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 (74235)2/4/2007 8:41:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Edwards Campaign Faces Unique Challenge on Iraq War
_____________________________________________________________

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 4, 2007; 6:28 PM

Of the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders who actually voted to give President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, only one will have no chance to make a very public U-turn when resolutions opposing the war's escalation come before Congress in the coming days.

That's John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who showed again today that he will find other venues to parlay his ill-fated Senate vote into an extended mea culpa.

Edwards began drawing attention to his Senate vote last fall, writing an op-ed piece in The Washington Post that began with the sentence: "I was wrong."

The soul searching continued today on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"It wasn't just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about," Edwards said. "It's become absolutely clear -- and I'm very critical of myself for this -- become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given the president this authority."

Edwards's nationally-televised admission of guilt was just the start of what became a lengthy public dissection of the errors he said he made in casting the most important vote of his Senate tenure.

Some believe that kind of introspection has helped Edwards build a bridge to the most vocal anti-Iraq war quarters of the Democratic party, and may also help distinguish him from one of his chief rivals for the party's nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

During today's broadcast, Edwards said he based his vote not only on faulty information from traditional intelligence sources, but also from "former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam's weapons programs."

"They were also wrong," Edwards said pointedly.

Further, Edwards said he believes "anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they've done things wrong."

"If she believes that her vote was wrong," Edwards said when asked about Sen. Clinton, "then, yes, she should say so. If she believes her vote was right, then she should defend it."

Clinton has not retracted her vote to authorize the war, saying "there are no do-overs in life." But she has made no secret of her distaste for the war.

On Friday, she defended her support for a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the plan to send more troops to Iraq, but also said she is ready to press for tougher action.

"I want to go further," she told the audience of Democrats who will be delegates at the party's national convention in 2008. She outlined other steps she has proposed to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and pressure the Iraqi government. But she has resisted embracing any timetable for bringing home the troops.

Edwards's apologies have earned him respect in some quarters of the antiwar movement.

Tim Carpenter, the national director of Progressive Democrats of America, said in a recent interview he believes many in that camp "have really reacted to some very strong statements [he's made] on the war," Carpenter said. "What he has shown is a capacity to grow and to learn."

Darcy Scott Martin, who runs the antiwar True Majority Action PAC, said today she can sense that candidates are "searching for a level of credibility" on the war.

"It's pretty clear," she said, "that antiwar people don't really have a candidate yet. And he's trying to capture those people."

One of the candidates who will not have to develop a strategy to justify early backing of the Iraq war is Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who expressed strong opposition while still a state senator in Illinois. NBC's Tim Russert asked Edwards whether, "on the big issue of the war, Obama was right, Edwards was wrong?"

"I was wrong," Edwards replied, but then quickly added that voters should also consider "who has the depth, the maturity, the judgment to be president of the United States."

During the interview, Edwards also gave some new details of his plan for universal health care, a plan that he said would require new taxes.

He said he would propose spending $90 billion to $120 billion a year to expand Medicaid, provide subsidies for people who lack coverage, ask employers to take on additional coverage needs, and establish what he called "health markets" around the country to create some efficiencies.

"Yes, we will have to raise taxes," Edwards said. That would start, he added, by repealing the tax cuts introduced by President Bush during his first term.

washingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/4/2007 11:51:48 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Gore's image warms from dull pol to Oscar, Nobel hopeful

suntimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/5/2007 12:51:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Murdoch Confesses To Propaganda On Iraq

newscorpse.com

Last Friday, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Rupert Murdoch sat on a panel where he lamented what he described as a “loss of power” due to the ascension of the Internet and other new media. The notion that this captain of one of the most dominant media conglomerates in the world is trembling in the shadow of bloggers is simply absurd. Especially when you consider the fact that his company is also a dominant player on the Internet with an aggressive acquisitiveness that includes MySpace, the world’s largest online social networking site.

But there was a more shocking exchange that took place that ought to have caused more of a stir amongst professional journalists and all freedom loving people. It was an exchange that revealed something that most conscious beings knew, but which I have never seen explicitly articulated.

