 |
| 3-16-03 - VISIONS
THESE WERE 'ONE LIFE TO LIVE' TELEVISION CHARACTERS
BEN - Saw him 3 times - His pocket said WIS
VIKI - Saw her 3 times - Her pocket said WIS
I assumed that this meant things were okay. That was just
a guess though, because I'm from Wisconsin and their pockets seemed to represent
that.
I then saw a dark haired guy. His pocket said, BAAL.
I heard a bell ring and there sat Bill Clinton, sitting on the corner
of a desk. His pocket said REPO
So, President Clinton is the REPO-MAN!!! And I believe he wants
to take the country back to the Democratic party, OR take back the Democratic
party for the people.
See: CLINTON-REPO-MAN |
|
|
|
 Nancy
Pelosi 
William
Clinton
 Hillary
Clinton |
Pelosi News
.......
Clinton News
...........................
BUSH
TWO-FACED POLICIES
|
Democrats clash in early debate
Sunday, May 4, 2003
Sen. John Edwards, right, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean during
Saturday's debate.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- While they united against President
Bush, nine Democratic presidential hopefuls squabbled Saturday night over
the war in Iraq, health care, and tax cuts.
The 90-minute debate, the earliest formal nationally televised debate
in presidential campaign history, was held at the University of South Carolina.
It came nearly nine months before the first scheduled presidential primary
of the 2004 campaign, and 18 months before the general election.
Participating in the event were former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Richard
Gephardt, Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 2000 Democratic vice
presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman and activist Al Sharpton.
The candidates began by facing off on the military, defense, and the
war in Iraq.
"No Democrat will be elected in 2004 who is not strong on defense," said
Lieberman, of Connecticut.
Kerry, of Massachusetts, reminded Dean of the governor's recent comment
that America must prepare for the day when it does not have the strongest
military in the world.
"I disagree," Kerry said. "I believe that anybody who thinks that they
have to prepare for the day that we're not the strongest is preparing for
a day when we have serious problems."
Dean responded, "No commander-in-chief would ever -- and I am no exception
-- willingly allow our military influence to shrink. Unilateralism is a mistake
... I think the senator made a mistake in criticizing me."
Sensing the divide could overshadow the issues, the other candidates
at the table then tried to contain it.
"We're not fighting each other," said Gephardt, of Missouri. "We're trying
to select one of us to be the opponent of [President] George Bush."
"The squabble between Howard Dean and John Kerry may make interesting
political theater, but it doesn't send the right message to the voters about
our party," said Lieberman.
"Republicans are watching," joked Sharpton, of New York. "Let's not start
fighting."
Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Bob Graham, left, and John Kerry
The debate was taped for later broadcast on ABC stations around the country.
It was moderated by George Stephanopoulos, who hosts ABC's Sunday program,
"This Week." Stephanopoulos served as a White House aide during the Clinton
administration.
Gephardt's health care plan, unveiled last week, was another major issue.
Edwards, of North Carolina, said he applauds Gephardt for addressing the
issue, but differs in how to do it.
In particular, Edwards said he disagrees with giving tax credits to
corporations that would be required to provide health insurance to their
employees. He said it takes money "directly" out of taxpayers' hands.
"I think that's taking money that people desperately need, giving it
to people -- the very people -- that we've had trouble with," Edwards said,
referring to the recent spate of corporate scandals. "It feels like saying,
'You're in good hands with Enron.'"
Kerry sided with Edwards, saying Gephardt's plan boils down to a money
transfer that only rewards corporations for what most are already doing --
providing insurance to their workers.
Kucinich, of Ohio, offered his own plan: phasing in a 7.7 percent payroll
tax on all employers, with revenues to be the "mainstay" of a national health
care plan.
"We need to get the profit out of health care, and that means get the
private insurance companies out of health care," he said. "Any plan that
is offered to the American people that fails to do that is not going to deliver
the best-quality universal health care."
Dean, who touted his credentials as both a governor and a doctor, proposed
giving Medicaid to everyone younger than 25. Prescription drug benefits would
be offered to all senior citizens, and those in between -- aged 25 to 65
-- would receive subsidies if they need help buying insurance or work for
companies that don't offer it.
Lieberman chided such ideas as "the kind of big-spending Democratic ideas
of the past" and said the nation can't afford them.
South Carolina, which holds its primary February 3, 2004, is a key early
state on the Democratic calendar. Its primary is the first in the South and
follows the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses.
It is also one of the most solidly Republican outposts in the South.
No Democratic presidential candidate has carried the state since Jimmy Carter
in 1976, and both the governor's mansion and legislature are in GOP hands.
In 2000, Democrats lost every state in the region to Bush.
Graham, of Florida, played up the fact that he and Edwards are both from
the South.
"Who have been the last three Democratically elected presidents?" he
asked. "Lyndon Johnson from Texas, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, and Bill Clinton
from Arkansas. That says something about what it takes to be elected."
Constitutional rights also came up Saturday. When asked, Edwards, Lieberman,
and Moseley-Braun, of Illinois, all said they disagree with laws such as
South Carolina's ban on consensual sodomy.
Moseley-Braun then brought up the Patriot Act, signed by Congress in
late 2001, which grants wide powers for federal wiretaps and searches of
e-mail messages.
"I really think we have a real crisis in America when it comes to our
civil liberties, and I do hope that this act will be repealed," she said.
"I hope that we will all take very seriously rolling back some of the assault
on privacy that this administration has begun."
Edwards chimed in, agreeing the law is of "serious concern."
"I think the problem with the Patriot Act is not the law itself, it's
the way it's being administered, particularly the way it's being administered
by the attorney general of the United States, General Ashcroft," Edwards
said. "It is why I have proposed taking away from the FBI the responsibility
of fighting terrorism here in this country and simultaneously setting up
an independent watchdog group, Office of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights."
Gun rights was another constitutional issue raised Saturday.
Stephanopoulos challenged Lieberman to defend the proposal that presidential
candidate Al Gore had when the two ran on the same ticket in 2000 -- the
licensing of all newly bought handguns.
Surprisingly, Lieberman said he never supported the proposal, which he
said Gore came up with before he came on board.
"The American citizens have a right to own firearms," he said. "Licensing,
registration, in my opinion, are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental
right."
When Stephanopoulos then asked whether any of the candidates would support
licensing and registration of handguns, Sharpton was the only one to say
that he would.
"I think that we must do whatever we can to regulate how guns are used,"
he said.
Later in the debate, candidates had the chance to pose one question to
a fellow candidate. Lieberman, for whom voting problems in Florida played
such a big part in the 2000 election, asked Moseley-Braun what she would
do to ensure every vote is counted in 2004.
She responded that voting must be made easier for everyone, with programs
like "motor-voter" and at-home registration.
"We need to pursue opportunities for individuals to vote instead of making
it a high hurdle that they have to leap," she said, "and in all cases make
certain that we never again allow for the stealing of an election, as happened
with you and Sen. Gore."
Before Saturday's debate, the earliest nationally televised presidential
debate was held during the 1988 campaign, when seven Democratic candidates
met in Houston, Texas, on July 1, 1987.
|
| Democrats seeking White House reach out to Hispanic leaders
Forum indicates growth of ethnic group's power; Bush economic plan assailed
By Mark Z. Barabak
Special To The Sun
Originally published June 29, 2003
PHOENIX - In a sign of growing Hispanic political influence, more than
half the Democratic presidential contestants traveled to the sweltering desert
yesterday to pitch themselves to a gathering of elected Hispanic leaders
from across the United States.
Sprinkling in phrases in Spanish, the candidates repeatedly circled back
to criticism of President Bush's economic plan, urging repeal of some or
all of the administration's $1.7 billion in tax cuts. They vowed to expand
access to health care, help small businesses and entrepreneurs, and make
home ownership more accessible.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts offered one of the few new proposals,
a plan aimed at reducing the cost of cashing checks for Hispanic immigrants
and of sending money to friends and family in other countries.
The first-of-its-kind forum highlighted the 20th annual conference of
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which
drew about 1,000 Hispanic officeholders to this sprawling southwestern capital.
A day earlier, two other Democratic hopefuls addressed the gathering, speaking
by satellite from Washington.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut condemned "allies of George Bush"
for pursuing a "so-called racial privacy initiative" in California that would
prevent government agencies from collecting and analyzing racial data pertaining
to education, health care, law enforcement and other government programs.
"That is plain wrong," Lieberman said. "It's time we stand up to the president
and his allies and say, 'No mas. No mas,'" he added, though the president
has taken no stand on the measure, which has yet to make the ballot.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida accused Bush of turning his back on Mexico
and Latin America and, like other candidates, promised better relations with
the country's hemispheric neighbors, as well as a more humane immigration
policy. For starters, Graham said, he would fire Attorney General John Ashcroft,
a promise that drew one of the biggest ovations of the three-day conference
- and was echoed at yesterday's session by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri
and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
The forum, attended by six of the nine presidential hopefuls, underscored
the growing political influence of Hispanics, now being ardently courted
by both major parties. The White House dispatched several representatives
to speak at a lunch Friday, and the Republican National Committee stationed
a spokeswoman at the palm-studded conference hotel to offer comments in English
and Spanish.
Bush actively pursued the Hispanic vote in 2000 and was rewarded with
38 percent support, according to a Los Angeles Times exit poll, nearly double
the backing received four years earlier by GOP nominee Bob Dole. White House
strategists would like to improve on that performance next year, mindful
that Hispanic voters could spell the difference in a close contest.
But even before November 2004, the Hispanic vote could be crucial in deciding
the Democratic nomination, said Adam J. Segal, a Johns Hopkins University
expert who released a study Friday highlighting what he called "Hispanic
Tuesday."
On that day - Feb. 3 - two states with substantial Hispanic populations,
New Mexico and Arizona, will participate in the third round of presidential
voting, following the kickoff contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means
Hispanics could have a "greater ability to influence the outcome of primaries
than at any previous time," Segal wrote.
As if to accent that point, the Democratic Party announced that two of
six party-sanctioned debates will be held this year in Albuquerque, N.M.,
and Phoenix.
Still, for all the attention paid the Hispanic community, the bulk of
yesterday's two-hour forum dwelt on issues little different from those discussed
at assorted other candidate gatherings, or during question-and-answer sessions
with voters in the living rooms of Iowa and New Hampshire.
One wrinkle was the attempt by several candidates to deliver at least
some of their remarks in Spanish. They showed varying degrees of facility.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean gave virtually his entire two-minute opening
statement in fluent Spanish. Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich tried the same,
with considerably less aplomb. The Rev. Al Sharpton joked that he was going
to try, too, but the people who needed to hear his words were not those who
spoke Spanish, but those who speak English and "are hurting the people who
speak Spanish."
"I remind you, George Bush can speak Spanish, but he's wrong in English
and Spanish," Sharpton said, drawing whoops from the crowd.
The only Democratic presidential hopeful to skip the conference was former
Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.
Mark Z. Barabak is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing
newspaper.
Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun
MORE GENERAL ELECTION NEWS |
|
| CAROL MOSELY BRAUN
Women's groups back Braun for president
Feminist leaders endorse Democrat as longtime ally
By JULIA MALONE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Carol Moseley Braun credited support from two major women's groups for
her decision to formally launch her campaign next month.
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun won
the backing Tuesday of two major women's groups and said their support
"guarantees" the formal launch of her campaign next month.
The National Organization for Women's Political Action Committee, or NOW/PAC,
and the National Women's Political Caucus made the unusual early endorsements
as they cited Braun for her long-standing support for their issues.
Although the feminist leaders offered no objections to the other eight
Democratic candidates, they made no apologies for making the only woman,
who is also a decided long shot, their favorite.
"We are particularly pleased that out of a field of strong progressive
candidates, the strongest feminist candidate turns out to be a woman," said
National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.
She said Braun has been an ally going back three decades to the attempt
to win ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Asked later about the message sent by the endorsement, Gandy said: "Every
time a woman runs for office at a higher level, it opens the door for other
women."
In the past, NOW endorsed then-Rep. Shirley Chisholm, a New York Democrat
who ran a symbolic campaign for the presidency in 1972. (NOW's only other
primary endorsement was for Vice President Walter Mondale in the 1984
elections.)
Braun, who served as a one-term U.S. senator from Illinois and ambassador
to New Zealand, has been running a low-profile campaign that has had difficulty
attracting donors.
As of the end of June, the campaign had just $22,000 in the bank. Even
so, her backers note that she has ranked higher than some better-financed
competitors in some public opinion polls and is ahead in her home state.
The endorsements are no guarantee of an influx of cash. Political action
committees can donate no more than $5,000. However, leaders of the women's
groups said they would encourage members to donate to Braun's campaign.
Braun, speaking at the National Press Club here, credited the "powerful
encouragement" from the women's groups for her decision to officially announce
her candidacy on Sept. 22.
"Together we are going to take the 'men only' sign off the White House
door," Braun said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat Moseley Braun launches bid for presidency
09/23/03
Nedra Pickler
Associated Press
Washington- Democrat Carol Moseley Braun, who made history as the first
black woman elected to the U.S. Senate, formally launched her bid for the
presidency yesterday, vowing to "fix the mess" created by the current leadership.
Braun faces nine other Democratic candidates - all men who, for the most
part, have raised more money and are beating her in the polls. Nevertheless,
she is forging ahead with her campaign, arguing that as a former ambassador,
senator and local government official, she is uniquely qualified to be president.
"I offer the clearest alternative to this current administration, whose
only new idea has been pre-emptive war and a huge new bureaucracy," she said
in an announcement at Howard University. "I can fix the mess they have created
because I am practical, I am not afraid of partnerships and I am committed
to making the world a better place for our children."
Braun stunned the political establishment in 1992 - the "Year of the Woman"
- unseating an incumbent Democratic senator in the primary, two-term lawmaker
Alan Dixon, on her way to what was once considered an improbable victory
in November.
