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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (73975)1/23/2007 11:49:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 23213642



To: American Spirit who wrote (73975)1/23/2007 11:54:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A bombshell detonates on day one of the Libby perjury trial, as Cheney’s longtime aide points the finger at Karl Rove...

msnbc.msn.com

<<...the chief culprit, or at least the beneficiary of the plot was Rove, described by the defense lawyer as “the president’s right hand man,” whose survival was essential for the president’s re-election. As related by Wells, his client was so worried that Rove’s fate was taking priority over his that Libby went to his boss, Cheney, in October 2003 and complained: “I think people in the White House are trying to set me up. People in the White House are trying to protect Karl Rove.”...>>....

<<...Fitzgerald, in his own riveting opening statement, placed Cheney at the center of the case, telling the jurors that when Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, began accusing the White House of twisting intelligence about Iraq, it was the vice president himself who first disclosed Plame’s identity to his chief of staff in June 2003. Cheney later intervened with the White House to get then-press secretary Scott McClellan to issue a misleading public statement clearing Libby of any involvement in the leak of Plame’s CIA employment to reporters, Fitzgerald asserted...>>



To: American Spirit who wrote (73975)1/24/2007 3:31:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The World Agrees: Stop Him
___________________________________________________________

by Robert Scheer

Published on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 by truthdig

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our president, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.

President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the U.S. presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.

In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world’s people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.

“The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq,” said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the global poll. “The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: ‘You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.’ ”

More depressing, that judgment is shared by those who know us best: our allies in Britain, the only country still willing to share our sacrifices in Bush’s once ballyhooed “Coalition of the Willing.” Despite British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s dogged support of his American chum, fully 81 percent of Britons told the BBC they are opposed to U.S. actions in Iraq, while a scant 14 percent still believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Mideast.

But it is not just our failure in that all-important region that disgraces us. Those around the world who still believe we play a positive global role has dropped to a miserable 29 percent, strikingly similar to Bush’s overall performance numbers at home, according to the most recent CBS poll. So it’s true: Bush is “a uniter, not a divider”—uniting people across the world in their opposition to his policies.

With a whopping 71 percent saying in an ABC-Washington Post poll that the country is seriously off track, the Post called it “the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade.” And that’s at a time when the economy, presumed to be the all-important bellwether, is in halfway decent shape.

It’s the war, stupid, and ending it is the major concern of most Americans, while all other issues are in single digits of importance to them.

In a shocking twist, Americans are now turning to the Democrats in Congress for leadership on foreign policy. “Three in 5 Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan,” reported the Post. That is a mandate the Democrats ignore at their own peril.

Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush’s sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

In fact, it seems as if everyone gets it except the president and those still hunkered down with him in the White House. “They’ve backed themselves into a tough corner,” GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Post, “and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want.”

He added that it makes Bush seem to say, “I’ll listen to you, but I’ll do what I want anyway.” Hardly the message that the leader of the world’s greatest experiment in representative democracy should be sending to the world. It is a message voters in the midterm election soundly rejected, along with the association of this great country with torture and chicanery, and it is the basis of what the Post calls a mainstream America “honeymoon” with the Democrats.

Americans understand in their gut that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with democracy, here and abroad, would be disastrous. In the same way Congress repudiated an out-of-control president three decades ago, the House and Senate must show the world today that our celebrated system of checks and balances is not just a fanciful mirage.

Spreading the ideal of democracy throughout the world remains a compelling obligation of those who enjoy freedom, making this an excellent occasion to demonstrate that we still possess a system capable of holding a deceitful and egomaniacal leader accountable.



To: American Spirit who wrote (73975)1/25/2007 2:43:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why Gore Should Run -- And How He Can Win
___________________________________________________

The ideal candidate for the Democrats may be the man who won the popular vote in 2000 -- and who opposed the war in Iraq from the very start

Run, Al, Run
By TIM DICKINSON
Posted Jan 24, 2007 2:30 PM
rollingstone.com

A stiff Vice President campaigns on his administration's legacy of unprecedented prosperity. Looks terrible on TV. Bows out, following a disputed vote count. Then, two terms later, with no incumbent in the race, he re-enters the fray. Promises to change the course of a disastrous war founded on lies. And charges to victory. I'm referring, of course, to the 1968 campaign of Richard Milhous Nixon. But four decades later, history has a chance to repeat itself for Albert Arnold Gore.

If the Democrats were going to sit down and construct the perfect candidate for 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to improve on Gore. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House. He has put aside his wooden, policy-wonk demeanor to emerge as the Bush administration's most eloquent critic. And thanks to An Inconvenient Truth, Gore is not only the most impassioned leader on the most urgent crisis facing the planet, he's also a Hollywood celebrity, the star of the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time.

"He's perceived very differently now than he was six years ago," says Frank Luntz, the Republican consultant who advised George W. Bush to dispute global warming during the 2000 and 2004 elections. "He's an icon. Imagine that: Al Gore, Mr. Straight and Narrow, Mr. Dull on Wheels -- now he's culturally cool."