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

Let me repeat this: “We Tried!”

Setting aside the nonsense that they had ever been critical of Bush’s adventures in Baghdad, having confessed to being deliberately deceitful raises some questions. For instance, how can anyone ever again take seriously Fox News or any of Murdoch’s other instruments of bias? How can News Corp. continue to pretend that they are “fair and balanced?” How can any other media company exhibit the slightest expression of respect or patronization?

And speaking of other media companies, where are they now? The Chairman and CEO of a media empire that includes the number one rated cable news network, and numerous newspapers around the world, has just admitted that he tried to use that empire to “shape the agenda” in support of a partisan political goal with consequences of life, death, and global destabilization. Why has the media, who you might think would have some interest in this subject, virtually ignored these remarks? We know they were there because, on the very same day, there was a media tempest over remarks by John Kerry on whether Bush had turned the U. S. into an international pariah. That trumped up commotion was led, of course, by Fox News. Even the Hollywood Reporter downplayed the most startling portion of Murdoch’s presentation by headlining their story: “Big media has less sway on Internet.” They apparently felt that that was a more weighty revelation than the attempted thought-control exposed by Murdoch.

Where is the outrage? Where are the calls to disband this mammoth and unlawful propaganda machine? Murdoch, who was made an American citizen by an act of Congress because, otherwise, he could not own an American television network, should have his citizenship revoked and be deported back to Australia. Think of the precedent this sets for any other wealthy and ambitious ideologue that seeks to manipulate public opinion. There are plenty of wealthy and ambitious ideologues in the Middle East and elsewhere who may view Murdoch as a role model.

At the very least, it needs to be broadcast far and wide that News Corp. and Fox News are nothing but a tool of the neo-con operatives in government. You might say we already knew that, but this is different. We are not merely accusing them of this stance, they have now admitted it. And it can not be tolerated! Not by any standard of journalistic ethics. Not by a nation that values a free press so much that it incorporated that freedom into its Constitution.



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/5/2007 4:11:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
McCain Calls New Advisers ‘Good People’
_________________________________________________________

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

February 5, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain said Sunday that several aides brought on to his presidential campaign were “good people,” despite his own past criticisms of their work for others in the past.

Appearing on “This Week” on ABC, Mr. McCain was asked about a front-page article in The New York Times on Sunday noting that Mr. McCain’s political team includes advisers who tried to skewer him in the 2000 primary against George W. Bush. And Mr. McCain has brought on members of the team that produced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement in 2004 questioning the Vietnam War service record of Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, which Mr. McCain had criticized.

“These are good people who were doing as they were instructed,” Mr. McCain said Sunday. “They are people who shape the message, don’t dictate it.”

Asked whether, as The Times reported, the hirings suggested that Mr. McCain would be “running a different kind of campaign this time around,” he said: “Am I going to respond to a negative attack if there is one? Obviously, I would do so, but I hope we would do so in an honorable fashion. We will run an honorable campaign.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/5/2007 4:18:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
McCain’s Advisers Once Made Ads That Drew His Ire
______________________________________________________________

By JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
February 4, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain, intent on succeeding where his freewheeling presidential campaign of 2000 failed, is assembling a team of political bruisers for 2008. And it includes advisers who once sought to skewer him and whose work he has criticized as stepping over the line in the past.

In 2000, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the advertisements run against him by George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, distorted his record. But he has hired three members of the team that made those commercials — Mark McKinnon, Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens — to work on his presidential campaign.

In 2004, Mr. McCain said the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement asserting that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had not properly earned his medals from the Vietnam War was “dishonest and dishonorable.” Nonetheless, he has hired the firm that made the spots, Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, which worked on his 2000 campaign, to work for him again this year.

In October, Mr. McCain’s top adviser expressed public displeasure with an advertisement against former Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, that some saw as having racist overtones for suggesting a flirtation between Mr. Ford, who is black, and a young, bare-shouldered white woman, played by a blond actress.