Her election was heralded as an advance for women and mi norities, but
her popularity proved short-lived amid accusations that she exercised poor
judgment in visiting Nigeria's former dictator Sani Abacha and misused campaign
funds.
A campaign finance investigation cleared Braun, but she lost her seat
to Republican challenger Peter Fitzgerald in 1998. After the defeat, President
Clinton appointed her ambassador to New Zealand.
Braun used her announcement speech to present her vision for the future
- "an American renaissance" - and criticize President Bush's record on national
security, particularly the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and the economy.
Braun took questions from a handful of Howard University students and
reporters following her speech. She fielded broad questions about poverty
and chil dren, and more specific queries about the command and control of
U.S. troops in Iraq.
A fierce opponent of the war, Braun said the United States will work to
ensure a peaceful Iraq. "Americans don't cut and run. We have to see this
misadventure through," she said.
Yesterday's kickoff schedule started with speeches at two historically
black colleges - Howard and Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. Braun's final
appearance was scheduled in her hometown of Chicago, where she got her start
in politics 25 years ago with election to the Illinois legislature.
© 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Braun paves way to White House for women in future, groups say
By LYNN OKAMOTO
Register Staff Writer
09/28/2003
Carol Moseley Braun's introduction to racism came when she was born in
a segregated hospital in Chicago.
It was Aug. 16, 1947, and she was mistaken for white because her mother
was fair-skinned. The hospital staff was shocked when they saw her father
and realized the family was black.
The Moseleys were moved to the "colored" section of the hospital, but
the paperwork had been processed. As a result, Braun's birth certificate
said she was white until she was 40, when she became a legislator and was
able to change it.
"I'm old enough to have spanned from times when we had legalized segregation
in this country," said Braun, 56, one of 10 Democratic candidates for president.
"It reflects very nicely on the progress we've made. The American dream has
been expanded."
From that upbringing as a second-class citizen came a woman who went to
law school and became an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, an Illinois
state lawmaker for 10 years, a U.S. senator, and an ambassador to New Zealand
and Samoa.
For a time, she was the darling of the media and a symbol of progress.
She fought for education and civil rights, and she was especially known in
Congress for her efforts to secure federal money for school construction
and repair. She also spoke sharply against the Confederate flag, saying it
symbolizes divisiveness.
"I think there are very few politicians more gifted than Carol Moseley
Braun," said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat who is a civil-rights
attorney, University of Chicago law professor and candidate for U.S. Senate.
"She can light up a room. She's extraordinarily intelligent, a very clear
and analytical thinker."
But some critics said Braun's distinction of being the only African-American
woman elected to the U.S. Senate has been tainted by ill-advised trips, poor
judgment, and accusations of campaign and personal misspending that led to
her political defeat in 1998.
"I used to be a great supporter of hers," said Hermene Hartman, publisher
and founder of N'Digo, a black weekly newspaper in Chicago. "I thought she
held great promise. She energized women as a base, she energized blacks as
a base, and she won her historical seat. She disappointed us in the seat.
She made terrible decisions."
Today when reporters ask for an interview with Braun, her campaign staff
in Chicago immediately mails out a thick packet of materials defending Braun's
record.
The documents - many disclosed during Braun's confirmation as ambassador
- show allegations from the 1990s of campaign misspending, a five-year
investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, and trips to Nigeria taken
against the wishes of the State Department because the African nation was
ruled by dictator Sani Abacha, who had an egregious human-rights record.
Braun said the Federal Election Commission audit found only $311.28 in
unaccounted-for campaign contributions. The IRS investigation, which involved
her personal and campaign records, was closed for a lack of substance, she
said, and her trips to Nigeria were privately financed, personal in nature
and meant no harm.
"I'm not defensive about it at all," Braun said of her record. "The truth
is my friend. There was nothing untoward in any aspect of my public service.
I've been vindicated on every front for all of this nasty stuff."
But Hartman, the newspaper publisher, said Braun simply didn't appreciate
her responsibilities as U.S. senator and shouldn't be running for president.
Hartman cited an example from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton flew
to Chicago for a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser. The event was to benefit Braun,
but she didn't show up.
"Things like that have not sat well with the public here," Hartman said
in an interview from Chicago. "With a consistency, she has shown poor judgment.
She has shown basically a disrespect, if not a downright insult, to her
constituency."
Braun, who said after her failed 1998 Senate re-election that she would
never run for public office again, decided in February to explore a bid for
the presidency. She confirmed her decision last week by formally announcing
her candidacy.
Obama, the Illinois state lawmaker, said history is replete with second
acts in politics, and Braun deserves a fresh look. National women's advocates
are also looking to Braun as a ray of hope.
"We want to see a woman in the White House," said Mosemarie Boyd, president
of American Women Presidents, a California group that urges women politicians
to seek the White House. "Carol is doing more for women in the presidency
than anyone else in the country at this point."
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said Braun
is a longtime advocate of women's rights, working as a state legislator in
the late 1970s and early 1980s on issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment
campaign.
"She has an ability to speak to women who have not felt they've been part
of the process," said Gandy, whose group endorsed Braun in August. "Not only
does it advance the cause of beating George W. Bush, but it also advances
the goal of daughters and granddaughters to see this as a possibility for
themselves."
Iowa polls have consistently shown Braun at or near the bottom of the
pack, with less than 1 percent of the vote. National polls taken since Gen.
Wesley Clark's Sept. 17 entrance into the presidential race show Braun in
ninth place, only before Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Campaign finance reports filed June 30 show she raised $217,109, ranking
second-to-last among the candidates. Only the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York
raised less.
"I just don't know if she has what it takes to make it," said state Rep.
Helen Miller, a Fort Dodge Democrat. "She doesn't spend much time here in
Iowa. I really don't see her as being that terribly viable. She doesn't have
much of a following. I haven't run into anyone who's a supporter of her."
David Loebsack, a Mount Vernon Democrat and political science professor
at Cornell College, complimented Braun as being very bright and articulate,
and someone who knows the issues extremely well.
"Unfortunately for her, Democratic Party activists are unwilling to take
her seriously," Loebsack said. "It's difficult to take a candidate seriously
when he or she has virtually no organization, no matter how attractive they
are, no matter how good they are."
Boyd, of American Women Presidents, said losing a presidential race would
not be a major career setback for Braun. She said benefits of running include
name recognition, helping to shape the national debate, and building
constituencies both personally and within the party.
U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who is chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, said it was unfortunate that the country doesn't
always support women the way it should. He said Braun is a capable, bright
leader who is very much in touch with her electorate.
"I know her numbers in the polls are low, but I think that every time
a woman or African-American runs for office, it's slowly but surely paving
the way for someone who will have a definite chance in the future," said
Cummings, who is undecided on whom to support for president.
But Hartman said with so many Democrats running, Braun is coming off as
just a "polite lady" and "token candidate" because she is failing to attract
attention to issues - such as race, diversity and empowerment - that wouldn't
otherwise be raised.
"We've got critical issues before us," Hartman said. "I want to support
a person for president not because she's a woman. I want to support them
because they can do something. We're talking about the presidency of the
United States here, not the PTA."
Braun Quits Race and Endorses Dean for Presidential Nomination
By JODI WILGOREN and KIRK SEMPLE
Published: January 15, 2004
ARROLL, Iowa, Jan. 15 — Carol Moseley Braun dropped out of the race
for the Democratic presidential nomination today and endorsed Howard Dean,
who is in a tightening race here four days before the state caucuses.
Ms. Moseley Braun, a former senator from Illinois and a former ambassador
to New Zealand and Samoa, failed to garner much money or support in polls
and was not particularly active on the campaign trail in recent days.
"The funding and organizational disadvantages of a nontraditional campaign
could not, in the end, be overcome, and so this campaign was unable to compete
effectively," she said. "Continuing would not have been fair" to her supporters,
she added.
Her endorsement of Dr. Dean adds another national figure to the list of
Dean supporters as the former Vermont governor finds himself in an extremely
tight Iowa race with Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Senator
John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of the North Carolina.
It was another day of frenetic campaigning in Iowa, as most of the candidates
criss-crossed the state rallying supporters and trying to tilt the undecided
vote in their favor, employing the usual arsenal of pancake breakfasts and
rallies. Mr. Kerry even enlisted a helicopter to shuttle him between events
during the closing days of the race.
But Ms. Moseley Braun's withdrawal upstaged other developments as she
encouraged her supporters to now gather behind Dr. Dean. "Governor Dean is
the candidate best-equipped to continue the progress we need to have, to
bring Americans together, to restore our privacy, our liberty and our economic
security," Ms. Moseley Braun said as she announced her decision this afternoon,
with Dr. Dean and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa sharing the podium with her.
"His leadership will help us live up to our generational responsibilities,
and so I am happy to support him."
Dr. Dean praised Ms. Moseley Braun's "dedication, honesty, thoughtfulness,
optimism," and told her, "I'm going to miss you at those debates stepping
in and defending me." He was referring to a contentious exchange during a
debate on Sunday, in which Ms. Moseley Braun, who is black, defended Dr.
Dean against complaints by the Rev. Al Sharpton that he had not appointed
any members of minorities to his gubernatorial cabinet in Vermont.
According to Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, Ms. Moseley Braun's
endorsement emerged from a conversation after that debate, and crystallized
the following day.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, speaking to reporters today at a coffee shop
in Manchester, N.H., said, "I'm sorry to see Carol Moseley Braun withdraw
from the race."
"She advanced the cause of opportunity and I regret that she's pulling
out," he added. "And I can tell you this: When I'm elected president of the
United States, I'm going to convince Carol Moseley Braun to come to work
in my administration."
Ms. Moseley Braun made history as the first African-American woman elected
to the United States Senate, but she lost her job after one term in 1998,
her reputation clouded by accusations of ethical misconduct.
Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said that if used well, the
endorsement from Ms. Moseley Braun could provide a lift to Dr. Dean's national
campaign. Ms. Brazile, who is not part of any campaign, said that Ms. Moseley
Braun could rally black women on behalf of Dr. Dean's campaign, particularly
in crucial early primary states. "That could reap enormous dividends for
the Dean campaign," Ms. Brazile said, adding "If I were Dean, I would say,
`Two days rest and I need her back.' "
Meanwhile, Mr. Gephardt stepped up his attacks on Dr. Dean, broadcasting
a commercial that criticized him on Medicare and Social Security.
"How much do you really know about Howard Dean?" an announcer asks in
the ad, which includes various clips of Dr. Dean talking. "Did you know Howard
Dean called Medicare `one of the worst federal programs ever'? Did you know
he supported the Republican plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion? And did
you know Howard Dean supported cutting Social Security retirement benefits
to balance the budget?"
Mr. Gephardt then says, "I will be a president who will fight to protect
Medicare and Social Security."
Dr. Dean, who spent the last few days cranking up his attack against
Washington politicians and reviving the feisty fighter persona that helped
propel his candidacy earlier this year, tried today to focus more on a positive
message of jobs and health care.
He continued arguing that the election was about changing Washington,
but did so in a softer voice. He even donned a moss-green crewneck sweater,
campaigning without a suit and tie for the first time since his visit to
a hog farm in October.
"This election is about power," Dr. Dean told the crowd that had gathered
in a high school gym here to celebrate Ms. Moseley Braun's televised endorsement.
"It's about whether corporations and Washington insiders are going to run
our country, or you are."
Senator Harkin, who is criss-crossing Iowa with Dr. Dean's three-bus caravan,
said he had suggested that the candidate curtail the angry attack against
other candidates that had characterized his campaign on Monday and Wednesday
as the race tightened. Senator Harkin said that the campaign's polling of
caucus-goers who were undecided a month or two ago showed that four in 10
were backing Dr. Dean, with the other 6 split among Mr. Edwards, Mr. Gephardt
and Mr. Kerry.
"I don't know that you get anyone to convert this late, but you do get
the undecideds, and they're looking for someone with a positive message,"
said Senator Harkin, whose aides are in the process of contacting the 4,000
precinct captains who helped him win re-election to the Senate in 2002.
Asked about Mr. Gephardt's latest ad attacking him, Dr. Dean called it
"silly" and promised not to respond in kind, even though one of his own ads
airing here criticizes his rival's support for the Iraq war
Jodi Wilgoren contributed from Carroll for this article and Kirk Semple
contributed from New York.
|
|
| WESLEY CLARK
Wesley Clark Chooses Sides
Wednesday September 03, 2003
Little Rock - General Wesley Clark chooses sides, the Little Rock resident
says if he runs for president, he'll run as a Democrat.
General Clark made the announcement on CNN Tuesday. He says it has been
a tough transition from the military into politics, but he has decided he
is aligned with the Democratic Party.
Clark still won't say whether or not he plans on running for president,
only that the decision will be made in the next couple of weeks.
His office says he will not make that announcement exclusively on CNN
but will hold some sort of a press conference.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wesley Clark Hunts for Support on Capitol Hill
Tue September 30, 2003 08:45 PM ET
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Wesley Clark hunted for support for his
fledgling presidential campaign in Congress on Tuesday, meeting with 60 House
members who came away impressed but mostly not ready to commit.
The retired general, who jumped into the crowded Democratic White House
field less than two weeks ago, took questions for about 45 minutes on a variety
of domestic issues during his first visit to Capitol Hill as a candidate.
It was the initial exposure to Clark for many of the members of the House
of Representatives, who were highly curious about the political rookie's
largely unknown views on domestic issues.
"The first impression was a good impression but I'm not ready to jump
on board," Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak told reporters, adding Clark "handled
himself well" in addressing a variety of matters.
"I'm not ready to sign on yet but I'm impressed," agreed Oregon Rep. Peter
DeFazio. "He covered everything from the environment to Main Street Democratic
issues, he was well versed and he didn't stumble."
Attendees said Clark was only stumped once during the meeting -- when
Nevada Rep. Shelly Berkley asked him about gambling regulations.
