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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (55597)4/4/2007 12:41:22 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
asp.tcpalm.com



To: calgal who wrote (55597)4/4/2007 12:44:05 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
And now for the important news ....

By Argus Hamilton

jewishworldreview.com | The Tudors premiered on last Sunday tonight starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers as King Henry VIII. He invented a brand-new religion just so he could divorce his wife and marry his mistress. Today the number-one official in that church is Rudy Giuliani.

George Steinbrenner's daughter divorced husband Steve Swindal due to his drunk driving arrest. That one night out cost him the New York Yankees. The good news is the invasion of Iraq is no longer the worst decision ever made by a baseball executive.

The Weather Channel said sixty tornadoes hit the Great Plains Friday while high pollen counts plagued the South. It's awful. The weather is so foul that people are being forced to talk about college basketball in order to start a polite conversation.

Los Angeles high school students staged a mass walkout to join an amnesty march for illegal aliens. The high schools are surrounded by fifteen-foot-tall chain link fences. The students didn't have any more trouble getting out than they did getting in.

White House aide Karl Rove brought down the house at the correspondents' dinner Wednesday when he performed a rap song as MC Rove. The number was awkward from the start. He asked for a downbeat and the deejay read him the president's approval rating.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the White House Friday they must deal with oversight from a Democratic Congress. It won't work. The White House won't let others just march into the capital and force a new form of government on everybody.

Hillary Clinton was lampooned on the cartoon show South Park on Comedy Central Thursday. They made fun of her fake Southern accent and her sex life. It would have been the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to her if she had married better.

Connecticut police arrested a man who claimed to be Dick Cheney after a high-speed chase on Tuesday. The suspect was shocked with a stun gun by officers and taken to a psychiatric ward. Only a lunatic would want to be in Dick Cheney's shoes right now.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Saudi King Abdullah canceled plans to come to the White House to dine with President Bush. There had to be hurt feelings. Abdullah is such a close friend of his father that President Bush calls him Uncle King.
jewishworldreview.com



To: calgal who wrote (55597)4/5/2007 12:10:27 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
Rudy Runs the Rapids

By Mort Zuckerman









jewishworldreview.com | The 2008 marathon has begun in double quick time. It is disconcerting to be so far ahead of where we normally are in presidential elections, but the political reality today is that the clusters of primaries, rivers of funding, and bookings of TV spots and experts are all on fast forward. I will be discussing the main contenders in this space, but one has to start with the contender who has come out, in the words of the Civil War cavalry Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, "firstest with the mostest."

Rudy Giuliani.

To everyone's surprise, Giuliani has been dominating the Republican preference in virtually every poll. He may lose some of the luster following two little news bombs that came too late for the pollsters — that Giuliani had indeed been briefed on serious questions about the disgraced Bernard Kerik before appointing him police commissioner and that if elected he may have Mrs. Judy Giuliani sit in on his cabinet meetings. Still, Giuliani has had a substantial cushion: 16 points at least over John McCain. He has been married three times and has liberal views on gay rights, but he has fudged his stand on gun control and abortion enough to have a 14 percent lead even within the evangelical community.

The former mayor isn't popular just among Republicans, though. He has been leading Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the national polls to such an extent that the Republican Party could begin to think Giuliani could beat any Democrat, but especially Clinton, and make the party competitive in the Northeast and in California, while keeping its electoral advantage in the southern and Rocky Mountain states. That hope is dimmed by the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of March 27 and 28 that shows she has caught up and is ahead by 2 points (even before the two news bombs).

Law and order. The key question for the nomination is how Giuliani is able to assuage the fears of social conservatives. It's a question of priorities. Conservatives are willing to support Giuliani because he can win, because he is a "keep us safe" leader on security and terrorism, and because he is a bedrock conservative on issues like crime, welfare, and fiscal policy. Then there's his opposition to the therapy culture of the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union, which conservatives feel is at the core of our liberal culture.

While many Republicans differ with Giuliani on the social issues, only a small percentage would disqualify him on those grounds alone. A more nuanced objection to Giuliani is that while voters now think positively of him as a leader, they know relatively little about him and that he will be vulnerable to negative attack ads deeper into the campaign season.

Those of us in New York knew Giuliani long before he emerged from the tragedy of 9/11 as a national hero and America's Mayor. Prior to that terrible day, Giuliani had shown his capacity for decisive leadership in coming to the rescue of a city that seemed out of control. New York was transformed from the crime capital of America into the safest large city in America.