The Republican committee that sponsored the spot had as its leader Terry Nelson, a former Bush campaign strategist whom Mr. McCain hired as an adviser last spring. In December, just weeks after the Ford controversy broke, Mr. McCain elevated Mr. Nelson to the position of national campaign manager.

Taken together, the moves provide the strongest indication yet that Mr. McCain intends to run a far tougher campaign than the one he ran in the 2000 primary. And they come as he transitions from being a onetime maverick to a candidate seeking to gather his party around him and create an air of inevitability about his prospects for winning nomination.

As Mr. McCain assembles his team, he is also making it that much harder for his Republican challengers by scooping up a significant circle of the party’s top talent.

In recent years, Mr. McCain has made a concerted effort to mend fences with Mr. Bush and reassure the Republican base that he is a reliable conservative. But his moves have focused new attention on the extent to which he may risk sacrificing the image he has long cultivated of being his own man, driven by principle rather than partisan politics.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said he was not changing. But they were unapologetic about putting together a group dedicated to doing what it takes to reach the White House and employing lessons from his defeat at the hands of Mr. Bush in 2000.

“This is about winning at the end of the day,” said John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime senior strategist. “I don’t want to be in a knife fight ever again, but if I am, we’re going to win it.”

Mr. McCain’s representatives said he would not provide an interview.

Seven years ago, Mr. McCain charmed the news media and the public with his Straight Talk Express bus tour. He had a lean operation befitting an upstart candidacy, and he regularly spoke out against attack advertising, a quaint notion in retrospect.

In the end, he ran his share of confrontational advertisements, once even leveling the ultimate Republican-to-Republican insult: that Mr. Bush was as dishonest as Bill Clinton. But he was perceived as having been knocked back on his heels by the rougher, tougher Bush campaign.

Now Mr. McCain is building a larger organization, bringing together the heart of the bare-knuckled Bush crew once overseen by Karl Rove while keeping most of the advisers who ran his shoestring effort of 2000.

“It’s like an all-star World Wrestling Federation cage match, except that instead of fighting one another, all of the brawlers are on the same team,” said Steve McMahon, a strategist for the Democratic National Committee. “There are very few people who play this game at the highest level, and on the Republican side these guys are among the best.”

Mr. McCain has also hired Brian Jones, an adviser to Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign; Fred Davis, a media consultant for Mr. Bush in 2004; and Steve Schmidt, who oversaw Mr. Bush’s 2004 war room, exploiting any tidbit that could help paint Mr. Kerry as a “flip-flopper.”

The hires are another signal that the 2008 primary campaign could be a combative one all around.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has wasted no time attacking Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on Iraq. And Mrs. Clinton’s team includes strategists who invented the concept of the modern campaign war room for her husband 15 years ago. But Senator Barack Obama of Illinois drew cheers at a party gathering on Friday when he warned his fellow candidates against attacking one another.

Mitt Romney, a Republican and the former governor of Massachusetts, has hired Alex Castellanos, a onetime Bush strategist who also famously produced the 1990 commercial for Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator, in which a pair of white hands crumpled a rejection letter as a narrator said, “You needed that job and you were the best qualified, but it had to go to a minority because of a racial quota.”

Given Mr. McCain’s history with some of the people on his team, the evolution of his staff may present an early challenge: How does he stay true to the “Straight Talk” spirit of his 2000 campaign, which helped him win the stature he has now, while also engaging in the political brinkmanship it can take to win?

The Democratic National Committee is already criticizing Mr. McCain for his hires, issuing a statement this week calling them “a testament to how far he’s gone down the do-anything-to-win path.”

Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster who is not yet allied with a candidate, said Mr. McCain was running the risk of looking “politically expedient” and of blunting his brand as “Senator Straight Talk.” He said the risk was highlighted by Mr. McCain’s recent suggestions that he may not use the campaign finance system he has long championed.