The session in a private Capitol Hill townhouse, organized by Arkansas
Rep. Marion Berry, drew a larger than expected crowd.
The former NATO commander has earned endorsements from a dozen Democratic
members of Congress. Many members said they still had to evaluate the 10
Democrats vying for the right to challenge President Bush in 2004 before
deciding on an endorsement.
Rep. John Dingell of Michigan said he will make an endorsement "in due
time" but said he was impressed with Clark. Asked if he had ruled anyone
out, he said: "Yes, George Bush."
Attendees said Clark, who has taken heat in the last week for his past
votes for Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, emphasized
his commitment to the Democratic Party.
Rep. David Scott of Georgia said he asked Clark about theories that he
was only a placeholder in the race for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the
former first lady.
"He said he was not," Scott said, adding that he thought Clark "could
bring in a lot of independents and really broaden the appeal of the party."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
General Wesley Clark: The Candidate For Democrats Who Really Wish Bush
Was Theirs
By Rachel Marsden on 09/30/03
In politics, coalition building is usually a good thing, but the risk
in building a "big tent" is that Bozo the Clown just might see it, get a
sudden attack of the "warm and fuzzies", and figure that's where he belongs.
Such is the case with the Democrats and their newest presidential
candidate--General Wesley Clark.
Some say Clark is mainly conservative, others say he's mainly liberal.
I'd say General Clark is mainly with his finger in the wind. That doesn't
seem to matter too much to Democrats, though. Their tent is so gigantic that
they'll gladly welcome a guy who, in 2001, campaigned for Republican candidates,
only recently joined the Democratic Party, voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan (whom he rightly credits for winning the Cold War)--and has heaped
praise on George W. Bush and his administration. According to Internet reporter
Matt Drudge, Clark gave a speech at a dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas in
May 2001, in which he's quoted as saying, "I'm very glad we've got the great
team in office. Men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza
Rice...people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them
there." Comments like that make Clark sound as though he was auditioning
for his own role in the Bush administration--an ambition the Democrats apparently
admire in their leadership, judging by Clark's popularity.
Ever the Republican until it suited his career to flash-convert into a
liberal, Clark has generously praised America's military intervention overseas.
Then--in a move more characteristic of a schizophrenic deprived of his meds
than a former Commanding General--in a mere 24-hours, Clark went from saying
that he supported the war in Iraq to then retracting his statement and saying
that he really opposed the war. Surely this must set some kind of a time
record for political flip-flopping.
Are Democrats really that desperate to find a guy who can compete with
the image of George W. Bush in a flight suit, landing a fighter jet on the
runway of the USS Abraham Lincoln? Are they so hard-up that they'll sell
out their party's principles completely to hitch their wagon to any military
man during a wartime election? The guy's gone as far as saying that he would
still be a Republican if Bush advisor Karl Rove had returned his calls. So
much for having the integrity to stick to one's convictions and beliefs.
In Bush's Texas, Clark would be known as a guy who's "all hat and no cattle."
If, as recent polls indicate, Democrats are so keen on Clark being their
man to go up against Bush in '04, what they really appear to be suggesting
is that they want a flip-flopping Republican drifter running the show--one
that lacks Bush's stability, leadership, integrity, and humanitarian compassion.
Perhaps it's just too difficult for liberals to resist the thought of a guy
with eyes that are wonkier than a Kia transmission, staring longingly at
the big, bright red button that makes things go "boom".
Speaking of humanitarian compassion, or lack thereof: It's not surprising
that more hasn't been made in the left-leaning media of Clark's involvement
in the Waco disaster--an incident that resulted in the murder by toxic gas
and arson of more than 80 civilians (dozens women and children included)
following a botched raid of cult leader David Koresh's Branch Davidian Complex.
Military personnel and equipment used in the operations came from the US
Army Base at Ft. Hood, Texas. According to a US Department of Treasury report
from September 1993, the army contributed 28 troops (15 active service personnel)
and 17 armored vehicles to the operation--which was planned out at the Ft.
Hood military complex. And who was in charge at Ft. Hood at this time? Wesley
Clark just happened to be the Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Ft.
Hood from August 1992 to April 1994. Inasmuch as Democrats like to whine
about abuse of power, maybe they should consider taking a closer look at
the legality of Clark's conduct and actions in relation to Waco. The Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it "illegal to employ any part of the Army of
the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of
executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as
such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution
or by act of Congress." The Democrats might wish to give some thought to
the reasons why Rove may not have returned Clark's calls--thereby forcing
him to choose another prom date.
Clark's view of the United Nations may disappoint Democrats who see the
organization as the almighty be-all and end-all of world diplomacy. Clark
seems to have about as much respect for the UN as Bush does--which is wonderful,
unless you're supposed to be a Democrat. The Dems were quick to criticize
Bush for his leadership and decisive action when he went into Iraq in order
to enforce the 17 UN resolutions in which Saddam Hussein was in violation--and
liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant in the process. Before
taking any military action at all, liberals wanted Bush to get every two-bit
UN dictator to gather around, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya before signing
together on the dotted-line. I'll bet Democrats wouldn't be too pleased to
hear that while Clark was a NATO commander of operations in Yugoslavia, he
demanded that their beloved UN take a back seat. Clark made it clear that
he was in control, and that he wasn't going to give up authority to anyone.
Meanwhile, Clark presided over a prolonged, 70-day willy-nilly bombing campaign
that was much more a "war of choice" than the recent intervention in Iraq.
While Bush took great pains to keep civilian casualties in Iraq to a minimum,
Clark's cluster-bombing and targeting of hospitals and old folks' homes have
been well-documented.
The Democrats seem to have a thing for guys who can claim to have been
"Rhodes Scholars". First Bill Clinton, and now Clark. I'm sure the Rhodes
Scholarship selection people are thrilled with their track record: one guy
who was so whippet-smart that he couldn't figure out how to keep his pants
zipped, and another who is so confused by thinking in shades of gray that
he keeps bouncing like a ping-pong ball back and forth across the ideological
divide. Note to Dems: You've let Bozo the Clown into the tent--and now he's
taking over the three-ring circus. And it's no wonder the Clintons have endorsed
Clark. If the Clark strategists succeed in creating a nice, warm place in
the spotlight for their blatant, carpet-bagging flip-flopper, then the Clinton
advisors could very well end up using him as a place-warmer for Hillary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
October 03, 2003
What's Wesley Clark's Plan for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt: Some
Disturbing Comments
Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo is an excellent resource for
information on what’s happening in the nation’s capital. His reporting
on the Bush administration’s Iraq fiasco has been magnificent (and his
graceful blog has also served as the inspiration behind the MWU design
format).
Earlier this week, Marshall interviewed Democratic presidential hopeful
General Wesley Clark.
Although there is much to admire about General Clark, he made some disturbing
comments on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
In rightly criticizing the Bush administration’s singling out of
Syria and Lebanon, Clark went on to say:
“But, why is it impossible to take an authoritarian regime in the
Middle East and see it gradually transform into something democratic, as
opposed to going in, knocking it off, ending up with hundreds of billions
of dollars of expenses. And killing people. And in the meantime, leaving
this real source of the problems—the states that were our putative allies
during the Cold War—leaving them there. Egypt. Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Clark seemed to lament the fact that Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan are not current targets of US military operations:
“What about Saudi Arabia? There’s a source of the funding, the
source of the ideology, the source of the recruits. What about Pakistan?
With thousands of madrassas churning out ideologically-driven foot soldiers
for the war on terror. Neither of those are at the front of the military
operations.”
Although Marshall is right to point out that the criticism Clark has received
for those remarks from neocons is more than a bit disingenuous, Clark does
need to elaborate more on how he’d choose to deal with these countries
that he sees as the big threats.
We certainly have not shied away from criticizing the regimes in the three
countries he mentioned, but we’re curious as to what Clark would do
about them? His comments seem to imply that the Bush administration should
be focusing its military threats on them instead of Syria, something that
would likely lead to an even more catastrophic result than what we’re
currently seeing in Iraq. This is also strange given the General’s professed
affinity for multilateralism and opposition to the use of force except as
a last resort.
His puzzlement over why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not “at the
front of the military operations” sounds a bit ominous. Does he think
they should be? He probably doesn’t, but he needs to make that very
clear.
Also, completely missing from his response on solutions to the problems
in the region was any mention of Israel/Palestine (with the exception of
a passing reference to “my friends in the Israeli Defense Forces”).
Most people in that region (of practically all political stripes) firmly
believe that a fair resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute would resolve
much of the political and economic disaster that prevails in that part of
the world. Clark may or may not agree with that, but someone at his intellectual
level and experience should be expected to know the importance of at least
addressing the issue.
Update (10/3/03): A reader points us to this interview in Rolling Stone
where General Clark elaborates on what his friendship with members of the
IDF really means:
"Israel has a unique problem. It is beset by nations that want to destroy
it. Any nation that is under attack has the right to self-defense. And the
right to self-defense is the right to strike pre-emptively to disrupt the
threat. Therefore I totally support Israel's effort to go after these terrorists
before they can strike Israel."
Like most of his fellow Democrats, Clark goes even further right than
the Bush administration, endorsing the illegal building of an Israeli "security
fence" on occupied Palestinian territory as "very important."
He does, however, acknowledge that Palestinians are human beings. "They're
human beings like everyone else, and they've gotta be given a chance," Clark
says. That's so very generous of you General Clark.
Posted by editor at October 3, 2003 02:03 PM
MORE WESLEY CLARK
NEWS |
|
| PRESIDENT CLINTON
Clinton packs house, urges world to unite
Monday, May 19, 2003
By TRACEY L. REGAN
TRENTON - Former President Bill Clinton urged a packed house last night
at the War Memorial here to be mindful of the country's security and to act
decisively to neutralize threats, but to invest just as aggressively in
friendship and cooperation with other countries.
"The major challenge of this era, of the next two decades, is to move
the world to a more integrated community with shared values, benefits and
responsibilities," he said. "We do better when we work together."
He called North Korea "our biggest problem with weapons of mass destruction,"
and said the standoff should be handled diplomatically by "moving in now
and making a deal - a final deal."
Clinton was the featured speaker at a fund-raiser on behalf of Greenwood
House, a nursing home and assisted living center for the Jewish elderly in
Ewing.
The audience, much of it clearly unhappy with the policies of the Bush
White House, greeted Clinton warmly. The capacity crowd in the 1,800-seat
Patriots Theater rose to its feet when he stepped on the stage, cheering
loudly.
Clinton did not disappoint.
"I think this tax cut's nuts," he said of President George Bush's tax
cutting plan approved last week in the Senate.
He also was critical of what he suggested was an increasingly unilateral
approach taken by the Bush administration.
People waiting outside the War Memorial before the speech said they were
eager to hear his views on world events and foreign policy during these tense
times.
"He is the most charismatic - and intelligent - president in the last
38 years," said Nick Skroumbelos, an accountant from Lawrence. "I'm hoping
to hear about current events."
"I'm here to hear his opinions on foreign policy. I'm scared. There is
such a difference with a conciliatory approach and working to bring people
together," said Barbara Strickarz of Florence, an administrator for a school
for children with special needs in Morganville. "Now the U.S. has become
the dictator of what policy will be and we're defining people who are different
as evil."
Clinton remains keenly interested in foreign and domestic policy, according
to press accounts of his many speeches over the last several months, and
has taken the Bush Administration to task on several occasions.
In calling for cooperation, however, he was careful to temper his criticism
with some words of sympathy and agreement.
He said George Bush was compelled to accept the warnings from intelligence
officials that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said the country
must continue to ferret out al-Qaida leaders.
"They are a worthy though dark adversary," he said, adding, "I hope this
would never be a partisan political issue."
However, he urged the crowd to speak out against policies that he said
tear the social fabric, such as the elimination of funding for police on
the streets and after-school programs.
"It's crazy to say that because we were attacked two years ago, that you're
not a patriot for wanting to debate," he said, adding later, "If you check
your brain at the door, then you've given the terrorists a victory."
Both Clinton and his wife Hillary, the junior senator from New York, have
been hard at work on their memoirs in recent months.
Clinton won the state in both the 1992 and 1996 elections, and his would-be
successor, Vice President Al Gore, won New Jersey resoundingly in 2000.
Clinton noted the election results in New Jersey in 1992 and 1996 "showed
I had the biggest improvement in my performance in any state."
This was his first appearance in the region since he campaigned here for
Democratic candidates before the 2000 elections.
Gov. James E. McGreevey introduced him last night, remarking, "I believe
at the end of a long day that William Jefferson Clinton will be marked as
one of our great presidents."
An even more enthusiastic member of the audience then yelled from the
balcony, "Bill Clinton for president," prompting the former president to
remark, "I want to thank that fellow."
"Even better," he said, after a woman then hollered "Hillary Clinton for
president."
Denise Siegel, chairwoman of fundraising for Greenwood House, called the
event "marvelously successful - the money that's been raised is fantastic."
Siegel described the former president's speaking fee as "expensive," but
would not say how much the organization had paid.
A consultant working on the fund-raiser said she expected last night's
event, which also included a dinner for corporate and other large sponsors
prior to the speech, to raise about $500,000 in gross revenues.
NOTE: Contact Tracey L. Regan at (609) 777-4465 or
tregan@njtimes.com |
| Clinton Assails Bush at Commencement Talk
Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush for Spending More Time on Terror War Than
on Domestic Concerns
The Associated Press
JACKSON, Miss. May 19, 2003 —
Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more
time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement
speech at Tougaloo College.
"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't be forever strong abroad
if we don't keep getting better at home," Clinton said Sunday to a crowd
of about 8,000.
Clinton also criticized Bush's position on affirmative action and tax
cuts just two days after the President formally kicked off his re-election
campaign.
Clinton stayed for the entire three-hour ceremony and shook hands with
each of the 144 graduates at the relatively obscure historically black college.
But this private school of 800 students will also be the site of the Aug.