Before he got a grip on the problems, New York had over 2,000 murders a year and a crime rate that made everyone — residents, businesses, and visitors alike — feel threatened. As David Letterman put it: "New York now leads the world's great cities in the number of people around whom you shouldn't make a sudden move." In a 1993 poll, roughly 60 percent of New Yorkers felt things were so bad they would leave the city the next day if they could.

Giuliani, a Republican mayor in a city that was Democratic by a margin of 5 to 1, correctly believed that public safety is the most fundamental civil right. Easy to say — but how to proceed in actually restoring order? Giuliani's instinct fired his conviction that lawbreaking should never be excused; his intellect led him to embrace the "broken windows" theory: that there is no such thing as a harmless breach of the law. A window broken with impunity on one street is a signal that unlawful behavior is acceptable; other quality-of-life crimes then proliferate, attracting criminals, and eventually whole neighborhoods are defiled and destroyed.

Giuliani began by rounding up the "minor" infringers — the squeegee men who held up cars, the street hustlers, the turnstile jumpers, the public urinators, and the pornographers. In Times Square, once he purged the most offensive pornographic emporiums, Giuliani was on the way to making the area a civic showpiece.

Giuliani took big steps and small ones. He supported President Clinton's crime bill. He backed Republican demands for tougher sentencing. He not only dramatically increased the police force but also revolutionized police methods. He brought in an outstanding police chief with whom he developed a comprehensive program that identified crimes by neighborhood and street-corner location, in real time. Wherever crime surged one day, the next morning a special team descended, so that crime rates began to fall. Murders dropped by almost 18 percent in Giuliani's first year as mayor and close to 70 percent by the end of his two terms, with an almost equivalent drop in all violent crimes. The proactive policy was one of the most successful metropolitan crime-prevention programs in history.

His success in countering the negatives in New York was matched by an accentuation of the positive. As mayor, Giuliani broke the city's welfare culture. Nobody thought the welfare rolls could be reduced without hardship. He did it both by verifying the qualifications of those who sought aid and by requiring long-term recipients to work in return for public assistance. Welfare offices became job centers, shifting from handouts to hand-ups. By the end of Giuliani's first term, over 500,000 people had moved off the rolls. A culture of complaint had been transformed into a culture of responsibility.

New Yorkers had endured decades of politicians who basically shrugged their shoulders at the city's problems, as if helpless in the face of rising crime, rising welfare, and declining economic and social amenities. Giuliani got results, inspiring the city once more to have faith in its political leadership.

His second term was more difficult. He was harsh in confronting his political enemies and his critics — especially in the media. He had little feel for race relations. He exhibited a gratuitous meanness and combativeness. He was reluctant to share credit. Combined with his stormy personal lifestyle, his marriage and messy public divorce, and the economic downturn in the city because of the dot-com collapse, he was by September 10 all but written off as a political figure. Which made his emergence after 9/11 all the more striking.

While President Bush was reading a children's story and Dick Cheney was disappearing into a bunker, Giuliani went into harm's way, breathing the toxic air with the rescuers. In the face of a barbarity, he demonstrated the essential resolve and moral indignation the city and nation cried out for. It was Giuliani, not Bush, who emerged as the public official in command. That night he heralded his city's indomitable spirit: "New York is still here. We have undergone tremendous losses, and we are going to grieve for them horribly. But New York is going to be here tomorrow morning, and it's going to be here forever."

Spirituality. There was to be no collapse into bitterness and despair. Working 16 hours a day, appearing everywhere in the city, attending virtually every funeral, especially for members of the uniformed services, he gave backbone to the country with his presence and eloquence. "The number of casualties," he memorably said, "will be more than any of us can bear."

When Americans look back on 9/11, the most significant public event of most of their lives, they will forever think of Giuliani walking through the ashes and soot. He was honest, sad, and strong. He captured the spirituality of America. Now when he talks about 9/11, he is greeted more as a celebrity than a candidate, and he's asked in almost reverential tones about his response to the attacks.

The Iraq war has not yet produced its Pattons, its MacArthurs, its Eisenhowers. In the war on terrorism, Giuliani, even more than the president, has become a symbol of America's determination to fight terrorism and protect our way of life. Viewed by millions as a strong commander, Giuliani has been as blunt as George Patton: "We're going to be in this war for quite some time. Not by our choosing but by theirs."

