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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (337907)5/19/2007 10:57:14 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578127
 
I don't always agree with Buchanan but sometimes he just nails it...
--------------------

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron? Pat Buchanan
Fri May 18, 3:00 AM ET

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous — the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles — after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse — but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.



To: TimF who wrote (337907)5/19/2007 1:00:26 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578127
 
Putting a Spin on Class Warfare

By ROBERT FRANK, The Wall Street Journal

During a television interview this month, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer asked New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine about whether hedge-fund managers were "out of touch with America," given their astronomical salaries.


"Some are, some aren't," said the governor, who made a fortune on Wall Street. "Good risk managers and portfolio [managers] are people that don't lose track of what the real world is about." Then, after a pause, he added, "I think some people, based on the size of the houses I see built and the automobiles and the things that people accumulate, there are some who might be drifting away from reality."

It was another example of how the heated politics of wealth and inequality are creating new public-relations problems for today's rich. With their numbers exploding -- along with information about their private lives -- wealthy people are increasingly becoming targets of ridicule, forcing them to come up with ever-more creative ways to defend their image in the media.

The problem is made worse by the growing awareness of inequality. (One typical recent newspaper headline: "Filthy rich own half of world's wealth," from the Grand Rapids [Mich.] Press.) The richest 1% of Americans now control 33% of the nation's wealth, up from 30% in 1989. During the last wealth boom, in the 1980s, the rich were largely celebrated. Gordon Gekko, the memorable tyrant of the 1987 film "Wall Street," declared that "greed ... is good," and CEOs proudly flashed their expensive toys on the cover of Forbes magazine.

People with money have become more defensive, with most avoiding any press (Donald Trump and Paris Hilton excepted). Some argue that their windfalls are reasonable and portray themselves as folksy, ordinary people. Many have turned to philanthropy as their saving grace.

A client recently described the media environment as "like Marie Antoinette's France," says Allan Mayer, a PR specialist who's worked with wealthy families around the world. "There is a kind of class warfare going on, and it's becoming far more noticeable," he says. "In the 1980s, every CEO wanted to show the press their new yacht or big mansion. Now there is a sense that maybe discretion is the better part of valor. Unless you're oblivious, or a complete megalomaniac, you know that while you're doing great, most people are not."

Here are some suggestions that top public-relations executives are making to their wealthy clients:

1. STAY QUIET

Hedge-funders have learned this lesson perhaps better than anyone. Never mind interviews -- just trying to get official photos of Paul Tudor Jones II or Steve Cohen is next to impossible. Hedge-funders, of course, argue (through their representatives) that their silence is for security reasons. Sean Cassidy, president of New York-based Dan Klores Communications, says he discourages his Wall Street clients from giving interviews since, "once you start granting access, it just fuels" more coverage of their personal wealth. "In many cases, our job is to keep them out of the press unless there's a business reason," Mr. Cassidy adds.

If a rich individual or family is forced into the public spotlight -- say, through a lawsuit -- they should do an interview but downplay their wealth as much as possible, some PR experts say. "The last thing you want to be today is boastful," says Marcia Horowitz, with New York's Rubenstein Associates.

But for clients who are out of touch with the rest of the world and live in a "bubble" of wealth and privilege, Ms. Horowitz advises against interviews. "Some people don't understand that reporters and their audience may not be sympathetic to the problems of millionaires," she adds.

One case in point might be an interview that Larry Ellison, Oracle's famously ostentatious CEO, did in 2005 for Vanity Fair on his 454-foot yacht, Rising Sun. In the piece, he complained that he didn't enjoy his first vacation on the boat. "I didn't know whether it was the scale or the newness that was the problem," he said. "Turns out, it was only the newness. It's really only the size of a very large house."

2. ACT MIDDLE CLASS

Since so many of this era's wealthy people made their money themselves, PR specialists advise them to play up their middle-class roots. Dress casual, they're told. Talk about your old Ford pickup truck, rather than your convertible Bentley, and about your "simple" life, even if you have a household staff of 12. For instance, both before and after her jail term, homemaking maven Martha Stewart made a habit of talking about her pets, her gardening, and her folksy upbringing in many of her interviews. She has downplayed any discussion of her multiple vacation homes and private yacht.

Ms. Horowitz cautions clients to use the "everyman" strategy only if it's true.

3. THERE'S ALWAYS PHILANTHROPY


If other strategies don't work, clients can always turn to philanthropy. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett may be the most prominent givers, but the Chronicle of Philanthropy says 21 people last year gave $100 million or more to philanthropic causes, about double the year-earlier level.

But with so many philanthropists vying for attention, it's harder to get noticed. Mr. Cassidy recommends that clients focus their energies on "one charity that is meaningful to them." What's more, Mr. Mayer warns that in today's polarized society, overly visible giving "can be seen as showing off."

May 18, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.