In 2000, Mr. McCain received money from the system, which gives public financing to candidates who agree to strict spending limits. Mr. Weaver, the senior strategist, said Mr. McCain was keeping his options open because others, including Mrs. Clinton, were planning to work around the system.

As Mr. McCain’s aides often point out, for all its appeal, the McCain 2000 campaign was a losing one. And they said it would be unfair to suggest that because Mr. McCain was augmenting his team he was somehow preparing to change who he was.

“There are no negotiations regarding his principles,” Mr. Weaver said.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Jones, the campaign communications director, said Mr. McCain was not allowing his distaste over the Swift Boat commercials to interfere with his relationship with Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, with whom Mr. McCain has his own decade-long association. In addition, he said, Mr. McCain hired Mr. Nelson because of his breadth of experience in national campaigns. “The campaign,” Mr. Jones said, “is not going to let past contests on the battlefield limit how it’s going to go after talent.”

Presidential politics are rich in fungible allegiances. James A. Baker III ran the primary campaigns of Gerald Ford and the elder George Bush against Ronald Reagan, only to become Mr. Reagan’s chief of staff. This year, David Axelrod is serving as a senior strategist for Mr. Obama; he was a senior strategist to Mr. Edwards in his 2004 campaign.

“You could dissect any campaign this way: this guy did this ad this one time,” said Mr. Schriefer, the former Bush media strategist, who will run Mr. McCain’s advertising team. “There’s a tremendous history of foes becoming allies.”

Mr. McKinnon, who led Mr. Bush’s advertising group in 2004, said he saw no inconsistency in working for Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush was right for 2000, he said, and Mr. McCain is right for 2008. “At the end of the day, the campaign will be won or lost on the character of the candidate and his or her core message,” Mr. McKinnon said. “Of course, I believe that will be John McCain.”

Asked if the senator would avoid the attacks he criticized in 2000, Mr. Jones said that while Mr. McCain had yet to declare his candidacy, any campaign he ran would be “consistent with his beliefs and values.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/6/2007 12:04:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Outreach: Words But Not Deeds
____________________________________________________________

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, February 5, 2007

President Bush was self-deprecating but unapologetic during his Friday visit to a gathering of House Democrats -- a delicate combination, even for him, and the latest example of his willingness to reach out to Democrats in words, but not in deeds.

Michael Abramowitz and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post: "Visiting the Democrats' annual retreat for the first time since 2001, the president told lawmakers there are 'big things' they could accomplish by working together and sought to defuse any bad blood with self-deprecating humor. He opened his public remarks with an allusion to his tendency to mispronounce the name of the rival party by calling it the Democrat Party, seen by many party activists as a calculated insult.

"'I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party,' Bush said to laughter. He drew scattered applause a few moments later when he used the correct name in calling on the 'Democratic Party' to work with him to address the mounting future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare."

But when it came to substance, Bush "defended his plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, saying that they would operate under new rules of engagement and that they could clear and hold troublesome areas."

And on the domestic issues, where Bush has embraced some elements of Democratic rhetoric -- speaking of the uninsured and global climate change, for instance -- Bush continued to push for solutions that are a far cry from the Democratic approach.

On his health proposal, which calls for changes in the tax code to encourage individuals to purchase health insurance, Bush had this to say: "I ask you to carefully consider the idea that we have put out. I've already heard from some members who thought it was a lousy idea, I understand that. But please look at it in depth as a way to address an issue that concerns us all, and that is, not enough people having health insurance."

But that proposal contains a poison pill for Democrats; it would undermine employer-sponsored health insurance programs.

Noam N. Levey writes in the Los Angeles Times that "even the meticulous planning that went into the encounter could not conceal the deep divisions between the White House and the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. Pelosi introduced the president from a lectern bearing the slogan 'Governing for a New Direction,' but he spoke from his own lectern, emblazoned with the presidential seal, a few feet away."

Richard Wolf and David Jackson write in USA Today: "Bush's immediate predecessors reached deals across the aisle. President Clinton worked with Republicans to overhaul welfare. The first President Bush raised taxes to get a major deficit reduction agreement with Democrats. President Reagan worked with Democrats to revamp the tax code. . . .