13 Democratic presidential debate.
Judging from the warm reception to his every blast of the Bush
administration, Clinton had a lot of supporters in the crowd which included
former Democratic governors of Mississippi, Ray Mabus and William Winter.
On the stage with Clinton were Governor Ronnie Musgrove, and U.S. Rep.
Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., a Tougaloo graduate and a member of the Congressional
Black Caucus.
"We Democrats in Congress miss you," Thompson said, referring to the
Republican majority in both houses of Congress and the Democrats' inability
to derail Bush's tax cut plan.
Clinton, who commands as much as $350,000 a speech, was speaking at Tougaloo
for free.
Clinton's attack on the president comes as Bush who in the latest Washington
Post/ABC News poll had an approval rating of 71 percent, down from 77 percent
during the war in Iraq is drawing criticism from Democrats for his tax cut
proposals and support for "race neutral alternatives" to affirmative
action.
Clinton laughed long and heartily when student government president C.J.
Lawrence assured the crowd that selecting Clinton was not an example of
affirmative action. "Yes, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby were also considered,
but I assure you Bill Clinton was selected solely on his merit," Lawrence
said, drawing a big round of applause.
Despite the laughter, Clinton spoke seriously about what he said is the
need to show that America takes care of its citizens of all races and all
income levels through affirmative action and after-school care programs.
Clinton suggested that Bush's priorities are fighting terrorism, not
domestic issues.
The Bush administration, Clinton said, "is still focused on defeating
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that's good, but not good
enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military
might."
Clinton also took aim at the growing budget deficit and Bush's tax cut
proposals all issues that are being raised by the nine Democrats who are
running for president in 2004. Sunday's crowd at Tougaloo made it plain who
many of them would like to see in the White House.
"I think if you were to take a vote here, they'd vote for Bill Clinton
if he was running again," said Jerry Keahey, class of '61.
Clinton, who sang along with the choir to "Lift Every Voice and Sing"
and chatted at length with many of those around him on the podium, also took
time to take a jab at Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
Lott lost his Senate Majority Leader position after his comment in December
that the nation would have been better served if retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond
had been elected president in 1948 when he ran on a segregationist
platform.
Referring to the 134-year-old college's need to raise money to renovate
its old buildings, Clinton suggested that Lott might want to help them raise
money to make up for his remarks.
"Reach out, don't give up on anybody," Clinton said. "This is Sunday.
Ask Lott to give you the money for the buildings. He said he was going to
spend the rest of his life making up for the little trouble he had."
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
MORE CLINTON NEWS
|
|
| HILLARY CLINTON
Maybe, says Hillary Clinton to 2008 run for presidency
November 27, 2003
Hillary Clinton has suggested that she may run for US president in 2008
but would stay out of the campaign for next year, in an interview with a
German magazine released yesterday.
Asked by Bunte magazine why she was not standing in 2004, a race already
well under way, the New York senator said she was happy with her job.
But people are disappointed she was not competing, she was told.
"I know. Well, perhaps I'll do it next time around," she replied.
The former First Lady to Bill Clinton has already repeatedly denied she
was contemplating standing for the Democratic nomination for next year's
election, although that has not stopped the speculation.
However, she is widely thought to hold ambitions for the 2008 race.
A Newsweek survey in September showed her to be a preferred choice for
more Democratic voters than any other Democrat to stand against incumbent
President George Bush.
In the interview, Mrs Clinton said her husband, who won two terms as president
until 2000, remained her best adviser.
"It is actually a kind of job rotation. First, Bill focused on his career,
now it's my turn. Bill supports me and gives me tips, he's my best adviser,
as I tried to be for him when he was fulfilling political office."
She said she hoped the United States would one day have a female president
but that it was up to women to show that they could do the job.
AFP
November 2003, pages 22-23
from: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2003/0311022.html
Special Report
Hail, Hail the Gang's All Here
By Richard H. Curtiss
The more one sees of General Wesley K. Clark, the more mysterious he becomes.
He clearly is one of a kind, and everybody is quick to critique him—as
long as it is off the record. He could become one of America's most brilliant
presidential candidates, or he might just fall apart in frustration and
confusion. Only time will tell.
Although the temptation to search for the key to his uniqueness is great,
in fact he is so unusual that one can't decide where to begin. So let's just
start from the beginning. His father, an Orthodox Jew, was one of a long
line of rabbis. Unfortunately, Benjamin Kanne died when Clark was four years
old.
He and his mother moved from Chicago to Little Rock, Arkansas, at which
time she hid her son's Jewishness. His new stepfather was kind and considerate,
and his mother changed his name from Kanne to Clark when her husband adopted
him. Raised a Baptist, Wesley later converted to Catholicism.
Clark remembers that when he and his friends played Confederates and Yankees,
the Chicago boy always was put on the Yankee team. And, he recalled ruefully,
"the Confederates always won."
Whether or not this scarred him particularly, Clark was brilliant and
let it show. He was appointed to West Point and, throughout his career there,
was nearly always first in his class.
He loved debating and stayed on the debating team. A captain named Norman
Schwarzkopf, later the Supreme Commander of Desert Storm, told Clark at the
time that he should spend more time in team activities, whether in sports
or other organized groups, rather than just starring in debates.
From the time he joined the Army, the clearly self-centered Clark loved
to critique everything, ad nauseam. According to a Clinton administration
official, "after talking to Clark for an hour, you had to take a Valium."
Like the Energizer bunny he never ran down, and was always ready to re-analyze
one more time what he did versus what he might have done.
Clark never forgave himself for not having a rifle at the ready when,
in Vietnam, he suddenly found himself looking down the barrel of a Viet Cong
soldier's gun. The Viet Cong enemy shot him four different times. Grievously
wounded, Clark earned a Silver Star for leading his men even while lying
on the ground. His physical rehabilitation included an entire year rebuilding
his strength and endurance. Today he is as physically fit as he was at West
Point and, whenever possible, he swims daily.
Upon completing West Point, Clark became a Rhodes Scholar, just as did
former President Bill Clinton. And, just as Clinton used to recap each day
committing to memory the names of everyone who might prove useful in the
future, Clark recalled virtually everything he ever learned, which he could
produce on demand.
Clark met his attractive wife, Gertrude Kingston, at a Navy party. As
the spouse of a career officer on the fast track, she soon learned to move
on demand: the couple has moved over 30 times. His wife, who is Roman Catholic
and grew up in Brooklyn, can be feisty, but Clark knows the limits of a service
wife, even in retirement. He was playing a brilliant round of golf when he
suddenly stopped before finishing the round. "I promised to meet Gert to
go to a movie," he explained, "so we'll have to postpone the rest of the
game."
His announcement that he would be a candidate for president was delayed
a day or two until his wife, who clearly did not relish the loss of privacy,
reluctantly gave her okay.
As a decorated hero in combat, and with his academic brilliance, Clark
also excelled as a general officer in shaping up U.S. soldiers—or, as
the Army commercial might put it, teaching Army men to "be all they can
be."
It is amazingly difficult, however, to find Army officers who will discuss
Clark "on-the-record." Off-the-record they can be extremely caustic. One
observed that Clark seems exceedingly eager to please, even to the point
of saying things that he probably doesn't believe. Not naturally a
hail-fellow-well-met person, he will act that way if it suits his purpose.
Another associate described him as "an eager beaver and a perpetual Ôbrown
nose.'" Other military colleagues say bluntly that some of Clark's ideas
are "off the wall" or "make no sense." Clark himself says, "I stand up for
what I believe is right."
In Kosovo Clark, who was determined to end that civil strife, showed
extraordinary persistence. While he made serious enemies, on the other hand
he prevailed in a war that was just, necessary and in the national
interest.
Using "rank" when it served his purposes, Clark went right over the heads
of others. He was however, himself, once reprimanded by a subordinate. When
the Russians decided to seize an airport which was not part of NATO's game
plan, Clark was prepared to stop the Russians in their tracks. A British
officer, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, bluntly told Clark, "I am not going to
start World War III for you!" The British officer prevailed and bloodshed
was averted.
Some time later, William Cohen, the Clinton administration's Republican
defense secretary, apparently devised a carefully thought-out plan to halt
Clark's career. Cohen announced that Clark would be leaving his assignment
as head of NATO forces in Europe two months earlier than planned. That, indeed,
was the end of Clark's military career: for whatever reason, political influence
was not brought to bear to avert his departure.
After his removal Richard Holbrook, the chief U.S. negotiator in Bosnia,
tried to cheer up Clark by saying, "Wes, this is the best thing that could
have happened to you. Because no one had heard of you until today. I'll help
you get a book agent and recommend you to a speech bureau."
Holbrook, ironically, had been touted to be the secretary of state had
Vice President Gore won the 2000 presential election. Perhaps he will soon
have another chance.
Clark apparently had no fixed plans for the future. He probably hoped
that, after the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, there would be a place for him in
the war on terror. That, however, didn't happen.
Like many professional military officers—including current Secretary
of State Colin Powell—Clark rarely expressed a preference for either
the Republican or Democratic Party. Even a month before he opted to run for
president, Clark still had not definitively cast his lot with either party.
Clearly, this was a wrenching decision for him.
When he made it, however, he went all out—despite a last-minute bobble
which probably will come back to haunt him. While traveling with four journalists
in September, Clark said that he might have supported a war on Iraq. Only
two other potential candidates, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, were clearly
against the war. Thus, Clark's rationale for running—opposition to the
war—disappeared even as he was on the way to his first appearance as
a candidate.
The next day Clark's newly recruited handlers altered his message: that
Clark would have sought more United Nations diplomatic leverage before attacking
Iraq. The serious blunder based on inexperience will likely not be overlooked.
On the other hand, many Democrats are desperately looking for a winner, and
this dashing military hero looks exactly like what many Democrats are
seeking.
In his maiden speech at the Citadel, a military school in Charleston,
SC, Clark made it clear that he believed the administration had unfairly
focused on whole classes of immigrants, for fear of a minority within them.
"Three million Muslims have come to this country from Asia and the Middle
East," he said. "They didn't come because they were afraid of values. They
came because they wanted to live under them."
On the eve of the first Democratic debate on Sept. 25, Clark and Dean
were the most watched candidates in the 10-person field. Given that Clark
would accept the nomination for either president or vice president, these
two men are the ones to watch.
The central theme of the debate at New York's Pace College was the economy.
Gephardt and Dean worried about protecting American workers. Some of the
other debaters, by contrast, worried more about keeping the economy moving
forward. As the newest entrant into the arena, Clark largely was left
unscathed.
He may remain largely unscathed right through the campaign season and
if someone else gets the presidential nomination, he'll still be a leading
contender for vice president. Any campaign would welcome Clark's credentials.
To paraphrase the old spiritual, "When the roll is called up yonder, Clark
probably will be there."
HOWARD DEAN
With the entrance of Gen. Wesley K. Clark into the 2004 presidential race,
all of the main cast of characters are in place and the campaign can begin
seriously. When Clark announced his candidacy on Sept. 17 there was a major,
but unspoken, proviso: Clark may not be expecting the nomination for president
but he definitely hopes to win the vice presidency slot. Indeed, regardless
of who wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Clark would be a serious
vice presidential candidate .
The man to beat is former Vermont governor Dr. Howard Dean. So far he
seems quite comfortable in the role of "target of opportunity" for every
other presidential candidate. Dean was the only major candidate who opposed
the President George W. Bush administration's Iraq war, with no ifs, ands
or buts. The three major candidates—Sens. John Kerry (MA), Joseph Lieberman
(CT) and House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (MO)—all voted to support
the war.
Dean has a huge leg up on his Democratic rivals, who also include Sen.
John Edwards (SC); Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH); and Sen. Bob Graham (FL), former
Sen. Carol Mosely Braun (IL), and New York clergyman and civil rights activist
Rev. Al Sharpton. All are interesting but have serious strikes against them
that almost certainly will winnow them out as the election season
progresses.
Governor Dean is the most interesting by far. Despite the fact that his
campaign is co-chaired by former AIPAC president Steve Grossman, and that
Dean himself has described his commitment to Israel as "visceral," he suggested
in early September that, in order to remain even-handed, the United States
should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestine dispute. The other candidates,
particularly Lieberman, immediately criticized Dean for not supporting Israel
under all circumstances. But Dean basically has not backed off from his sensible
proviso.
He has a particular interest in the Israel problem because his wife is
Jewish. Lieberman, of course, has been a superhawk on Iraq and, along with
his wife, is an Orthodox Jew. Dean, by contrast, has been a peacenik on the
Middle East for many years—which is characteristic of his stance on
all such matters.
While his father has long been a Republican, Dean himself joined the
Democratic Party because he was unhappy with the Vietnam War. He worked
assiduously to end that long and unhappy chapter in American history and
has been a Democratic activist ever since.
After graduating from Yale, Dean worked briefly on Wall Street, then started
volunteering at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. He soon realized
that he was more interested in medicine than finance. After taking night
classes in medicine, he enrolled in medical school.
There he met Judith Steinberg, his fellow student and future wife.
Interestingly, Mrs. Dean is raising their son and daughter as Jews. Dean,
raised an Episcopalian, now is a Congregationalist. None of this seems to
have changed any of his liberal inclinations in any measurable way,
however.
After medical school Dean moved to Vermont and opened a family practice.
He also became increasingly active in local politics, ultimately becoming
chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party in 1980. "Medicine trained me to
treat patients in my practice," Dean has written. "Politics provided a forum
to advocate for patients all over the state."
Dean was elected to the state legislature in 1982 and, four years later,
to the part-time position of lieutenant governor, allowing him him to continue
seeing his patients. He was attending a patient in 1985, in fact, when he
learned of Gov. Richard A. Snelling's fatal heart attack. He quickly drove
to Montpelier, where he was sworn in as governor. After completing Snelling's
term, Dean was re-elected five times as governor.