Odds are it will not be the views on the issues that will vault a candidate into the White House. It will be how American voters assess the candidate's ability to respond to emergency. That is how George Bush beat John Kerry in 2004: Kerry had a better grasp of every policy issue, but he was not convincing on security. The security test is one that Giuliani is seen to have passed with flying colors — and another attack, heaven forbid, will drive the point home.

The unresolved question is whether the obverse side of these qualities will work against him in the stresses of a long campaign. The New York culture may be comfortable with Giuliani's abrasiveness — how they cheered when he evicted Yasser Arafat from the city's 50th birthday concert for the U.N.!

But the presidency — and the race for it — is a more testing arena. The country at large, which has gained its impressions from television, will want to satisfy itself on integrity of character as well as raw courage.

Giuliani has flip-flopped on social issues. He is trying to finesse his view favoring abortion rights by asserting he will appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court in the mode of Justice Antonin Scalia, who seems devoted to overturning Roe v. Wade.

He is suggesting, in other words, that he would appoint people whose judicial philosophy is directly contrary to his own. He has also retreated from his long-held support for banning assault weapons, too easily available to criminals. Giuliani's rationale is that his previous position was made from his perspective as mayor of New York City and should not apply to the country at large. No doubt he will soon seek a way to get around his previous position on the issue of gay rights. If you believe all this, he has a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Giuliani's obvious sail trimming makes him seem like just one more politician willing to abandon beliefs to improve his luck today. What a shame! He can survive a few missteps. His "two for one" rhetoric about his wife will not endear him to those who reviled Bill Clinton for just such a sentiment. His misremembering about Bernard Kerik, no doubt genuine, will unsettle some people. To overcome such reverses, inevitable in a long campaign, he will have to reassert his principled courage. Given that, America's Mayor may still have the best shot at winning his party's nomination and maybe then the presidency.

URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman040207.php3



To: calgal who wrote (55597)4/12/2007 2:24:36 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
Newt Gingrich's Potential Candidacy
By Marvin Olasky
Thursday, April 12, 2007

In this spring of conservative discontent concerning the leading GOP presidential prospects, the potential candidacy of Newt Gingrich offers the most intense quandary yet. From a Christian conservative perspective, he says all the right things. He's very smart. But is he presidential?

Eight years ago it didn't seem that this question would ever again arise. In 1999, as Gingrich's second nasty divorce became media fodder, the world learned that he had been secretly committing adultery with a young woman at the same time he was publicly taking Bill Clinton to task for his adultery with another young woman. That's worth mentioning, because when Gingrich last month told James Dobson on Focus on the Family's radio show that he had had an extramarital affair, hundreds of journalists reported this as if it were new information. How short our memories are. The Lexis-Nexis database for August 1999 lists 160 articles containing the names "Gingrich" and "Callista Bisek," the young Agriculture Committee staffer he eventually married. By the end of the year there were 550, many of them snarky and gloating.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in this March 2, 2007 file photo. Gingrich wants somebody running for president - maybe himself - to embrace his solutions to America's problems. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf, File) The shocking aspect of it was not infidelity, which is not news these days, but the recklessness of Gingrich's behavior. The news broke only after he had lost the confidence of his GOP colleagues and was no longer Speaker, but if it had come out in 1995 the few accomplishments of the Republican Revolution would have been even fewer. Gingrich's lack of self-control was different from Clinton's in that Gingrich did not lie under oath, but both threatened years of hard work by tens of thousands of people.

The self-indulgence is what struck "Newtoids" from the mid-90s who are now skittish about him. (Citing past loyalties and also concerns about future retribution from a powerful leader, they would typically talk with me only if I promised not to identify them.) They praised his ideas and his capacity to grasp complexities, but wondered about his character.

One former close adviser stipulated that he was "not focused on marital infidelity" except as one indication that Gingrich "was not able to put aside his ego out of a sense of higher purpose or principle." He said, "It breaks my heart to say this, because Newt has a view of the world closest to mine, (but) is this the person I want across the table from Putin?" The only former ally who would speak on the record is Vin Weber, a Minnesota congressman from 1981 to 1993. Weber, now the managing partner of a Washington lobbying office, said that Gingrich "thinks more deeply of the changes taking place than anybody I know in politics. (He) operates at several levels of depth greater than most politicians."