"Republican John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman helped craft a 1997 deficit reduction package with Clinton, said Bush lacks leverage. 'People are not afraid of George Bush,' he said.

washingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/9/2007 2:52:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Why Al Gore Should Be the Next President
_____________________________________________________________

Thursday, February 08, 2007

All the attention lately for the 2008 presidential election (which we shouldn't even be talking about yet) has gone to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, and a cavalcade of other knowns and unknowns. The best candidate, however, is a movie star, and I don't mean Arnold. Al Gore is the man for the job. Sure, he's thought of as that dull, tree-hugging vice president who got robbed of the presidency by cataract-laden geezers. However, with his Oscar-nominated film An Inconvenient Truth bringing to light the facts about global warming and Bush's approval rating in the shitter, he's never had more of an "I told you so" aspect to him. This is Gore's chance to come out of the shadows and ride his newfound popularity to the Oval Office. If Gore had been president, there's no way our troops get stuck in Iraq. He could reap a huge sympathy vote from Americans feeling bad that he was shafted in 2000. He's also a Southern Democrat, which is likely the only way the hicks will elect a non-GOP candidate. Plus, do you really want Hillary to be president?

mattymo33.tripod.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/10/2007 1:09:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Dear Scott, As you know I'm not leading a campaign for the presidency in 2008. Instead I have chosen to campaign to end the war in Iraq and protect America.

Yesterday I stood up with a remarkable group of Iraq war veterans who are speaking out because they believe the best way to support the troops is to change a course that squanders their lives. When brave patriots suffer and die because of the incompetence of mere politicians, the only patriotic choice is to demand change.

These veterans offered a profile in courage.

The Senate this week provided a profile in politics -- Republicans blocking even a vote up or down, one way or another on a bi-partisan resolution opposing the Bush escalation.

This has to end.

Republicans refuse even to go on record over the Bush escalation. We need to escalate the pressure for a policy change.

That's why I am introducing legislation that will again set a firm one-year deadline for the redeployment of most American troops from Iraq.

If you agree it is time to set a deadline, come to setadeadline.com and become a citizen co-sponsor of the legislation.

In addition to setting a deadline, my legislation includes key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, many of which we have been advocating for some time. It will:

-launch a major diplomatic initiative, the only hope for a sustainable resolution in Iraq

-enforce a series of benchmarks to hold Iraqis accountable for meeting key political objectives

-change the American military mission to training Iraqi security forces and counter-terrorism operations

-maintain an over the horizon presence to protect American regional interests.

Learn more about the legislation at:

setadeadline.com

Now that a new Democratic Congressional majority has convened in the U.S. Capitol, a deadline must be set. The President must respect the real needs of our troops and the will of the American people.

Step by step, we will ensure that he does.

Co-sign the legislation:

setadeadline.com

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. This weekend I will continue to speak out about changing course in Iraq. Please tune in to the Democratic radio address on Saturday and to my interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Sunday morning.



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/10/2007 11:44:44 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
Karl Rove is a Racist Elitist Pig
by BooMan
Fri Feb 9th, 2007 at 05:18:46 PM EST

The following anecdote does not come from a left-wing blogger but from National Review Online's The Corner. Karl Rove managed to be such a racist snob that he even offended that crowd.

According to a congressman's wife who attended a Republican women's luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
And I thought Rove just wanted to keep enough of the Hispanic vote to win elections past 2004. I had too much faith in him. He wants as many wetbacks here in Las Vegas cleaning hotel rooms as he can get. That way his son won't wind up having to do the job. Never mind that they will eventually swell the ranks of the labor unions and empower Democrats. As long as he doesn't have to endure seeing any white hotel maids.



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/11/2007 11:37:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
John McCain vs. John McCain

therealmccain.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/24/2007 6:10:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
How can Mr. Bush sleep well at night when you consider what he's doing to our troops...?? THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY IS STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND HE WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS...