Indeed, Gore is unique among the increasingly crowded field of Democratic contenders. He has the buzz to beat Obama, the substance to supplant Hillary, and enough stature to enter the race late in the game and still raise the millions needed to mount a successful campaign. "Very few people who run for president can just step in when they want, with a superstar, titanic presence," says James Carville, the dean of Democratic strategists. "But Gore clearly is one of those. He's going to run, and he's going to be formidable. If he didn't run, I'd be shocked."

Look at what Gore has been up to lately, and it's hard to escape the impression that, on some level, he is already running for president. Over the past few months he has made high-profile appearances on the Today show, the Tonight Show and Oprah, and he displayed his trademark deadpan humor in a stint on Saturday Night Live. "He's keeping himself viable by keeping himself in the public eye," says Donna Brazile, who served as Gore's campaign manager in 2000.

He has also been active under the media radar. In December, Gore quietly took part in the year's largest event organized by MoveOn, the grassroots group that helped make Howard Dean the front-runner in 2000. After tens of thousands of MoveOn members gathered at house parties across the country to watch An Inconvenient Truth on DVD, Gore joined them in an Internet conference call. Although global warming was the call's official topic, the discussion was charged with electoral expectations.

As the Internet crowds submitted questions for Gore through an online interface, the text of each query popped up on an animated map of the United States for all to read on their computer screens. There were hundreds of submissions -- and at least a third of them dealt with regime change rather than climate change. "Would you please run for president," wrote Rhonda in Poway, California. "What are the circumstances under which you would run for president again?" asked Doug in Marshal, North Carolina.

Eli Pariser, who was moderating the call as MoveOn's executive director, finally rose to the bait. "I have to ask this one because it's come up so many times," he told Gore. "Carol from Indianapolis says, 'Would you please, please run?'"

Gore, on speakerphone with Tipper from his home in Nashville, offered his stock response. "I'm not planning on running for president again," he said -- stopping well short of an actual denial.

But the nation's most experienced political strategists agree that Gore is carefully laying the groundwork for a possible run. "He's running in a nontraditional way, which has been powerful," says Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic consultant. "It has made him look much more interesting than if he had just been the former vice president sitting out there and thinking about a run."

Gore has carved out a public role for himself that's usually reserved for rock stars and Tour de France winners. What Bono is to Third World debt and Lance Armstrong is to cancer, Gore is to global warming. "He's the indispensable character in the drama of the climate crisis," says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "If it has a happy ending, he'll be the hero. If it has a tragic ending, he'll be the tragic hero." And like Bono, Gore can pack a house, even in red-state America: In January, tickets for a Gore speech at a 10,000-seat stadium in Boise, Idaho, sold out in less than twenty-four hours.

"He has built an infrastructure that is impervious to traditional political calculations," says Ron Klain, Gore's former chief of staff. "His base of support is truly national -- no matter what else happens, no matter who else is in the race."

Gore's biggest opponent for the nomination would likely be Hillary Clinton -- and no one in the current field of Democrats is better situated to capitalize on her weaknesses than Gore. In September 2002, just before Clinton and every other Democrat who hoped to run for president voted to authorize the war in Iraq, Gore gave a no-holds-barred speech inveighing against the invasion. "The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq," he warned, "could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

At the time, recalls Carrick, Washington insiders dismissed the speech as sour grapes. "The Democratic establishment all said, 'Oh, Al's just out there doing this because he's bitter. This just proves he's never going to run again.' But they all proved to be wrong and he was exactly right. There's nothing more powerful than that."

Thanks to his vocal opposition to the war -- and his decision to back Howard Dean's anti-war candidacy in 2003 -- Gore has all but sewn up the backing of the party's "Netroots" activists. Eli Pariser calls Gore "a close friend of MoveOn," and Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos, is equally unabashed in his support. "More than any other Democrat over the last four years, Gore has actually delivered," says Moulitsas, one of the Internet's most influential organizers. "If Gore enters the race, it's his nomination for the taking." In an online poll of 14,000 activists held in December by DailyKos, sixty percent voted for Gore. By comparison, Clinton received just 292 votes.

Gore's deep ties to online activists could neutralize Clinton's greatest advantage: her fund-raising prowess. Gore retains a network of big-dollar donors from his 2000 campaign, and many of the party's biggest funders are reportedly sitting on their checkbooks, waiting to see if he enters the race. "If Howard Dean could raise $59 million on the Internet," says Carrick, "the mind boggles as to what Al Gore might do." Joe Trippi, who managed Dean's campaign, believes Gore could raise as much as $200 million on the Internet: "Gore may have more money than anybody within days of entering the race."

What's more, strategists say, Gore has mobilized an environmental constituency that rivals Hillary's support among women and Obama's standing among black voters. "There are millions of people who call themselves environmental activists -- but until now, no one has ever been able to make the environment a voting issue," says Luntz, the GOP strategist. "Gore took the environment from deep inside the newspaper and put it on the front page for the first time. He would be able to say to people, 'If you really care about global warming, you have to vote for me.'"