As of this writing, very few Americans can even come up with the name
of a likely Democratic presidential candidate. This undoubtedly will change
in the next few months. Graham was first to bow out, in early October, and
the prevalent view is that Edwards and Kucinich may soon run out of funding
as well, leaving Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clark and Dean in the field.
It is this writer's prediction that Lieberman, too, eventually will drop
out, but that Clark will continue, assuming there are no skeletons rattling
in his closet.
From the standpoint of people hoping to see a presidential candidate emerge
willing to deal seriously and sincerely with the Palestinian problem, the
final choice probably will be between Bush and Dean. One thing is certain,
it's going to be a very tight race—increasingly a rule of thumb these
days.
There is one final surprise that may be in the offing. If a Bush loss
becomes a serious possibility, Hillary Clinton may have second thoughts and
decide to join the pack seeking the 2004 Democratic nomination. While a remote
possibility, it's not totally out of the question. Given the fact that George
W. Bush seemed invincible only a year ago and now finds himself in ever-growing
electoral peril, nothing can be ruled out in the year ahead.
Thus, once again, Muslim- and Arab-Americans who work for a bloc vote
may well produce the winning candidate, as they did in 2000. Americans who
care will use that vote very wisely.
Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs.
ELECTION 2004
Morris: Clintons replacing Democratic Party
With Howard Dean on rise they fear losing control of purse strings
Posted: November 25, 2003
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Fearing Howard Dean is poised to capture the Democratic presidential
nomination, Bill and Hillary Clinton are maneuvering to replace the party
with a new group called "Americans Coming Together," claims former adviser
Dick Morris in a New York Post column.
The group – launched with two $10 million donations from financier
George Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation
– is one-third of the way toward its goal of raising $94 million to
finance a massive campaign against Bush, says Morris, who was President Clinton's
chief political strategist during the 1996 campaign.
Hillary Clinton's connection to Americans Coming Together, despite
campaign-finance laws, is "paper-thin," said Morris, with Harold Ickes, President
Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, working closely with Soros to fund
it.
"Ickes is about as independent of Hillary as Bill is," he said. "He is
her chief adviser. His photo graces her memoirs. He was her key operative
in securing the Senate seat in New York. To pretend that anything he would
do is independent of Hillary is like saying that the left hand is independent
of the right hand."
Morris believes the Clintons' move to circumvent the Democratic Party
is to provide a "lifeboat" for the likelihood that when Dean takes the prize,
he will fire their close associate, Terry McAuliffe, and take control of
the Democratic National Committee.
"Dean seems destined to win the nomination and with it control of the
party," Morris said. "So the Clintons are moving out."
Morris said when that happens, "no longer will its coffers be available
to the Clintons to use as their private fund, channeling donations to candidates
and causes they favor or that favor them."
So, before the handover, he said, "they are working on stripping the
Democratic Party of its central role and giving it to the more pliant Americans
Working Together, instead."
The Clintons' attempts to sidetrack Dean have failed, with Wesley Clark's
campaign collapsing and John Kerry's campaign staff quitting, Morris said.
He notes the Democratic Party, limited to donations of $2,000 per person
by the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, has been unable to raise enough
hard money for a national campaign.
That means it essentially is ceding its main role to Americans Coming
Together, Morris said.
Republicans are raising twice as much as Democrats are in hard money,
$158 million to $66.5 million for the Democrats.
Americans Coming Together supposedly is an independent campaign committee,
as required by law. But Morris contends Ickes has not honored the boundaries
between supposedly independent expenditures and political campaigns required
by the Federal Elections Commission.
"I almost fell through the floor of the White House early in 1996 when
I attended a meeting chaired by Ickes of representatives of the political
action committees of major American labor unions," he said. "Gathered in
the Roosevelt Room of the White House, they each recounted their plans for
'independent expenditures' against the Republicans in the coming election
campaign. The meeting, quite illegal in many ways, represented exactly the
kind of co-ordination forbidden by the campaign-finance laws."
|
|
HOWARD DEAN
Overflow crowd turns out to meet Presidential hopeful Howard Dean
by Robert Raketty
Staff Writer
An overflow crowd of over 1,200 packed into Seattle's Town Hall on Wednesday,
May 14, to get a glimpse of former Vermont governor Howard Dean. The medical
doctor-turned governor-turned Presidential candidate received numerous standing
ovations for his attacks on the Bush White House and his plan for America.
Dean says he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
He continued by berating members of his own Party.
"I think the folks in Washington [D.C.] made a fundamental mistake in
thinking we could beat George Bush by being ÔBush- lite'," he said.
"I've talked to Democrats all across the country and I've found that sometimes
they are almost as angry with the Democratic Party as they are with the
Republican Party. If you make me the Democratic nominee, I'll make you proud
to be Democrats again."
He touted his plan to balance the budget and his health-care plan to
provide all Americans with affordable coverage. Dean questioned Bush's leadership
on these issues.
"No Republican has balanced the budget in 34 years. If you want a balanced
budget, you better elect a Democrat," he warned. "Mr. Bush will you please
step down so we can have a balanced budget.
"We ought to be fighting for healthcare for every American. I would like
Bush to explain why we don't have what those other countries have."
He promised to introduce a renewable energy policy utilizing ethanol-based
fuels and pledged to reduce emissions by 60 percent over the next five decades.
"We are going to save the environment by getting rid of this President,"
he said.
He wasn't entirely serious; his keen sense of humor wasn't lost on the
audience. "I served so long [referring to his 11 years as governor of Vermont]
that I was governor during both Bush recessions," said Dean. "Mr. Bush will
you please step down so we can have a balanced budget."
On the occupation of Iraq, "If he thinks our troops are going to be out
of there in 18 months, he's forgotten something he smoked at Harvard." He
went on to say that if we wanted to defeat Saddam earlier, we should have
sent Bush's economic advisors to Iraq.
Dean is most well known to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
community for shepherding civil unions through a political mine field and
into law in 2000. He has long been publicly supportive of the LGBT community.
He opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and Bush's Faith-Based
Initiative. He also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and federal
Hate Crime legislation.
Many notable members of the LGBT community where in attendance Wednesday.
Among them: Ellen Ferguson, Robert Eichler, Dave Horn, Tim Bradbury, Greg
Rodriguez, Scott Hillman and Grethe Cammermeyer.
He also criticized Bush for his support of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum
who compared gays to incest or polygamy.
"I want our country back," said Dean." I'm tired of being divided; I'm
tired of being divided by gender. I'm tired of being divided by income, by
sexual orientation, by religion."
He chided Bush for using the term "quotas" in his remarks about University
of Michigan's admissions policies.
"Quota is a race-loaded word. And it is designed deliberately to appeal
to people who are afraid they will lose their jobs to a minority," he said.
Although Dean has raised far less than his counterparts, Washingtonians
have given more to his campaign than any other candidate. He also is receiving
some strong backing from influential Washington state democrats. Former Gov.
Booth Gardner and Paul Berendt, the State Democratic Party Chair, told the
Seattle Gay News that they both support Dean for the Democratic nomination.
Dean ended his speech by with a plea for the audience to get involved
in his campaign. He told the crowd they had the power to make America great
again. In a booming voice from the stage, Dean shouted, "You have the power!
You have the power!"
|
| Howard Dean Warns of Depression, Bush Mismanagement
by: Wire Services
5/19/2003
From Quad-City Times
by Ed Tibbetts
The United States will go into an economic depression if President Bush
is re-elected, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said in Davenport Iowa on
Sunday.
He said the president has divided the country along race, income and
gender lines, that he’s botched the job of defending the country and
lost millions of jobs, while giving away billions of tax dollars to wealthy
friends.
But as much as Dean, one of the nine people running for the 2004 Democratic
nomination for the presidency, ripped into the Bush administration on a slew
of domestic issues during the second “Hear it from the Heartland”
forum, it was the passion he unleashed on the president’s foreign policy
that brought 200 Democrats at Davenport’s RiverCenter to their feet
Sunday.
Dean, his voice rising, accused the administration of failing to deliver
money to local police agencies to help them guard against terrorist attacks,
and of talking tough on homeland security but doing little about it.
Instead, he said, the administration took the country to war against
Iraq and bullied others along the way.
“This president has used humiliation as a weapon — not only
against our enemies, but also against our friends,” Dean said. And he
warned on Iraq: “Every day that goes by we are seen as occupiers and
not liberators.”
With the major fighting done in Iraq, much of the political dialogue
in the presidential race has turned to domestic matters. But Dean’s
intensity on foreign policy issues appears to be what still arouses crowds
in Iowa, where Democratic activists have been virulently anti-war.
“His passion and energy comes through,” said David Loebsack,
a political science professor at Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, who
attended the forum.
The Heartland forums, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are
a series of nine monthly events aimed at showcasing the presidential hopefuls
in front of Iowa activists. The 90-minute RiverCenter event was aired on
C-SPAN.
For the most part, Dean focused his energy on President Bush, only making
indirect references to his rivals. Even later, when asked to expand on implicit
criticism of their views on the hog-confinement issue, he declined.
However, he reserved no passion in his criticism of the Bush administration,
complaining that he has surrounded himself with “ideologues.”
With the invitation-only audience of activist Democrats, though, Dean’s
red-meat rhetoric was well received. Harry Seelman, an 81-year-old farmer
from Oxford, Iowa, said he is neutral but that Dean is high on his list of
presidential candidates. “He has Democratic values,” he said.
Dean complained that 2.5 million jobs had been lost since the Bush
administration took power. “If we re-elect this president, we’ll
be in a depression,” he said.
The administration, and Republicans, have said that had the tax cut not
been passed, the nation’s recession would have been far worse.
Activists who already had seen Dean were familiar with most of what he
said. He has been to the state about three dozen times. That did not diminish
their enthusiasm, however.
A chanting crowd greeted him at Mac’s Tavern after the forum, where
Dean waded through the crowded tavern, shaking hands and posing for pictures.
Harkin, who said he is neutral in the race thus far, said Dean connected
with the audience and did well in explaining his accomplishments as the governor
of Vermont.
For more information visit:
http://www.qctimes.com
|
( BW)(NY-TVSPY.COM) Presidential Candidate Howard Dean Discusses Using Broadband
With TVSpy.com
Business Editors
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 5, 2003--Vermont
Gov. Howard Dean's presidential campaign is using the latest Internet technology
to reach voters, chronicle his campaign, and organize potential supporters
in an unprecedented manner.
Dean discussed the use of new technology for organizing
and communicating in an interview with TVSpy.com, a service of Vault, Inc.
In May, Dean's campaign launched Howard Dean TV on
the Web utilizing the latest broadband technology. Through his official web
site, voters can watch speeches, Q&As and other video of Dean along the
campaign trial that they would not otherwise be able to see.
"It is serving as direct communication to the voters,"
Dean said. "It bypasses a lot of the media filter that we have. The other
thing it does is enable us to get in touch with people who really passionately
care about the campaign."
TVSpy's full interview with Howard Dean can be found
on TVSpy.com at:
http://www.vault.com/go/to.jsp?place=27856
To read more columns about technology and TV, as
well as the latest industry news, go to TVSpy:
http://www.tvspy.com
This is the first such use of broadband technology
in a Presidential contest. Howard Dean TV is powered by Wavexpress using
TVTonic technology. Users can easily down load DVD-quality video from Dean's
official site at
www.deanforamerica.com.
About TVSpy.com
TVSpy.com, a service of Vault, Inc., is the leading
online destination for television professionals worldwide. TVSpy's mission
is to connect job seekers, professionals, vendors and employers with "insider"
content, community and business services. Its daily newsletter, ShopTalk,
unites all television professionals in a forum unlike any other. "Shop Talk"
was founded in 1983 by the legendary talent scout Don Fitzpatrick, currently
TVSpy's Editor-in-Chief and Chairman.
About Vault, Inc.
Vault, Inc. is the leading media company focused
on careers. Vault is celebrated for its online resource,
www.vault.com, which offers recruiting
services for employers, detailed "insider" information on over 3,000 companies
and 70 industries, as well as the much-praised Electronic WaterCooler(TM),
the Internet's first-ever network of expert-moderated message boards for
professionals. Offline, Vault offers over 80 nationally distributed print
books, a syndicated newspaper column, and a personalized resume review and
career coaching service for job seekers. Vault was founded in 1997 by Hussam
Hamadeh, Samer Hamadeh, and Mark Oldman.
MORE HOWARD DEAN |
|
JOHN EDWARDS
Democratic Candidates Seek Gay Vote
By Associated Press
May 12, 2003
ATLANTA -- During his keynote address at a black-tie dinner here Saturday,
Sen. John Edwards voiced his support for adoptions by gay parents.
The North Carolina senator, one of nine Democrats seeking the party's
presidential nomination, isn't the only one courting gay voters. Former Vermont
Gov. Howard Dean has touted a law he signed allowing civil unions for gays
and lesbians. U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam
veteran, makes has said gays should be allowed to serve in the military.
Bill Clinton made history in 1992 by openly courting gay voters en route
to the White House. Eleven years later, the courting of gay voters is under
way like never before. "In a crowded race or a close race, an energized and
mobilized constituency can make a real difference," said Dave Noble, executive
director of the National Stonewall Democrats, a group that promotes the agenda
of gays within the party.
"Right now, we've got so many different candidates going after the community,
and there's not one candidate the community has settled upon."
Exit polls from the 2000 presidential election showed that 4 percent
of voters were gay and that close to three-quarters of them voted for Democrat
Al Gore. In the 2004 Democratic primaries, their influence could prove pivotal,
activists argue.
Several candidates for next year's race, including Edwards, have hired
staff members to advise them on gay issues. U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of
Missouri has said his daughter, Chrissy, will be an ambassador to gay groups.
She is a lesbian.
"The gay community has become one of the constituencies you have to meet
to be a viable Democrat," said Steve Elmendorf, a top adviser to Gephardt's
campaign.
That was clear during this month's Democratic debate in South Carolina.
The nine candidates each touted their gay-rights credentials and universally
condemned anti-sodomy laws as an invasion of privacy.