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are ending up homeless. How could this happen?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Sarah Childress
Newsweek
Updated: 12:41 p.m. MT Feb 24, 2007
URL: msnbc.msn.com

Feb. 24, 2007 - Kevin Felty came back from Iraq in 2003 with nowhere to stay, and not enough money to rent an apartment. He and his wife of four years moved in with his sister in Florida, but the couple quickly overstayed their welcome. Jobless and wrestling with what he later learned was posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Felty suddenly found himself scrambling to find a place for himself and his wife, who was six-months pregnant. They found their way to a shelter for homeless veterans, which supported his wife during her pregnancy and helped Felty get counseling and find a job. A year later, he's finally thinking his future. "I don't want to say this is exactly where I want to be—it's really not," he says. "But it's what I can get at the moment."

Young, alienated and often living on their own for the first time, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans increasingly are coming home to find that they don't have one. Already, nearly 200,000 veterans—many from the Vietnam War—sleep on the streets every night, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. But young warriors just back from the Mideast—estimated around 500 to 1,000—are beginning to struggle with homelessness too. Drinking or using drugs to cope with PTSD, they can lose their job and the support of family and friends, and start a downward spiral to the streets. Their tough military mentality can make them less likely to seek help. Advocates say it can take five to eight years for a veteran to exhaust their financial resources and housing options, so they expect the number to rise exponentially in a few years. "Rather than wait for the tsunami, we should be doing something now," says Cheryl Beversdorf, president of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

The problem is mainly a lack of resources, advocates say. There are only about 15,000 beds available in VA-funded shelters or hospitals nationwide, and nearly every one is taken. In some smaller cities there simply aren't many places for a homeless veteran to go. And as affordable housing units shrink nationwide, veterans living on a disability check of, say, $700 a month, (which means a 50-percent disability rating from the VA), are hard-pressed to find a place to live. Most shelters require veterans to participate in a rehabilitation program, but a "fair amount" of veterans just go back to the streets once they leave, says Ed Quill, director of external affairs at Volunteers of America, the nonprofit housing group for veterans that helped Felty.

The VA says it's making a concerted effort to reach out to vets before they hit bottom, says Pete Dougherty, the VA's coordinator for homeless programs. Intake counselors are trained to ask questions, especially of newer veterans, to seek out mental health or other problems that could lead to homelessness. "We're much more sensitive than we were 40 years ago for signs of problems," he says. And they have expanded some services. Last week, the VA approved $24 million to boost aid for the homeless, which will allow them to add about 1,000 more beds and increase the number of grants to help the growing population of homeless women veterans and those with mental illnesses.

Much of the work with new veterans is being done one soldier at a time. At New Directions in Los Angeles, a center that rehabilitates homeless veterans, Anthony Belcher, a formerly homeless Vietnam vet who now works at the center, looks out for one particular Iraq veteran who shows up at the center about once a month, filthy, drugged out and tortured by PTSD. "He's a baby," Belcher says. "You can see it in his eyes." So far, the young vet is too wary to accept more than a night's bed or a hot meal. But as Belcher says, at least he has a place to go. That's more than many of the thousands of vets on America’s streets can say tonight.

URL: msnbc.msn.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74235)2/25/2007 2:24:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Oscar Hopeful May Be America's Coolest Ex-Vice President Ever

______________________________________________________________

Al Gore, Rock Star
By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page A01

LOS ANGELES -- In the annals of vice presidential history, tonight will be something different. In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as "The Goracle" will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio, will stroll down the red carpet at the Academy Awards to answer the immortal question: "Al, who are you wearing?"

What a year it has been for Al Gore and his little indie film.

"An Inconvenient Truth," the 100-minute movie that is essentially Gore giving a slide show about global warming, is the third-highest-grossing documentary ever, with a worldwide box office of $45 million, right behind blockbusters "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "March of the Penguins."