But Weber also observed that Gingrich's "negative image is not undeserved. He has a tendency to vilify his opposition. Words roll off his tongue -- 'corrupt,' 'sick' -- and stand in the way of his ever becoming a unifying leader."

If Gingrich becomes a candidate, his infidelity will come up probably not in its own right but as an indicator of character. Gingrich himself once differentiated between relatively recent actions and those of "35 years ago" -- and Gingrich's are relatively recent. Many evangelical voters especially will wonder about the trustworthiness of a national leader who at full maturity indulged his passions in such risky ways.

So how can Gingrich make his greatest contribution to the nation? By remaining an intellectual gadfly. President John F. Kennedy once hosted a dinner for Nobel Prize winners and said the evening displayed "probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius (in the White House) except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone."

Today, publicists could say that the Heritage Foundation generates more ideas per hour than anyone else -- except when Gingrich is giving a speech. I hope he stays an intellectual entrepreneur and gives many more.

Marvin Olasky is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin,the editor-in-chief of World, and author of Scimitar's Edge.

townhall.com



To: calgal who wrote (55597)4/12/2007 2:28:38 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
Comparing Bush and Clinton Economies
By Alan Reynolds
Thursday, April 12, 2007

A recent Gallup poll found that only 41 percent of respondents approved of Bush's handling of the economy, compared to 55 percent who disapproved. Such a question would make sense, of course, only if the United States were a centrally planned dictatorship. In a free society, the less the president handles the economy the better off we are.

Because polls reflect perception rather than reality, the suspicion arises that many people wrongly believe the U.S. economy is in bad shape because that is what they keep hearing on TV or reading in the newspapers. And because there is a presidential election looming, partisans are sure to exaggerate the economic performance of the Clinton years in order to stir up discontent with the present.


Former U.S. President Bill Clinton sits on the steps of the stage as he listens to his wife, U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), speak at a campaign fund-raiser in Washington March 20, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES) Politics being what it is (a spectator sport), partisans can't resist attributing economic outcomes to the White House, rather than to the efforts of millions of business managers, workers and investors responding to incentives. In this spirit, Bill Sammon, a frequent guest on Fox News, set up a provocative duel at examiner.com between White House spokesman Tony Fratto and Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and current adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton. As might be expected, both contestants were not entirely candid.

Fratto plausibly complained that the mainstream media have displayed a "double standard" by ignoring or denying visible economic progress under Bush while puffing-up the economic conditions during Clinton's presidency. "If you go back to this point in the Clinton expansion," Fratto said, "they would have loved to have seen the numbers that we have right now. On the unemployment rate, we're a full percentage point below where they were at the same point in the expansion -- 60 or 61 months in."

"That's a rather absurd claim," replied Sperling. "In terms of job creation, in terms of wage growth, in terms of business investment, in terms of poverty, there's absolutely no comparison." There is a comparison, though he may not want it to be made.

The article listed "dueling data points" from the Bush Camp and Clinton Camp. The Bush Camp said: "Real wages rose 1.8 percent over the 12 months through February. This is substantially faster than the average rate of wage growth in the late 1990s." How does the past 12 months relate to some unspecified years during the late 1990s? Would it not be more honest to compare several years at a similar stage of the expansion?

What years should we compare? It would be dishonest to include the 2001 recession in this duel, because Clinton's first term began two years after a recession had ended. Yet the Clinton Camp does just that by boasting that "under Clinton, the economy created 3.5 times more jobs after 74 months than it did over the same period of time under Bush."

The umpire calls a foul. A recession that began in March 2001 had nothing to do with Bush taking office the previous month, but it had a lot to do with job growth in 2001 and 2002. President Clinton took office two years after the previous recession ended in February 1991. The economy grew 3.2 percent in 1992.

The Bush Camp boasts that "since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.8 percent." Starting with early 2001 is still unfair, regardless of which camp does it. Cyclical weakness in employment growth from 2001 through mid-2003 resulted in more output relative to the few hours worked, otherwise known as increased productivity.

Were it not for the political spin, it would be more reasonable to compare the first year of recovery in 2002 with the first year of recovery in 1992. Fratto thus compared "this point in the Clinton expansion" to a period that began 60 months ago -- in early 2002. But such a comparable starting point in the Clinton expansion would actually have begun in late 1991, when Clinton was not in office.


townhall.com