6/22/2005 7:50:40 PM
From: lorneRespond to of 81568
 
LOL. :-)



To: American Spirit who wrote (63642)6/22/2005 8:07:26 PM
From: lorneRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Republican? Democrat? Scandal!
Hatred can be so blinding.
June 21, 2005, 10:13 a.m.
nationalreview.com

It seems there is no limit to Paul Krugman’s hatred of the Republican party. And apparently there’s no limit to the New York Times’s willingness to embarrass itself by printing yet another hilarious error-filled column by America’s most dangerous liberal pundit.

In his Friday column, Krugman attempts to spit out the salacious details of scandals involving Republican politicians in Ohio. But what Krugman doesn’t seem to know is that many of the politicians he’s talking about are Democrats! And because the Times does no fact-checking of its op-ed columns, his absurd blunders now live forever in the “newspaper of record.”

Krugman’s column concerns apparent improprieties in the management of investment funds by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Ohio’s state government is dominated by Republicans, so for Krugman the BWC scandals are “an object lesson in what happens when you have one-party rule untrammeled by any quaint notions of independent oversight.”

This all started in April when the scandal now referred to as “coingate” was documented on the Angry Left hate-blogs that Krugman sources. Apparently the BWC made a highly unconventional investment in rare coins managed by a high-profile Ohio Republican fundraiser, Tom Noe. It remains to be seen how much real fire there is to “coingate,” but there is certainly plenty of smoke: Though Noe is an expert in coin investments, he is also currently under investigation by the FBI for campaign finance violations, while other matters of ethical impropriety — of unknown merit — have been raised.

Krugman covers all of this before going on to describe what he calls “an even bigger story” in Ohio, that wicked bastion of Republican “one-party rule”:

the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation invested $225 million in a hedge fund managed by MDL Capital, whose chairman had strong political connections. When this investment started to go sour, the bureau’s chief financial officer told another top agency official that he had been told to “give MDL a break.”
According to the Columbus Dispatch, BWC’s loss was actually $215 million — leave it to economist Krugman to get the number wrong and err on the side of partisan melodrama. But either way that’s a huge number, and it makes the $13 million loss in “coingate” look like small change (as it were).

Krugman continues:

We’re talking about personal payoffs … MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers’ compensation oversight board …
Quite a scandal. But Krugman seems ignorant of the fact that the MDL scandal is all about Democrats, all the way. (Or perhaps he knows this and chooses not to acknowledge it.)

According to the Toledo Blade, which Krugman cites as his source for this “bigger story,” the person who told the BWC’s CFO to “give MDL a break” was George Forbes, a member of the BWC’s oversight commission. Forbes is also president of the Cleveland chapter of the NAACP, former president of the Cleveland City Council, former candidate for mayor of Cleveland, and a Democrat.

And who’s that daughter who’s employed by MDL? You guessed it, didn’t you? It’s Mildred “Mimi” Forbes, daughter of the very same and very Democratic George Forbes.

The MDL scandal began in the mid-1990s when Ohio passed an affirmative-action law requiring its public investment funds to direct more business toward minority-owned investment managers. It was similar to law, usually promoted by Democratic legislators, that was passed in many other states during the same era. MDL Capital was founded in Pittsburgh by Mark D. Lay, an African-American.

Tom Maguire of the Just One Minute blog is aghast that Krugman failed to mention Mark D. Lay by name in his column, considering the homophonic coincidence of Kenneth Lay (Krugman’s former boss at Enron) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — two of Krugman’s favorite GOP punching bags. But there’s no confusing this Lay with a Republican. This Lay has been a heavy contributor to Democratic Pennsylvania politicians, according to the the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Recipients include Pennsylvania House minority leader Bill DeWeese, who recently nominated Lay to a position on the state’s Commonwealth Financing Authority).

MDL and Lay were marketed to Ohio’s public investment funds in the late 1990s by Democrat lobbyist Jerry Hammond, formerly president of the Columbus City Council, according to the Dispatch. MDL paid Hammond $3,000 a month to introduce the firm to Ohio politicians. It was a nice investment for MDL — the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation alone has paid the firm $2 million in fees, and Ohio State University is a client, too.

At BWC, Hammond introduced MDL to oversight commission members, including George Forbes, the late Neal H. Schultz, and William A. Burga. I can’t say as to Schultz’s political leanings, but Forbes is a Democrat and so is Burga. In fact, Burga is a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party Executive Committee, and is also president of the Ohio AFL-CIO.

It must have been these behind-the-scenes Democratic machinations that Krugman was referring to when he wrote,

These efforts have already created an environment in which politicians from the right party and businessmen with the right connections believe, with good reason, that they have immunity.
Immunity? The Democrats may wish it were so. Pennsylvania Democrat Bill DeWeese, the recipient of Lay’s largesse, is aggressively defending his patron. But Republican attorney general of Ohio, Jim Petro, is suing Lay for fraud and breach of contract. Republican Petro, by the way, was endorsed a decade ago by Democrat George Forbes when he was running for office against one of Forbes’s Democratic rivals, someone whom Forbes once attacked with a metal folding chair during a Cleveland City Council meeting (according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer).

Michael Meckler points out on his Red-State.com blog that the case has been assigned to a Democratic judge who is running for Ohio secretary of state in the next election. Meckler says, “with both ‘prosecutor’ and judge eyeing statewide election next year, there is the strong likelihood the case could turn into even more of a political circus.”

