Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

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

To: sylvester80 who wrote (75484)	9/10/2007 1:59:23 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

mental toughness is a critical part of being a dominant champion in any sport...just ask Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, or Alex Rodriguez.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (75484)	12/11/2007 7:17:52 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Democrats Need To Admit They Have A Problem: They Are Addicted to Backing Down BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON "Mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support." That is how, according to the Washington Post, officials present characterized the reaction of lawmakers, including Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman, when they were briefed in 2002 about waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques being employed by the CIA. But it could just as well be the slogan of the Democrats for much of the last six-plus years -- especially on Iraq. It's no wonder Democrats have already decided to capitulate on the war funding bill coming before Congress next week. As recently as three weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi said there would be no more votes on Iraq funding this year (she said the same thing -- both about no votes this year and no votes in '08 without a withdrawal date -- when I interviewed her in October), and last month Sen. Chuck Schumer thundered, "The days of a free lunch are over." Well, over in the same way that U.S. state-sanctioned torture is over. Which is to say, not so much. Why can't the Democrats do anything about it? According to Jim Manley, spokesman for Harry Reid: "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans. The real problem here is the president and his Republican backers" who have "staked out an increasingly hard-lined position." Republicans taking a hard-line position? Who could've have thunk it? The question for Reid and Pelosi is this: why would the Republicans not be taking increasingly hard-line positions when Democratic opposition to the war -- and the other excesses of the Bush administration -- has been so consistently tepid? That's why the Washington Post piece about senior Democrats being briefed about waterboarding and other torture practices is both shocking and not shocking. It's shocking that any American lawmaker -- of either party -- would go along with state-sanctioned torture. But it's not shocking when you realize it's just part of a long line of Democratic "acquiescence." From the outright support of the war authorization (sorry, Hillary, we all know what the bill was about) to the latest surrender on war funding, Republicans know Democrats will bluster...and then cave. So of course they're taking "increasingly hard-lined positions." According to the Post, when briefed in 2002 about the torture going on, "no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said." But, of course, it's all the fault of "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans." As Andrew Sullivan notes, "At best, it seems to me, Democratic resistance to these war crimes was anodyne." (For more on what the destroyed interrogation tapes likely would have shown, read this post by Kevin Drum). Senator Jay Rockefeller, who can't really decide what he knew about the torture and the tapes and their destruction or when he knew it, now says he was "really disturbed by what I was reading and what we grew to know." And could there be anything more confused and anodyne than the way Democrats ceded the PR war over the surge to the GOP? Would it have been so hard to point out that the ultimate purpose of the surge was not military but creating the conditions for political stability and reconciliation? Can they not be trusted to remember that far back, all the way to January 2007? And why are the major Democratic presidential candidates standing on the sidelines when it comes to ending the war and zero tolerance for torture? If they don't show bold leadership now, what is to prevent the Republican nominee - -whoever that is -- from walking all over the Democratic nominee -- whoever that is -- the same way the Bush administration is walking all over congressional Democrats now? If you want to know what that is going to look like watch the tape of Rudy Giuliani on Meet the Press and you'll get a preview. Here he is on whether the NIE finding that Iran has largely abandoned its nuclear program eliminated the option of a pre-emptive military strike: "No, I, I don't think it does... The option of this government should be that we don't take any options off the table, and we keep the pressure on them. And of course we don't, we don't want to use the military option. It would be dangerous; it would be risky. But I think it would be more dangerous and more risky if Iran did become a nuclear power." As Steve Benen at TPM says: "It must be great to work in the communications staff for a Republican presidential campaign -- you don't have to bother to change the talking points based on new information, you just repeat the old lines as if nothing ever changes." And that's the point. The Republican aren't going to change. If the disastrous foreign policy the U.S. has pursued for seven years is going to change, it's going to have to be because Democrats force it to change. And they're not going to do that until they break completely with their past "acquiescence, if not outright support" of that foreign policy. It's like AA -- they first need to admit they have a severe problem, do a serious and fearless political inventory, and then commit to making a change. Memo to Oprah: while you're on the campaign trail, maybe you can facilitate an intervention. How about you and Dr. Phil show up at the next debate and haul the Democratic frontrunners and the Congressional leadership off to spinal rehab?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (75484)	1/9/2008 8:30:59 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Obama: The Open Source Candidate linuxextremist.com <<...Hillary Clinton represents much of what I hate. Before feminists leap down my throat, it’s not the fact that she’s a woman. It’s because she couldn’t come up with a genuine emotion if her life depended on it: absolutely everything about her is contrived, marketed, packaged. When she speaks, it’s as if she is lecturing a bunch of not-too-bright children on how to behave. That said, what really grates on me is her sense of entitlement. Try this exercise - whenever she snaps at someone, mentally preface her statements with “how dare you”. You’ll find that it not only fits, it shows the real character of the woman: she believes that she is destined to win the nomination, destined to be President and no one has the right to question her plans, her policies, her experience or her temprament. She has been acting like this for years. There is something familiar about her approach, and her presentation as the inevitable, logical choice, the industry standard, the voice of experience. From my perspective, she sounds a lot like Microsoft. If one really thinks about it, Hillary Clinton is the Windows Vista of candidates: we are being told this is the upgrade America needs. After the Windows ME years of President Bush, the country needs all the packages and upgrades that are being foisted upon it by this woman. For example, her ideas on health care mandates - basically forcing everyone to buy health insurance - sound Microsoft-ish: we’re going to make you take it out, you are not free to make choices for yourself. No doubt, she is more or less slickly packaged; however, it doesn’t take much stress for cracks to appear. This is in stark contrast to Obama. He apparently has learned something, indeed, a central principle of the Open Source movement: greater participation is key to progress, and a monolith is not nearly as good at advancing things as a diverse group that pulls together voluntarily. For example, from day one, he has called upon Republicans and independents to work with him, in spite of being opposed to many of their beliefs. Presumably, he regards their participation as providing a proof of concept of his own plans. Additionally, his speeches are notable for calling for participation from the wider public: by no means has he suggested that he alone is the agent of change, rather, it will require change driven by the nation as a whole. Unlike Hillary, he hasn’t included mandates in his plans; he has stated that he assumes that people will be intelligent enough to choose health insurance for themselves. At the very least, this call for citizens to be active in the life of their country is a sign of inclusiveness that Hillary’s top-down approach lacks. Furthermore, it shows humility, a quality that no one sane would accuse her of having. Before I’m accused of going completely off on a weird tangent, I should point out by a strange coincidence, according to Netcraft, Hillary’s website is running off of Windows Server 2003, and Obama’s is running off of Linux...>>