Above all, Gore has replaced his image as a boring, cautious technocrat with that of a dynamic, plain-spoken visionary. "We've seen the real Al Gore," says Moulitsas of DailyKos. "Not the prepackaged, consultant-muzzled Al Gore, but the actual, this-is-what-Al-Gore-who-doesn't-give-a-shit-about-winning-elections looks like." In national polls, Gore's favorability numbers now rank above Hillary's.

Most of gore's closest associates believe that he is unlikely to run. "He's hanging out with interesting people, he's making money, but he's still having a serious impact on the political discourse," says Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network. "You could look at all that and say, 'My God, he'll never run for president.'"

But others who have worked with Gore insist that he is simply biding his time. "Gore seems committed to being a late candidate," says Dick Morris, the strategist who masterminded Bill Clinton's '96 campaign. "He's not going to be out front as a playmaker. He's going to wait and see if there's room for him."

Waiting makes sense, given the current political landscape. "Jumping in too early is a huge mistake for him," says Tony Coelho, who chaired Gore's 2000 campaign. "If the party wants to have Hillary, there's nothing Gore can do or say to stop it. But Barack Obama could be a godsend for Gore. Obama makes Hillary look like just another politician, as opposed to a fresh woman's face. He could slow her up, and John Edwards can create further doubts."

According to David Gergen, who has served in the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton administrations, that scenario could create an opening for Gore. "If the three of them fight each other to a bloody draw, nobody emerges as the cherished front-runner," he says. "Then you to turn to Al Gore as someone who is not scarred up by the battle. He would look very formidable."

Letting others battle-test Hillary's viability as a front-runner has an added benefit for Gore: It allows him to put off a bruising political confrontation with Bill Clinton. Some insiders suggest that a reticence to take on his generation's most brilliant political mind -- and someone renowned as a take-no-prisoners campaigner -- is the primary factor keeping Gore off the roster. "It's one thing to distance yourself from Bill Clinton, as Gore did in 2000," says a Democratic strategist who has advised both men. "It's another to run against Bill Clinton when the former first lady is heading the field."

If Gore does decide to run, there is no question that his entry into the race would instantly reshuffle the deck. "He would dislodge a whole lot of Hillary support," says Luntz, "opening up this race so that anyone would have a shot." He would also have history on his side: Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland, both of whom won the popular vote but lost the presidency, reached the White House on their next tries.

But even those who have worked most closely with Gore agree that his candidacy would face some significant hurdles. "You got a lot of people pretty skeptical," says Carville. "There's labor. The African-American community is not particularly close to Gore. The trial lawyers are certainly going to favor Edwards." Even Gore's prescience on the war may not be the towering advantage that many are predicting. "One is always penalized for being right about too many things," Carville says. "Prophets are shot in this town."

Further complicating the picture is the new, accelerated primary calendar, which adds South Carolina and Nevada to the traditional races in Iowa and New Hampshire, forcing Democrats to face four contests in the first fifteen days. A late start could make it tough for Gore to win Iowa, where Edwards has established an early lead and former governor Tom Vilsack looms as a hometown hero. But he would stand a good chance of beating Hillary in New Hampshire, where a battle between John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on the GOP side of that state's open primary is likely to siphon off large numbers of independent voters -- leaving anti-war Gore supporters to dominate the Democratic vote. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Gore could also sweep the South, knocking native son John Edwards out of the race.

Should he win the nomination, Gore would stack up well against the likely Republican contenders. In the earliest head-to-head polls, he performs as well as Hillary and better than any other Democrat in the field, edging McCain by one percent and running even against Giuliani. "If Gore secures the nomination," says Gergen, "his chances of victory would be strong."

Gore's biggest challenge, however, may come from within. "He's kind of a klutzy politician," says Elaine Kamarck, a Gore confidante. If he has any hope of being president, Gore has to find a way to stay in touch with the looser, more confident side of himself that has emerged in recent years.

"Al Gore is so appealing now because he's free," says Trippi. "The real question is, will he be able to maintain that freedom as a candidate? Or as soon as he has something to lose, does he revert back to that cautious, overly consulted guy we saw in 2000?"

As the campaign heats up over the next six months, Gore will remain very much in the public eye. In February, he'll be up for an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. In May, he will publish a new book, The Assault on Reason, and in July he is planning a series of concerts to raise awareness about global warming.

But Gore's greatest appeal may come, ultimately, from what he represents to voters fed up with two terms of the Bush administration. "He'll be able to make the case that he should have been president already," says Carrick. "And that had he been president, things would have been a lot different, with the Iraq war being Exhibit A."

This, agrees Luntz, is Gore's greatest draw. "Democratic voters in 2008 are not only looking to turn back the last eight years, but to erase the last eight years," he says. "If I were working for Gore, I'd message around a single word: Imagine. 'Imagine if I'd been president instead of George W. Bush. Imagine where we'd be today.' "