"AIT," as Team Gore calls it, is also the hot pick tonight for Best Documentary, and if its director, Davis Guggenheim, wins an Oscar, he plans to bring Gore along with him to the stage to accept the golden statuette and perhaps say a few words about . . . interstitial glacial melting? (More likely, Gore will deliver a favorite line about "political will being a renewable resource.")

In the year since his film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, to a standing ovation, Gore has gone from failed presidential contender -- and a politician who at times gave new meaning to the word cardboard -- to the most unlikely of global celebrities.

Incredible as it may seem, Al Gore is not only totally carbon neutral, but geek-chic cool. No velvet rope can stop him. He rolls with Diddy. He is on first-name basis, for real, with Ludacris. But what does this mean? And how did it happen? Did Gore change? Or did the climate -- political, cultural, natural -- change around him?

In an e-mail exchange with The Goracle himself, "AG" typed to The Washington Post that the Oscar craziness and pageantry of the film premieres has been fun (his word) "but I'm old enough to know that a red carpet is just a rug, so I've been able to enjoy that part of it without losing perspective."

Just a rug, people. Because, Gore continued (this was on Friday during a break from his tux fitting): "Actually, for me, the most moving moments have been in conversations with people who have told me that the movie had a big impact on the way they think and feel about our moral responsibility to protect the Earth."

"He is more popular now than he ever was in office, and he knows it," says Laurie David, one of the producers of "Inconvenient Truth" and a Hollywood environmental activist (and wife of "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David) who has traveled around the world promoting the film with Gore. "He's a superhero now."

Before the film? He was more Willy Loman than Green Avenger. After his loss in 2000, a battered Gore began to schlep around the country, often solo, flying coach, giving his ever-evolving slide show about climate change, a threat that Gore, now 58, says he has felt strongly about since his Harvard days.

After the film? Says director Guggenheim, "Everywhere I go with him, they treat him like a rock star."

Guggenheim is not being hyperbolic. Take the Cannes Film Festival: Al Gore was mobbed. By French people. He was a presenter at the Grammy Awards, alongside Queen Latifah, where he got one of the biggest welcomes of the night. "Wow. . . . I think they love you, man. You hear that?" the current Queen asked the former veep. Earlier this month, the ticket Web site at the University of Toronto crashed when 23,000 people signed on in three minutes to get a seat to hear Gore do his thing on the oceanic carbon cycle. At Boise State, Gore and his slide show sold out 10,000 seats at the Taco Bell Arena, reportedly "faster than Elton John."

Remember that this is the same Al Gore who even today interrupts himself to explain that while he supports the use of ethanol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, please, he is not talking about regular ethanol; he is talking about "cellulosic ethanol" (made from wood chips rather than cornstarch).

Also remember that "An Inconvenient Truth" was not on anybody's short list for theatrical release, let alone an Oscar. "I think I was the only person crazy enough to want it," says John Lesher, president of Paramount Vantage, which purchased the film at Sundance. "Everybody else had already passed on it, to be honest, but I thought if we do our job right, this could be a zeitgeist moment."

The film distributor's greatest challenge? "To convince people that it wasn't going to be boring," he says. "We didn't want to sell spinach." His greatest asset? "Al Gore. There was no hiding him."

Lesher explains that, from a marketing and branding perspective, Gore was lugging some very heavy baggage. "Democrats felt disappointed in him, and Republicans didn't like him," he says. "But it worked." How come? What comes through in the film, Lesher says, "is here is this person who has gone through this incredible adversity" -- Florida recount, Supreme Court decision, bye-bye White House -- "and this is what he decides to do," the one-man slide show, "and so you see this massive integrity."

And nobody worked for the film harder than Al Gore, Lesher says: "He was an amazing collaborator, and unlike everyone else in Hollywood, he did everything he said he would do, which is unique in my experience."

Gore worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo. In France, he not only attended the film opening, but presented his 90-minute Apple Keynote lecture to the National Assembly. He did the slide show at the United Nations, the American Geophysical Union, and before conservative activist Grover Norquist's regular Wednesday meeting.