Six of the nine candidates have endorsed the idea of civil unions, though
most won't go as far to say they support gay marriage.
Edwards spoke Saturday night in Atlanta at an event held by the Human
Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group. His speech also included
calls for greater workplace protections and stepped-up efforts to find an
AIDS vaccine.
"I was raised to believe in an America that embraces everybody," Edwards
said.
When speaking of adoptions by gay parents, Edwards said, "In a world
where far too many children are neglected or unwanted, we need to encourage
responsible, loving adults to raise children, which is why I support the
rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children."
Edwards did not explicitly address civil unions, though he apparently
was referring to the subject when he said "not everyone of us will agree
on every single issue."
During his 1998 Senate race, Edwards said he was opposed to gay marriage.
Although he does not object to states' recognizing civil unions, he continues
to have reservations about both gay marriage and civil unions, said Jennifer
Palmieri, Edwards' campaign spokeswoman.
"It's an issue he thinks the country -- and North Carolina -- is not
ready for," Palmieri said.
But his efforts to court the gay community could work against him in
North Carolina, particularly if he ends up seeking re-election to the Senate
in 2004.
If Edwards runs for the Senate, "you can sure this will be brought up,"
said Thad Beyle, a political science professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"It gives some ammunition to people. I think it's probably less of a
big deal that it used to be, but there are still people here who are
uncomfortable with this. They see homosexuality as a sin."
In a similar vein, the Democratic presidential nominee risks losing some
support among swing voters in the South, analysts say. But campaign strategists
downplay that potential.
"It's overrated as a general election liability," said Elmendorf, the
Gephardt adviser. "In 1992, Clinton got people past the notion that if you're
pro-gay rights, it will kill you in the South."
Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press
MORE JOHN EDWARDS |
|
GEPHARDT
Democrat Gephardt joins ranks of 2004 US presidential
hopefuls
Sunday, 05-Jan-2003 12:10AM PST Story from AFP / Maxim Kniazkov
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse
WASHINGTON, Jan 4, 2003 (AFP) - The field of Democratic presidential
hopefuls got more crowded Saturday, when Congressman Richard Gephardt of
Missouri announced his intention to run for president in 2004, promising
to lead the country to "a safer, more secure and more prosperous future."
The 61-year-old veteran Democrat from a working-class suburb of St. Louis,
who served as minority leader in the House of Representatives for much of
the last session of Congress, said he will file papers with the Federal Election
Commission Monday to establish a presidential exploratory committee.
"This exploratory effort will mark my intention to seek the Democratic
nomination for president in 2004," said Gephardt, the son of a milk truck
driver who worked his way through law school.
Exploratory committees usually serve as fundraising vehicles for candidates
for US political offices, allowing them to gauge the depth of their public
support before officially throwing themselves into battle.
In making the announcement, Gephardt joins a fast-growing group of other
Democratic presidential hopefuls who have announced the formation of their
exploratory committees in a bid to test the waters ahead of 2004.
It includes Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North
Carolina, Vermont Governor Howard Dean, and the Reverend Al Sharpton, a New
York civil rights leader.
Democratic Senators Bob Graham of Florida and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
have said they are also considering a 2004 run, while outgoing Senate Democratic
Majority Leader Thomas Daschle is seen as yet another likely candidate.
Curiously, according to a recent CNN/Time magazine opinion poll, 30 percent
of Democratic voters -- more than twice as many as for top declared contenders
- give their preference to former first lady Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly
denied any presidential ambitions.
"I look forward to challenging President Bush and offering a distinctive
choice and different direction for our domestic, economic and national security
policies -- a difference that will lead to a safer, more secure and more
prosperous future for all Americans," Gephardt said in the statement.
He argued that on nearly every issue -- from national security to the
economy to health care -- President George W. Bush was leading the country
either down the wrong path or not leading at all.
"Too many unmet promises and too much empty rhetoric has left us a nation
unsure of our own economic security and still vulnerable here at home to
the threats we faced over a year ago on September 11th," Gephardt said.
He said he would offer "a bold set of new prescriptions" to address the
problems, but provided no specifics.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan declined to comment on Gephardt's
announcement, but strongly denied the president's agenda was faltering or
stalled.
"The president is focused on uniting the American people behind the goals
of winning the war on terrorism and protecting our homeland as well as ensuring
our economic security," Buchan told AFP. "And we are making tremendous progress
on all of those goals."
Gephardt made his first attempt to run for president in 1988, but was
defeated in the primaries by then-Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.
His congressional career, marked by pragmatic compromises and calculated
turnarounds, spans more than 26 years.
Closely tied to organized labor, Gephardt has often displeased his Democratic
colleagues by taking a largely protectionist stance of foreign trade and
supporting tax cuts.
He led the Democratic opposition to US participation in the 1991 Gulf
War, but played a key role last year in securing passage of a resolution
sanctioning use of force against Iraq to ensure its disarmament.
Gephardt served as the leader in the House Democrats since 1989 until
November, when he gave up the leadership post following Democratic electoral
setbacks in both the House and Senate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6-1-2003
Gephardt touts plan for health care
Presidential hopeful says businesses and economy would gain
by Beth Fount
The Associated Press
San Francisco - Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt brought
his health care reform plan to Northern California on friday, casting his
efforts to offer broadbased health coverage as a way to boost the sagging
economy and bring relief to employers struggling with the rising cost of
providing insurance to workers.
"My plan would stimulate the economy to a far greater degree than the
Bush tax and economic plans," said Gephardt, appearing with House Democratic
Leader Nancy Pelosi at the Pacific Stock Exchange. "It solves a major social
problem we have in this country, and it stimulates the economy n a much more
forthright and effective way."
The centerpiece of Gephardt's plan is a refundable tax credit worth 60
percent of an employer's share of health care costs. Currently, employers
can get tax deductions covering about 30 percent of health care costs.
State and local governments would be eligible for the credit as well,
which Gephardt said would ease the budget crunch. He estimated his plan would
return about 422 billion to the state of California over three years.
The plan, estimated to cost as much as $247 billion per year, would be
financed by repealing tax cuts championed by President Bush.
Gephardt, an ally of organized labor throughout his career used the appearance
to showcase how his plan would aid employers. Three small-business owners,
all picking up some or all of the costs of their employees' health insurance,
praised the plan as a way to help their businesses be more competitive in
the marketplace.
Scott Hauge, who employs 31 people in a small insurance company, said
he would use the savings to extend coverage to his employees' families, which
he currently does not do.
"I think a lot of business owners would do that," he said,"or reinvest
in their business, or maybe give the increases to employees."
Absent from the panel were representatives of major corporations, but
Gephardt said several executives had given his plan positive reviews.
Other candidates in the field have offered health care plans, but none
as ambitious or as costly as Gephardt's. Former Vermont gov. Howard Dean,
who has been working hard to capture some of the most liberal Democratic
Party voters for whom health care is a central issue, dismissed Gephardt's
plan in a recent interview.
"Dick's plan won't pass," he said flatly. "It's too expensive."
Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for the California Republican party, echoed
that view.
"Three days after President Bush provided tax relief to American, Mr.
Gephardt is still declaring he wants to impose a $2 trillion tax increase
upon Americans," he said.
Gephardt so far has resisted those criticisms, continuing to make health
care the centerpiece of his campaign.
"Elections need to be about big choices," he said. "If they're not about
big choices, I don't see how we win."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RICHARD GEPHARDT
Presidential Candidates Woo Iowa Union Members
Seven of Nine Democrats Bash Bush Tax Cut Plan
May 19, 2003
DES MOINES -- More than 900 union members of AFSCME showed up from across
Iowa Saturday to check out the Democratic field for President.
Seven of the nine Democrats who are running appeared in Des Moines at
a forum sponsored by AFSCME, a union representing government employees. Senators
John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were unable to attend, but Kerry participated
by satellite and Lieberman sent a videotaped message.
AFSCME workers said they were looking for the candidate who would best
address their concerns.
"Mostly what everybody wants is better health care and wages," said union
member Jesse Moldrow. They weren't disappointed.
"Not only do we need universal health care, we need to give every American
the right to health care," said Rev. Al Sharpton.
"The plan I have will cover every single person with half the Bush tax
cut," said former governor Howard Dean.
The candidates also ripped President's Bush's tax cuts. "The President's
economic policy is a failure. It's made a mess of this economy," said Congressman
Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
"They, the Republicans and George Bush, they honor wealth. We honor the
work that produces wealth," said North Carolina Senator John Edwards.
Thirty union members from Iowa watched the event and gave the highest
rating to Dennis Kucinich, closely followed by Sharpton,
Carol Mosely-Braun and Gephardt. The rating was taken before Senators
Kerry and Lieberman appeared on video screens.
|
| 6-1-03
Candidate, Pelosi swap praise
The Associate Press
San Francisco - Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt made a campaign stop
Friday with the woman who succeeded him as House Democratic leader, Nancy
Pelosi. In the heart of Pelosi's own congressional district.
Appearing with Pelosi on a panel at the Pacific Stock Exchange, Gephardt
praised her performance in the job he held for 13 years.
"She's an outstanding leader. She performs at a very high level every
day," Gephardt aid. "I know that everyone in this community is very proud
of her service and leadership in the Congress. It is extraordinary on a daily
basis."
For her part, Pelosi said she was happy to be actively campaigning for
Gephardt.
"I know Dick Gephardt is ready to govern," she said, "by dint of his
experience, his judgment, and his knowledge of the entire country. He nows
the policy, he knows the possibilities of government, and he knows the politics.
He can get the job done."
But Pelosi was quick to ad that she could get behind any number of other
Democrats in the field.
"All of our Democratic candidates are excellent and any one of them would
be better for California, and for our country, than the current president,"
she said.
MORE GEPHARDT
|
|
AL GORE
Remarks By Al Gore As Prepared for Delivery Constitution Hall in Washington,
DC.
Sunday 09 November 2003
Thank you, Lisa, for that warm and generous introduction. Thank you Zack,
and thank you all for coming here today
I want to thank the American Constitution Society for co-sponsoring
today’s event, and for their hard work and dedication in defending our
most basic public values.
And I am especially grateful to Moveon.org, not only for co-sponsoring
this event, but also for using 21st Century techniques to breathe new life
into our democracy.
For my part, I’m just a “recovering politician” –
but I truly believe that some of the issues most important to America’s
future are ones that all of us should be dealing with.
And perhaps the most important of these issues is the one I want to talk
about today: the true relationship between Freedom and Security.
So it seems to me that the logical place to start the discussion is with
an accounting of exactly what has happened to civil liberties and security
since the vicious attacks against America of September 11, 2001 – and
it’s important to note at the outset that the Administration and the
Congress have brought about many beneficial and needed improvements to make
law enforcement and intelligence community efforts more effective against
potential terrorists.
But a lot of other changes have taken place that a lot of people don’t
know about and that come as unwelcome surprises. For example, for the first
time in our history, American citizens have been seized by the executive
branch of government and put in prison without being charged with a crime,
without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer,
and without even being able to contact their families.
President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American
citizen he believes is an “enemy combatant.” Those are the magic
words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe
someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado
for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine
whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.
Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information
by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it’s
almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence – because he
can’t talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn’t
even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing.
So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we
used to think of in an old-fashioned way as “inalienable” can now
be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful
review by any other branch of government.
How do we feel about that? Is that OK?
Here’s another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants
to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go
to on the internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive
email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you –
and they don’t even have to show probable cause that you’ve done
anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what
they’re doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few
safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.
Everybody fine with that?
If so, what about this next change?
For America’s first 212 years, it used to be that if the police
wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent
judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they
had to go bang on your door and yell, “Open up!” Then, if you
didn’t quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they
seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken.
That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could
go and get your stuff back.
But that’s all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents
were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to “sneak
and peak” in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home
with no warning – whether you are there or not – and they can wait
for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn’t have to
have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety
crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a
traditional warrant -- simply by saying that searching your house might have
some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of
a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that
more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.
Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went
even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to
authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant
from any court.
What about the right to consult a lawyer if you’re arrested? Is
that important?
Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret
monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing
procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the
rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody
has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between
them and their lawyers.
Does it matter if the government listens in on everything you say to
your lawyer? Is that Ok?
Or, to take another change -- and thanks to the librarians, more people
know about this one -- the FBI now has the right to go into any library and
ask for the records of everybody who has used the library and get a list
of who is reading what. Similarly, the FBI can demand all the records of
banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies, and many more
kinds of companies. And these changes are only the beginning. Just last week,
Attorney General Ashcroft issued brand new guidelines permitting FBI agents
to run credit checks and background checks and gather other information about
anyone who is “of investigatory interest,” - meaning anyone the
agent thinks is suspicious - without any evidence of criminal behavior.
So, is that fine with everyone?
Listen to the way Israel’s highest court dealt with a similar question
when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats
to the security of its people:
“This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable
to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it.
Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back,
it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition
of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its
understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its
strength.”
I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption
that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe
from terrorists.
Because it is simply not true.
In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on
our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch
an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.
In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.
In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary
danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges
that would actually help to protect the country.
In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and
misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations
that are not worthy of American Democracy.
In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political
gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually
weakening not strengthening America.
In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order
to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.
Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of
our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed
to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people -- while the private
information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from
government intrusion.
But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret
even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about
American citizens. Under the rubric of protecting national security, they
have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep
it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information
that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.
They are even arrogantly refusing to provide information about 9/11 that
is in their possession to the 9/11 Commission – the lawful investigative
body charged with examining not only the performance of the Bush Administration,
but also the actions of the prior Administration in which I served. The whole
point is to learn all we can about preventing future terrorist attacks,
Two days ago, the Commission was forced to issue a subpoena to the Pentagon,
which has – disgracefully – put Secretary Rumsfeld’s desire
to avoid embarrassment ahead of the nation’s need to learn how we can
best avoid future terrorist attacks. The Commission also served notice that
it will issue a subpoena to the White House if the President continues to
withhold information essential to the investigation.
