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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (53364)	7/21/2005 6:32:06 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

Rove and Mehlman being gay is irrelevant. It's not entirely irrelevant. If they were comfortable with their gayness they would not be such angry a**holes. They probably hate the way they have to attack by day and live their lives by night. TP

To: American Spirit who wrote (53364)	7/21/2005 6:37:55 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Myth Ohio Remember the Internet conspiracy theories that President Bush had won Ohio -- and therefore the presidency -- through fraud? Those theories fueled a challenge to the certification of Mr. Bush's victory last January when Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer forced Congress to debate the issue when it counted the Electoral College votes. Well, the conspiracy theorists are now accusing the Democratic National Committee of "surrender" for this week issuing a report that finds no support for claims that fraud caused the votes of John Kerry to be misallocated to George W. Bush. Perhaps in anticipation of their outrage, DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried to claim that the report nonetheless backed up charges that there was widespread "voter suppression" in Ohio involving long lines at polls due to a misallocation of voting machines and unlawful voter identification requirements. Mr. Dean also indicated that the report backed up his belief that Republicans actively worked to suppress black voter turnout. "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression," he told reporters. "It's very clear here while there was no massive vote fraud, and I concur with the conclusion -- it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression." But Mr. Dean's statement landed him in hot water when a scholar involved in writing the DNC report, Cornell University Professor Walter Mebane Jr., explained to the media that while the report had found numerous irregularities, it could not determine whether there was any partisan intent behind them. He also noted that county election boards in Ohio, which determine the distribution of voting machines, are bipartisan. Mr. Dean then had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: "While we certainly couldn't draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety." But William Anthony, a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party in Ohio's capital of Columbus, rejects any suggestion of voter suppression. "Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," he told the Columbus Dispatch last November. Mr. Anthony, who is also chair of the Franklin County elections board, acknowledged that the high turnout and a ballot that involved more than 100 choices for some voters did create lines, but added that he was offended by allegations from "a band of conspiracy theorists" that voter suppression had occurred. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" That, in turn, raises the question: Why do Democrats like Mr. Dean persist in inciting racial tensions with wildly exaggerated claims that black voters are being disenfranchised? -- John Fund

To: American Spirit who wrote (53364)	7/21/2005 6:44:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Hillary's Rebranding Is a Work in Progress: no room for kerryboy, ketchup digger The good news for Hillary Clinton is that polls increasingly suggest the American public thinks a woman can be "tough enough" to be president. The bad news for a certain Senator from New York is that the same public has yet to be convinced that she's that woman. This month's Westhill/Hotline poll found that a whopping 85% of those asked said they'd be willing to vote for a "qualified woman" for president. An even greater number of respondents, 86%, said they believed a woman can be "tough enough" to be President of the United States. So far, so good for Ms. Clinton, who is floated as a top Democratic prospect for a 2008 presidential bid. The trouble comes when the pollsters started naming names. When asked about Ms. Clinton in particular, only 58% of those asked felt she was "tough enough" to take over as commander-in-chief. As Hotline noted: "Even among Dems, the tough-enough number falls 10 points when HRC's name replaces a generic woman." Ms. Clinton did match up favorably to Secretary of State Condi Rice, who only 46% thought adequately "tough," though Ms. Rice has never even seriously floated the idea of holding elected office. All this has to be viewed with some concern by the Clinton-for-President team, given that Hillary has spent her Senatorship attempting to portray herself as a stalwart in the war on terror and to distance herself from her party's weakness on national defense. Ms. Clinton was quick to nab herself a seat on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee and voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When President Bush gave his big Iraq speech at the end of last month, every other Democratic hopeful -- John Kerry, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh -- took to the airwaves to pound the administration on the war. Ms. Clinton kept silent. Ms. Clinton's bigger problem may be her failure to challenge the naysayers in her own party. The anti-war, defeatist rhetoric from Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and MoveOn.org has been on the rise, yet Ms. Clinton has barely stirred to speak out against this Democratic view, or explain coherently why she has taken stances so at odds with her party's noisiest voices. This is the sort of nonaction that makes voters question if her tough talk on national defense is more a political calculation than a matter of heartfelt belief. No wonder the public still has doubts about whether Ms. Clinton is "tough enough" to be POTUS. -- Kimberley Strassel