"I am trying to reach out to people in every effective way that I can find," Gore wrote in his e-mail. "In the process, I have had the chance to work with really interesting people from all walks of life." Meaning: eggheads and rappers, movie moguls and prime ministers, and, recently, Bon Jovi. "So, pop culture is an important part of the message delivery system, but far from the only part."

Gore's book, based on the film, has sold 850,000 copies worldwide and translation rights for 24 languages. In Spain, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told Gore that the DVDs of the film would be shown in the public schools, following similar proclamations in Scotland and Norway. And speaking of Norway, earlier this month Gore was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work to alert the world to the dangers of climate change.

"People ask him all the time what does he attribute his recent success to and Gore tells them 'reality,' " says Larry Schweiger, a friend and president of the National Wildlife Federation, who is a leader of Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, a foundation that seeks to bring evangelicals, hunters, farmers and entrepreneurs to the cause. "They used to ridicule him. They called him a tree-hugger. They don't do that anymore."

Guggenheim explains: "People say to me that Al Gore is so different now. Why wasn't he like this when he ran for president?" Meaning that Gore now appears relaxed, confident, happy, and not stiff, robotic, pinched. "They say Al has changed. But I don't think so. We've changed. The setting has changed. He's the same. When you're running for office, you're a target every moment you are in front of the camera. Now, he's in a different place and we see him in a different way."

There might be something to this. Earlier this month in Los Angeles, accompanied by booming house techno bass beat, Gore announced his plan for a global "Live Earth" day of mega-concerts this summer, to be held simultaneously on all seven continents, with 100 of the world's most popular musical acts -- Snoop Dogg, Kelly Clarkson, Bon Jovi, Korn -- to promote awareness about climate change. Gore was surrounded by a grinning Cameron Diaz (she hugged him) and a nodding Pharrell Williams, the rap-producing impresario, and though Gore perhaps went on for a few paragraphs too long about how many tons of carbon a day are entering the oceans, the riser of international press and paparazzi were clearly gorging on the glamorama. Gore was his usual earnest self. A nerd? Maybe, but he was the nerd with Cameron and Pharrell, talking about the carbon cycle and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. It was the mixology -- high-wattage celebrity and energy-efficient light bulbs -- that helps the medicine go down.

"Is being president better than this?" muses Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Network. "I think what Gore's figured out how to do is something that a lot of people want to do. He's living a life of great freedom and pursuing his interests, and he's having an impact on public policy. He's been able to start a bunch of companies and do the movie and he's got this great life right now."

"I agree" Gore typed, "that the Zeitgeist has begun to change. I think it reflects the increased popular will to confront and solve this crisis. It's an extraordinary experience to see this issue -- which the conventional wisdom used to say was politically marginal -- become central for so many people. As it should. I also think that people see candidates through a different lens, and that is a factor. But I also think there is at least a grain of truth to the old cliche that 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.' So maybe I've gotten a little stronger in the last six or seven years."

Gore is escaping the fate of most former politicians, says Matt Bennett, a consultant for Democrats who worked closely with Gore during his vice presidency. "Usually defeated -- or allegedly defeated -- party nominees become pariahs. Look at Mike Dukakis or John Kerry. Or they just go out to pasture like Bob Dole. Gore has pulled off a feat unknown in modern times, which is to completely rehabilitate his image in the public mind very quickly."

Bennett credits savvy handling by people around Gore, including the documentary-makers. And he says the world is catching up with Gore. "Look, this guy was a visionary. He was right about everything, even the stuff he was ridiculed for," Bennett says. "He was right about the Internet, he was right about the first Gulf War, he was sure as hell right about the Iraq war. And he was right about global warming."

At the "Live Earth" press conference, Gore once again affirmed that he is not planning to enter the 2008 presidential fray, though this has not stopped the lefty blogosphere from imagining the jaw-dropping holy cow if The Goracle announces his run on Oscar night. That, say Gore's most intimate insiders, is most definitely not going to happen.

As for whom Gore will be wearing, his people reveal: It'll be Ralph Lauren.