And the White House is also refusing to respond to repeated bipartisan
Congressional requests for information about 9/11 – even though the
Congress is simply exercising its Constitutional oversight authority. In
the words of Senator McCain, “Excessive administration secrecy on issues
related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces
the public’s confidence in government.”
In a revealing move, just three days ago, the White House asked the Republican
leadership of the Senate to shut down the Intelligence Committee’s
investigation of 9/11 based on a trivial political dispute. Apparently the
President is anxious to keep the Congress from seeing what are said to have
been clear, strong and explicit warnings directly to him a few weeks before
9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and use
them to attack us.
Astonishingly, the Republican Senate leadership quickly complied with
the President’s request. Such obedience and complicity in what looks
like a cover-up from the majority party in a separate and supposedly co-equal
branch of government makes it seem like a very long time ago when a Republican
Attorney General and his deputy resigned rather than comply with an order
to fire the special prosecutor investigating Richard Nixon.
In an even more brazen move, more than two years after they rounded up
over 1,200 individuals of Arab descent, they still refuse to release the
names of the individuals they detained, even though virtually every one of
those arrested has been "cleared" by the FBI of any connection to terrorism
and there is absolutely no national security justification for keeping the
names secret. Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked
the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the
law, in an effort to get at her husband, who had angered them by disclosing
that the President had relied on forged evidence in his state of the union
address as part of his effort to convince the country that Saddam Hussein
was on the verge of building nuclear weapons.
And even as they claim the right to see the private bank records of every
American, they are adopting a new policy on the Freedom of Information Act
that actively encourages federal agencies to fully consider all potential
reasons for non-disclosure regardless of whether the disclosure would be
harmful. In other words, the federal government will now actively resist
complying with ANY request for information.
Moreover, they have established a new exemption that enables them to
refuse the release to the press and the public of important health, safety
and environmental information submitted to the government by businesses –
merely by calling it “critical infrastructure.”
By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling
a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. Because so long
as the government’s actions are secret, they cannot be held accountable.
A government for the people and by the people must be transparent to the
people.
The administration is justifying the collection of all this information
by saying in effect that it will make us safer to have it. But it is not
the kind of information that would have been of much help in preventing 9/11.
However, there was in fact a great deal of specific information that WAS
available prior to 9/11 that probably could have been used to prevent the
tragedy. A recent analysis by the Merkle foundation, (working with data from
a software company that received venture capital from a CIA-sponsored firm)
demonstrates this point in a startling way:
“In late August 2001, Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar bought tickets
to fly on American Airlines Flight 77 (which was flown into the Pentagon).
They bought the tickets using their real names. Both names were then on a
State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the
FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists, in part because they had been observed
at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia.
These two passenger names would have been exact matches when checked against
the TIPOFF list. But that would only have been the first step. Further data
checks could then have begun.
Checking for common addresses (address information is widely available,
including on the internet), analysts would have discovered that Salem Al-Hazmi
(who also bought a seat on American 77) used the same address as Nawaq Alhazmi.
More importantly, they could have discovered that Mohamed Atta (American
11, North Tower of the World Trade Center) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (United 175,
South Tower of the World Trade Center) used the same address as Khalid Al-Midhar.
Checking for identical frequent flier numbers, analysts would have discovered
that Majed Moqed (American 77) used the same number as Al-Midhar.
With Mohamed Atta now also identified as a possible associate of the wanted
terrorist, Al-Midhar, analysts could have added Atta’s phone numbers
(also publicly available information) to their checklist. By doing so they
would have identified five other hijackers (Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri,
Wail Alsheri, and Abdulaziz Alomari).
Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more
innocuous INS watch list (for expired visas) would have identified Ahmed
Alghandi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could
have led to identifying the remaining hijackers, who boarded United 93 (which
crashed in Pennsylvania).”
In addition, Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, the two who were on the terrorist
watch list, rented an apartment in San Diego under their own names and were
listed, again under their own names, in the San Diego phone book while the
FBI was searching for them.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is needed is better and more
timely analysis. Simply piling up more raw data that is almost entirely
irrelevant is not only not going to help. It may actually hurt the cause.
As one FBI agent said privately of Ashcroft: “We’re looking for
a needle in a haystack here and he (Ashcroft) is just piling on more hay.”
In other words, the mass collecting of personal data on hundreds of millions
of people actually makes it more difficult to protect the nation against
terrorists, so they ought to cut most of it out.
And meanwhile, the real story is that while the administration manages
to convey the impression that it is doing everything possible to protect
America, in reality it has seriously neglected most of the measures that
it could have taken to really make our country safer.
For example, there is still no serious strategy for domestic security
that protects critical infrastructure such as electric power lines, gas
pipelines, nuclear facilities, ports, chemical plants and the like.
They’re still not checking incoming cargo carriers for radiation.
They’re still skimping on protection of certain nuclear weapons storage
facilities. They’re still not hardening critical facilities that must
never be soft targets for terrorists. They’re still not investing in
the translators and analysts we need to counter the growing terror threat.
The administration is still not investing in local government training
and infrastructures where they could make the biggest difference. The first
responder community is still being shortchanged. In many cases, fire and
police still don’t have the communications equipment to talk to each
other. The CDC and local hospitals are still nowhere close to being ready
for a biological weapons attack.
The administration has still failed to address the fundamental
disorganization and rivalries of our law enforcement, intelligence and
investigative agencies. In particular, the critical FBI-CIA coordination,
while finally improved at the top, still remains dysfunctional in the trenches.
The constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression
that these violations are necessary in order to take every precaution against
another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority
of the violations have not benefited our security at all; to the contrary,
they hurt our security.
And the treatment of immigrants was probably the worst example. This mass
mistreatment actually hurt our security in a number of important ways.
But first, let’s be clear about what happened: this was little more
than a cheap and cruel political stunt by John Ashcroft. More than 99% of
the mostly Arab-background men who were rounded up had merely overstayed
their visas or committed some other minor offense as they tried to pursue
the American dream just like most immigrants. But they were used as extras
in the Administration’s effort to give the impression that they had
caught a large number of bad guys. And many of them were treated horribly
and abusively.
Consider this example reported in depth by Anthony Lewis:
“Anser Mehmood, a Pakistani who had overstayed his visa, was arrested
in New York on October 3, 2001. The next day he was briefly questioned by
FBI agents, who said they had no further interest in him. Then he was shackled
in handcuffs, leg irons, and a belly chain and taken to the Metropolitan
Detention Center in Brooklyn. Guards there put two more sets of handcuffs
on him and another set of leg irons. One threw Mehmood against a wall. The
guards forced him to run down a long ramp, the irons cutting into his wrists
and ankles. The physical abuse was mixed with verbal taunts.
“After two weeks Mehmood was allowed to make a telephone call to
his wife. She was not at home and Mehmood was told that he would have to
wait six weeks to try again. He first saw her, on a visit, three months after
his arrest. All that time he was kept in a windowless cell, in solitary
confinement, with two overhead fluorescent lights on all the time. In the
end he was charged with using an invalid Social Security card. He was deported
in May 2002, nearly eight months after his arrest.
The faith tradition I share with Ashcroft includes this teaching from
Jesus: “whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.”
And make no mistake: the disgraceful treatment suffered by many of these
vulnerable immigrants at the hands of the administration has created deep
resentments and hurt the cooperation desperately needed from immigrant
communities in the U.S. and from the Security Services of other countries.
Second, these gross violations of their rights have seriously damaged
U.S. moral authority and goodwill around the world, and delegitimized U.S.
efforts to continue promoting Human Rights around the world. As one analyst
put it, “We used to set the standard; now we have lowered the bar.”
And our moral authority is, after all, our greatest source of enduring strength
in the world.
And the handling of prisoners at Guantanomo has been particularly harmful
to America’s image. Even England and Australia have criticized our departure
from international law and the Geneva Convention. Sec. Rumsfeld’s handling
of the captives there has been about as thoughtful as his “postwar”
plan for Iraq.
So the mass violations of civil liberties have hurt rather than helped.
But there is yet another reason for urgency in stopping what this administration
is doing. Where Civil Liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther
down the road toward an intrusive, “Big Brother”-style government
-- toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book “1984”
-- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America.
And they have done it primarily by heightening and exploiting public
anxieties and apprehensions. Rather than leading with a call to courage,
this Administration has chosen to lead us by inciting fear.
Almost eighty years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote “Those who
won our independence by revolution were not cowards. . . . They did not exalt
order at the cost of liberty.” Those who won our independence, Brandeis
asserted, understood that “courage [is] the secret of liberty”
and "fear [only] breeds repression."
Rather than defending our freedoms, this Administration has sought to
abandon them. Rather than accepting our traditions of openness and
accountability, this Administration has opted to rule by secrecy and unquestioned
authority. Instead, its assaults on our core democratic principles have only
left us less free and less secure.
Throughout American history, what we now call Civil Liberties have often
been abused and limited during times of war and perceived threats to security.
The best known instances include the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1800,
the brief suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the extreme abuses
during World War I and the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids immediately
after the war, the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World
War II, and the excesses of the FBI and CIA during the Vietnam War and social
turmoil of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
But in each of these cases, the nation has recovered its equilibrium
when the war ended and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle
of excess and regret.
There are reasons for concern this time around that what we are experiencing
may no longer be the first half of a recurring cycle but rather, the beginning
of something new. For one thing, 2this war is predicted by the administration
to “last for the rest of our lives.” Others have expressed the
view that over time it will begin to resemble the “war” against
drugs – that is, that it will become a more or less permanent struggle
that occupies a significant part of our law enforcement and security agenda
from now on. If that is the case, then when – if ever -- does this
encroachment on our freedoms die a natural death?
It is important to remember that throughout history, the loss of civil
liberties by individuals and the aggregation of too much unchecked power
in the executive go hand in hand. They are two sides of the same coin.
A second reason to worry that what we are witnessing is a discontinuity
and not another turn of the recurring cycle is that the new technologies
of surveillance – long anticipated by novelists like Orwell and other
prophets of the “Police State” -- are now more widespread than
they have ever been.
And they do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between
the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both
subtle and profound.
Moreover, these technologies are being widely used not only by the government
but also by corporations and other private entities. And that is relevant
to an assessment of the new requirements in the Patriot Act for so many
corporations – especially in the finance industries – to prepare
millions of reports annually for the government on suspicious activities
by their customers. It is also relevant to the new flexibility corporations
have been given to share information with one another about their customers.
The third reason for concern is that the threat of more terror strikes
is all too real. And the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by
terrorist groups does create a new practical imperative for the speedy exercise
of discretionary power by the executive branch – just as the emergence
of nuclear weapons and ICBMs created a new practical imperative in the Cold
War that altered the balance of war-making responsibility between Congress
and the President.
But President Bush has stretched this new practical imperative beyond
what is healthy for our democracy. Indeed, one of the ways he has tried to
maximize his power within the American system has been by constantly emphasizing
his role as Commander-in-Chief, far more than any previous President -- assuming
it as often and as visibly as he can, and bringing it into the domestic arena
and conflating it with his other roles: as head of government and head of
state – and especially with his political role as head of the Republican
Party.
Indeed, the most worrisome new factor, in my view, is the aggressive
ideological approach of the current administration, which seems determined
to use fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any
accountability for its use. Just as unilateralism and dominance are the guiding
principles of their disastrous approach to international relations, they
are also the guiding impulses of the administration’s approach to domestic
politics. They are impatient with any constraints on the exercise of power
overseas -- whether from our allies, the UN, or international law. And in
the same way, they are impatient with any obstacles to their use of power
at home – whether from Congress, the Courts, the press, or the rule
of law.
Ashcroft has also authorized FBI agents to attend church meetings, rallies,
political meetings and any other citizen activity open to the public simply
on the agents’ own initiative, reversing a decades old policy that required
justification to supervisors that such infiltrations has a provable connection
to a legitimate investigation;
They have even taken steps that seem to be clearly aimed at stifling
dissent. The Bush Justice Department has recently begun a highly disturbing
criminal prosecution of the environmental group Greenpeace because of a
non-violent direct action protest against what Greenpeace claimed was the
illegal importation of endangered mahogany from the Amazon. Independent legal
experts and historians have said that the prosecution -- under an obscure
and bizarre 1872 law against “sailor-mongering” -- appears to be
aimed at inhibiting Greenpeace’s First Amendment activities.
And at the same time they are breaking new ground by prosecuting Greenpeace,
the Bush Administration announced just a few days ago that it is dropping
the investigations of 50 power plants for violating the Clean Air Act –
a move that Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “basically announced to the power
industry that it can now pollute with impunity.”
The politicization of law enforcement in this administration is part
of their larger agenda to roll back the changes in government policy brought
about by the New Deal and the Progressive Movement. Toward that end, they
are cutting back on Civil Rights enforcement, Women’s Rights, progressive
taxation, the estate tax, access to the courts, Medicare, and much more.
And they approach every issue as a partisan fight to the finish, even in
the areas of national security and terror.
Instead of trying to make the “War on Terrorism” a bipartisan
cause, the Bush White House has consistently tried to exploit it for partisan
advantage. The President goes to war verbally against terrorists in virtually
every campaign speech and fundraising dinner for his political party. It
is his main political theme. Democratic candidates like Max Cleland in Georgia
were labeled unpatriotic for voting differently from the White House on obscure
amendments to the Homeland Security Bill.
When the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay,
was embroiled in an effort to pick up more congressional seats in Texas by
forcing a highly unusual redistricting vote in the state senate, he was able
to track down Democratic legislators who fled the state to prevent a quorum
(and thus prevent the vote) by enlisting the help of President Bush’s
new Department of Homeland Security, as many as 13 employees of the Federal
Aviation Administration who conducted an eight-hour search, and at least
one FBI agent (though several other agents who were asked to help refused
to do so.)
