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 : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (139)	12/5/2006 6:39:29 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

Election '08: Edwards Raises the Protectionist Banner Don't think it's too early to ponder 2008 presidential politics. Yes, yes, we are still digesting the impact of the 2006 midterms. But potential candidates are already forming exploratory committees and hiring top talent in Washington and in key early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Take well-groomed 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards, widely assumed to be an almost sure-go for 2008. Just today, he announced that former Michigan Rep. David Bonior has joined his "One America" PAC as senior adviser for policy and politics–and de facto campaign manager should Edwards officially join the hunt. Upon hearing that tidbit, I immediately recalled a conversation I just had with John Podesta, President Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 until the end of his second term. (Podesta currently heads the Center for American Progress, a "progressive" think tank in Washington.) Given the growing the skepticism of free trade within his own party–last month House Democrats voted 94-90 against approving normal trade relations with Vietnam–he wondered aloud if there would be any "full-throated Sherrod Brown types" running for the Democratic nomination. Brown, the newly elected U.S. senator from Ohio, is a vocal free-trade opponent. As Podesta sees it, the "the big question is where Edwards comes out." Edwards ran a populist campaign during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, talking about how there were "two Americas"–though Edwards didn't get many votes from either. This is where Bonior comes in. Before retiring from the House in 2002 and unsuccessfully running for governor of the Wolverine State, Bonior was one of the most protectionist members of Congress, not too surprising for a Michigan Democrat, of course. While in Congress, Bonior voted for withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, voted against presidential fast-track trade authority as well as giving China most-favored-nation trading status. His inclusion on Team Edwards leaves little doubt that the former trial lawyer will be the Sherrod Brown or Patrick Buchanan of the Dem primaries, bashing free trade and China all around the country. usnews.com

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (139)	12/13/2006 6:01:00 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 3215

Behind the Obama Bounce Wall Street, beware. December 13, 2006, 1:17 a.m. By Larry Kudlow Media mogul Oprah Winfrey anointed him presidential heir-apparent on Larry King Live. Three-thousand adoring fans clung to his every word in New Hampshire. His new book sits atop the New York Times bestseller list. Over on Monday Night Football he announced, after “a good deal of soul-searching,” that he is ready (wink-wink) ... “for the Bears to go all the way!” (How’s that for free advertising?) Barack Obama is on a big-time roll. In a Washington minute, the Democratic senator from Illinois has the media saying, “Hillary Clinton who?” But every honeymoon must come to an end, and I can think of a few reasons why Wall Street might want these nuptials annulled fast. Last Sunday, while stumping — er, speaking — in New Hampshire, the young senator delivered an interesting line. Attempting to explain his sudden rock-star ascendancy to the pantheon of presidential hopefuls, Obama said voters wanted a new vision: “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different — we want something new.” Trouble is, there’s nothing “new” or “different” about Barack Obama. Behind that charm and charisma — a media-entrancing appeal worthy of Bill Clinton — is an extremely liberal-left politician. Just look at his record. Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, justifying his anti-growth stance with the old class-warfare saw about tax cuts for the rich. Of course, these are the very same tax cuts that spurred economic expansion, created record job growth, and reduced the deficit as revenues flooded the Treasury. The young senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a “Paris Hilton tax break” that would give “billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses.” Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches, and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax. He swings a nice protectionist bat, too. He has voted against free trade (CAFTA) and U.S. energy independence (drilling in ANWR), and has opposed lifting a $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazillian ethanol. “Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices,” he claimed. Nonsense. He’s also strongly opposed to personal retirement accounts for Social Security reform, and prefers instead that the government stewards your money. As Amanda Carpenter wrote in Human Events, “When speaking out against various tax cuts, Obama has likened the ‘Ownership Society’ — which entails such things as personalized Social Security accounts, health savings accounts and school choice — to ‘social Darwinism.’” The George W. Bush way has been to work toward ending the multiple-taxation of savings and investment — to lower taxes and put the people’s money back in the people’s wallets. It’s all about capital. Simply put, the economy can’t grow without capital to fertilize the soil of new technologies, jobs, and businesses. But Obama scoffs at such notions. The senator is liberal to the core. He voted against Supreme Court judges Sam Alito and John Roberts. (Even liberal senators Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy voted for Roberts.) He said no to Patriot Act wiretap extensions, despite their proven effectiveness on halting terrorist attacks over the past five years. He collaborated in blocking John Bolton’s appointment to the United Nations. He earned a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions twice as a state senator. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and stood against the Federal Marriage Amendment, despite acknowledging his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Let’s remember that Democrats won their congressional majority by doing their best impersonation of Republicans. In securing their November sweep, the Democrats captured a huge margin of independent Ross Perot voters — fiscal conservatives who favor balanced budgets, an end to deficit spending, and strong national security. Obama fails these independents on each account. Do Democrats really want Obama to take them on a U-turn back to the left? If the Democrats really want to embrace a rising star, they need look no further than Harold Ford, the young African American congressman from Tennessee who nearly captured a senate seat last month. Ford appreciates free markets and capitalism. He has boldly crossed party lines to vote to extend the investor tax cuts and expand tax-free savings accounts. He avoids class-warfare platitudes and embraces the Ownership Society. He’s optimistic — Reaganesque. And his pro-growth vision stands in stark contrast to Obama’s nanny-state predilection. The good news for Obama is that there are about 700 days until Election Day 2008. If he decides to seek the Democratic nomination, he has time to change his message — perhaps after a few chats with Harold Ford. article.nationalreview.com