So much for Krugman’s thesis of “one-party rule.”

Krugman clearly has no idea who’s doing what to whom in Ohio. All he knows is that he hates Republicans, and that if there’s a scandal out there, Republicans simply must be behind it. He claims in his column that “Ohio’s state government today is a lot like Boss Tweed’s New York,” and he says of the Republican party, “they’re trying to turn America into a giant version of the elder Richard Daley’s Chicago.”

Even for Krugman, the sheer virulence of this condemnation of the GOP surely must be a first. By comparing Republicans to Tweed and Daley, he’s saying that they’re as bad as … Democrats!



To: American Spirit who wrote (63642)6/22/2005 8:28:46 PM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Coming politics of war, upheaval

By Pat Buchanan

Published on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, in the Tracy Press.

WASHINGTON — Who is the Gene McCarthy of this generation?

For those that are too young to recall, in late 1967, Gen. William Westmoreland went home to ask Lyndon Baines Johnson for 200,000 more troops for Vietnam, in addition to the 500,000 already committed. LBJ told him no.

Vietnam was the issue of the day. And as no other Democrat dared challenge Johnson in the primaries of 1968, Sen. McCarthy bravely went into New Hampshire and declared against him.

He carried 41 percent to LBJ’s 49 percent. Johnson’s name, however, was not on the New Hampshire ballot — he was a write-in candidate — and perhaps half of McCarthy’s vote came from Granite State hawks who wanted the United States to unleash its power and win the war.

But in politics, perception is all. McCarthy broke Johnson’s presidency and converted the antiwar movement into a mass political movement. Four days after New Hampshire, Robert Kennedy leapt into the race. Two weeks later, Johnson announced he would not run.

Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968, over a divided Democratic Party, became, with 1932, one of the two seminal elections of the 20th century.

Prediction: A Eugene McCarthy will appear soon to pressure and challenge Hillary Clinton in 2008, if Hillary does not convert herself into an antiwar candidate.

For politics abhors a vacuum. And with U.S. casualties running at the rate they did before the January elections and polls showing that three in five Americans think the war a mistake and we should start bringing the troops home, some Democrat is certain to try to give voice to this majority and ride it into the White House.

Will a peace candidate be elected? Probably not. None ever has in wartime. But it seems certain the Democratic Party will be as divided on Iraq in 2008 as it was on Vietnam in 1968.

Why has no national antiwar Democrat emerged since Howard Dean’s campaign collapsed in Iowa, one who could be a serious candidate for the nomination in 2008?

Because serious Democrats know that antiwar candidates are rarely nominated and never win. Even the venerable Sam Nunn of Georgia was finished after he opposed the Gulf War in 1991. This is likely a reason why skeptics of the Iraq war — like Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and John Edwards — all voted for war.

They are all locked in as war hawks on Iraq. The only defense they can make for that vote today to their antiwar party is to argue that Bush misled them and mismanaged the war.

But that raises counter-questions.

Why did these senators give Bush a blank check to go to war? Why did they fail in their duty as custodians of the congressional war powers by not demanding Bush prove Saddam had ties to 9/11 and an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction he planned to use?

Why did they not ask in advance how the Bush administration planned to pacify and democratize Iraq? Why did they not demand to know how long pacification would take and what the cost might be in lives and treasure?

Why did they not say: Mr. President, you must make a better case for war — before we authorize war?

The pro-war Democrats thus have a grave dilemma to confront.

As Kerry demonstrated with his agonized performance in 2004 — trying to rally antiwar Democrats while maintaining his war hawk credentials — a Democrat who voted for war, only to turn against it, risks being ridiculed as a cut-and-run liberal. And that is usually fatal.

There is a second reason no potential Democratic nominee has yet demanded that Bush start bringing the troops home. Democrats fear the peacenik label. For they believe this label, pinned on them by Nixon-Reagan-Bush Republicans, froze them out of the White House for 20 of the 24 years from 1968 to 1992. And they are right.

Yet the antiwar constituency has grown to where it can sustain, and will demand, a national candidate to carry its case to the country.

What about a Republican antiwar candidate in 2008?

There may well be one, but how such a candidate can be nominated by a party that will be forever associated with the Iraq war is impossible to see. Like it or not, as the Mexican War is known as “Jimmy Polk’s War,” the Iraq war is going to be known as “George Bush’s War.”

No matter how badly things have gone in Iraq by 2008, how can the GOP nominate a candidate who has run against the cause that defined the presidency of George W. Bush?

As the Bush poll numbers fall and the Iraq war returns front-and-center to politics, the divisions in this country over whether to stay the course escalate, as the prospect of failure is intolerable to the nation; or begin to withdraw and take the consequences will reappear and deepen.

A politics of war, a politics of upheaval, lie just ahead.

• Pat Buchanan, a Creators Syndicate columnist, has been a senior adviser to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

tracypress.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (63642)6/22/2005 10:55:00 PM
From: Glenn PetersenRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Hey, genius. It is generally accepted that the starting point for a genius level IQ is 140, not 150.

wilderdom.com

Anyway, I suspect that you were confusing your blood sugar level with your IQ. The normal range for your blood sugar is 75-125. You need to get that checked.