By locating the Democrats quickly with the technology put in place for
tracking terrorists, the Republicans were able to succeed in focusing public
pressure on the weakest of the Senators and forced passage of their new political
redistricting plan. Now, thanks in part to the efforts of three different
federal agencies, Bush and DeLay are celebrating the gain of up to seven
new Republican congressional seats in the next Congress.
The White House timing for its big push for a vote in Congress on going
to war with Iraq also happened to coincide exactly with the start of the
fall election campaign in September a year ago. The President’s chief
of staff said the timing was chosen because “from a marketing point
of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
White House political advisor Karl Rove advised Republican candidates
that their best political strategy was to “run on the war”. And
as soon as the troops began to mobilize, the Republican National Committee
distributed yard signs throughout America saying, “I support President
Bush and the troops” -- as if they were one and the same.
This persistent effort to politicize the war in Iraq and the war against
terrorism for partisan advantage is obviously harmful to the prospects for
bipartisan support of the nation’s security policies. By sharp contrast,
consider the different approach that was taken by Prime Minister Winston
Churchill during the terrible days of October 1943 when in the midst of World
War II, he faced a controversy with the potential to divide his bipartisan
coalition. He said, “What holds us together is the prosecution of the
war. No…man has been asked to give up his convictions. That would be
indecent and improper. We are held together by something outside, which rivets
our attention. The principle that we work on is, ‘Everything for the
war, whether controversial or not, and nothing controversial that is not
bona fide for the war.’ That is our position. We must also be careful
that a pretext is not made of war needs to introduce far-reaching social
or political changes by a side wind.”
Yet that is exactly what the Bush Administration is attempting to do
– to use the war against terrorism for partisan advantage and to introduce
far reaching controversial changes in social policy by a “side wind,”
in an effort to consolidate its political power.
It is an approach that is deeply antithetical to the American spirit.
Respect for our President is important. But so is respect for our people.
Our founders knew – and our history has proven – that freedom is
best guaranteed by a separation of powers into co-equal branches of government
within a system of checks and balances -- to prevent the unhealthy concentration
of too much power in the hands of any one person or group.
Our framers were also keenly aware that the history of the world proves
that Republics are fragile. The very hour of America’s birth in
Philadelphia, when Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have we got? A
Republic or a Monarchy?” he cautiously replied, “A Republic, if
you can keep it.”
And even in the midst of our greatest testing, Lincoln knew that our
fate was tied to the larger question of whether ANY nation so conceived could
long endure.
This Administration simply does not seem to agree that the challenge of
preserving democratic freedom cannot be met by surrendering core American
values. Incredibly, this Administration has attempted to compromise the most
precious rights that America has stood for all over the world for more than
200 years: due process, equal treatment under the law, the dignity of the
individual, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from
promiscuous government surveillance. And in the name of security, this
Administration has attempted to relegate the Congress and the Courts to the
sidelines and replace our democratic system of checks and balances with an
unaccountable Executive. And all the while, it has constantly angled for
new ways to exploit the sense of crisis for partisan gain and political
dominance. How dare they!
Years ago, during World War II, one of our most eloquent Supreme Court
Justices, Robert Jackson, wrote that the President should be given the
“widest latitude” in wartime, but he warned against the “loose
and irresponsible invocation of war as an excuse for discharging the Executive
Branch from the rules of law that govern our Republic in times of peace.
No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government,” Jackson
said, “of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers
by law through assuming his military role. Our government has ample authority
under the Constitution to take those steps which are genuinely necessary
for our security. At the same time, our system demands that government act
only on the basis of measures that have been the subject of open and thoughtful
debate in Congress and among the American people, and that invasions of the
liberty or equal dignity of any individual are subject to review by courts
which are open to those affected and independent of the government which
is curtailing their freedom.”
So what should be done? Well, to begin with, our country ought to find
a way to immediately stop its policy of indefinitely detaining American citizens
without charges and without a judicial determination that their detention
is proper.
Such a course of conduct is incompatible with American traditions and
values, with sacred principles of due process of law and separation of powers.
It is no accident that our Constitution requires in criminal prosecutions
a “speedy and public trial.” The principles of liberty and the
accountability of government, at the heart of what makes America unique,
require no less. The Bush Administration’s treatment of American citizens
it calls “enemy combatants” is nothing short of un-American.
Second, foreign citizens held in Guantanamo should be given hearings
to determine their status provided for under Article V of the Geneva Convention,
a hearing that the United States has given those captured in every war until
this one, including Vietnam and the Gulf War.
If we don’t provide this, how can we expect American soldiers captured
overseas to be treated with equal respect? We owe this to our sons and daughters
who fight to defend freedom in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the
world.
Third, the President should seek congressional authorization for the
military commissions he says he intends to use instead of civilian courts
to try some of those who are charged with violating the laws of war. Military
commissions are exceptional in American law and they present unique dangers.
The prosecutor and the judge both work for the same man, the President of
the United States. Such commissions may be appropriate in time of war, but
they must be authorized by Congress, as they were in World War II, and Congress
must delineate the scope of their authority. Review of their decisions must
be available in a civilian court, at least the Supreme Court, as it was in
World War II.
Next, our nation’s greatness is measured by how we treat those who
are the most vulnerable. Noncitizens who the government seeks to detain should
be entitled to some basic rights. The administration must stop abusing the
material witness statute. That statute was designed to hold witnesses briefly
before they are called to testify before a grand jury. It has been misused
by this administration as a pretext for indefinite detention without charge.
That is simply not right.
Finally, I have studied the Patriot Act and have found that along with
its many excesses, it contains a few needed changes in the law. And it is
certainly true that many of the worst abuses of due process and civil liberties
that are now occurring are taking place under the color of laws and executive
orders other than the Patriot Act.
Nevertheless, I believe the Patriot Act has turned out to be, on balance,
a terrible mistake, and that it became a kind of Tonkin Gulf Resolution
conferring Congress’ blessing for this President’s assault on civil
liberties. Therefore, I believe strongly that the few good features of this
law should be passed again in a new, smaller law – but that the Patriot
Act must be repealed.
As John Adams wrote in 1780, ours is a government of laws and not of
men. What is at stake today is that defining principle of our nation, and
thus the very nature of America. As the Supreme Court has written, “Our
Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans
to us and then to future generations.” The Constitution includes
no wartime exception, though its Framers knew well the reality of war. And,
as Justice Holmes reminded us shortly after World War I, the Constitution’s
principles only have value if we apply them in the difficult times as well
as those where it matters less.
The question before us could be of no greater moment: will we continue
to live as a people under the rule of law as embodied in our Constitution?
Or will we fail future generations, by leaving them a Constitution far diminished
from the charter of liberty we have inherited from our forebears? Our choice
is clear.
MORE |
|
BOB GRAHAM
May. 19, 2003
Bob Graham faces next challenge
Can 'centrist' win vote in primaries?
BY TYLER BRIDGES
tbridges@herald.com
Sen. Bob Graham suffered a political setback last week when he found
himself in the unlikely position of having to defend his commitment to restoring
the Everglades.
But after the furor died down, a potentially more troubling question
remained for his presidential campaign: Is Graham politically adept enough
to make the transition from Senate insider to presidential candidate, especially
given that Democratic primary voters tend to be left of the political
center?
Graham has become Florida's most popular politician with a deliberate
and conciliatory approach that allows others to take the lead on controversial
issues.
''He is a work-it-out kind of politician,'' said Charlie Reed, who served
as his chief of staff when Graham was governor and now heads California's
state university system. ``He seeks a win-win for everyone in almost all
cases. That's the way he thinks, and it is what has kept him from getting
in trouble.''
Graham has said he will take the same approach running for president
that he did winning statewide office five times in Florida.
In recent campaign stops, he has pitched himself as a ''centrist'' candidate
who represents ``the electable wing of the Democratic Party.''
Graham has called for a tax cut that favors low- and middle-income workers
that is in line with plans proposed by the other candidates, and his proposal
to expand healthcare to the uninsured would do so through a series of steps
that he believes has a better chance of getting through Congress than the
far-reaching plan of Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
''I believe that you don't set policy from the end zone,'' he said earlier
this month in South Carolina. ``You set policy from the 50-yard line and
build out until you have a majority.''
But with that kind of compromise approach, Graham runs the danger of
being another failed presidential candidate from the Senate. Since 1984,
10 senators have run for president, and 10 have lost, among them Bob Dole
of Kansas, who lost to President Clinton in 1996.
''Senators get what is referred to as Bob Dole disease,'' said Neil Newhouse,
a prominent Republican pollster. ``They want to compromise on issues and
meet halfway. Governors and presidents don't do that. They draw a line in
the sand and challenge legislators and voters to cross that line.
``The skills that make someone a good U.S. senator are not the skills
that make someone a good presidential candidate.''
A FORMER GOVERNOR
There is a more successful type of candidate, as Graham likes to point
out on the campaign trail: Four out of the last five men elected president
had been governors. Graham makes that point in noting that he was Florida's
governor from 1979 until 1987, when he became a senator.
Indeed, Graham has drawn the proverbial line in the sand when it comes
to the Middle East.
Among the six major Democratic presidential candidates, he has been the
sharpest critic of President Bush's policy for Iraq and its neighbors.
He was the only senator running for president who voted last year against
the measure authorizing the attack.
He did so, he has said, because he believes that the U.S. government
should focus on crippling the activities of terrorists in other countries
who he said present a greater threat to Americans than Iraq.
Graham also won attention a week ago for saying on CBS' Face the Nation
that the Bush administration is refusing to release a post-Sept. 11 congressional
report to cover up information that would embarrass the president.
EVERGLADES ISSUE
But in the meantime, he was outmaneuvered on an issue that he has identified
as one of his legacies: protecting the Everglades.
It became an issue after the Florida Legislature approved a measure that
would delay the Everglades restoration effort, with critics saying lawmakers
acted at the behest of Big Sugar.
In an April 17 letter to the governor, Graham and Sen. Bill Nelson of
Florida asked him to create a forum ``for all stakeholders to meet and present
issues, determine the best scientific evaluations, discuss solutions and
make recommendations to the appropriate decision makers.''
In a May 13 letter to President Bush, Graham asked him to ensure that
the U.S. House of Representatives will fully fund the restoration effort.
On Thursday, a Herald story quoted several environmental leaders criticizing
Graham for not going further and suggesting he had not done so because he
doesn't want to offend Big Sugar, a past campaign donor of Graham's, given
his need to raise cash for his presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, two of Graham's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination
-- Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean -- have won points
with environmentalists by calling on Gov. Bush to veto the measure.
Even some leading Republicans -- particularly Rep. Clay Shaw and Rep.
C.W. ''Bill'' Young -- have asked the governor to veto the Everglades
measure.
Bud Shorstein, formerly Graham's Senate chief of staff, defended his
ex-boss afterward, saying he has taken the lead on cleaning up the River
of Grass both when he was governor and as a senator. Shorstein even noted
that Graham was raised on a farm that abutted the Everglades.
DELIBERATE APPROACH
''He might have been thinking as a U.S. senator, not as a candidate for
president,'' Shorstein said.
``He approaches things very intellectually. He likes to hear all arguments
on an issue.
``Is that caution? I'd say it's deliberate.''
But many campaign pros question whether that approach will work in the
Democratic primaries.
''In Florida and in the Senate, he's never fought for credit. That's
delightful,'' said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia professor and author
of campaign books. ``But if you're to run for president and distinguish yourself
from others, you have to be quick to grab for credit.''
There are nine Democratic presidential candidates. No one has broken
from the rest of the pack.
MUST MOVE ACTIVISTS
Graham ''has been aggressive on issues that would be helpful in challenging
Bush in a general election,'' Sabato added, referring to Graham's criticism
of the president's Middle East policies. ``But there's one problem: He's
an also-ran for the Democratic nomination. He needs to focus almost entirely
on issues that move Democratic activists, to get them committed to Bob Graham.
He can't use the national security card unless he gets into the general
election.''
Graham believes that Democrats are desperate to defeat Bush and will
choose a former governor, a Southerner -- he notes that the last three Democratic
presidents came from Texas, Georgia and Arkansas -- and someone with strong
foreign policy credentials.
Besides his views on the Middle East, Graham believes he will distinguish
himself from the other candidates through his ''workdays,'' where he performs
someone else's job for a day.
Graham's workdays, which he has now carried out in a high school in New
Hampshire and a diner in Iowa, have won raves from local residents.
May 18. 2003
Tough talk, trade choices ahead for candidates
BY CORY REISS
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The spin room at the University of South Carolina was buzzing
after the nine Democratic presidential candidates squared off in their first
debate on May 3.
Surrounded by reporters, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida took his time to
mull a question that could be important for him. Asked if his pro-trade record
would hurt him in South Carolina, the site of the first primary in the South
and the third in the nation, he hesitated for several seconds.
"I don't think so," he said, after the pause.
On stage during the debate, he had defended free trade as good for America.
But Graham knew many South Carolina voters would think of their devastated
textile industry and disagree.
Graham's uncertainty about how his trade position will play underscores
a challenge for pro-trade Democratic candidates. Jobs will be a dominant
issue and labor unions are expected to weigh in heavily as candidates campaign
during an economic downturn.
Trade questions will be asked more often as the nation turns its attention
to a fight brewing in Miami this November. Leaders from 34 nations
will meet there to hammer out the biggest free trade deal yet, the
hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, which is supposed
to be all but complete by the time presidential votes are cast in 2004.
The trade bloc would eclipse the North American Free Trade Agreement
with Mexico and Canada, which remains a sore subject 10 years after
implementation.
By November, primary campaigns will be in high gear. Labor, environmental
and anti-globalization groups are readying for a showdown that analysts say
will put a spotlight on trade.
Several candidates who are critical of trade agreements have already
raised the issue in early primary states.
Florida is a port state where tens of thousands of jobs depend on trade.
But agricultural concerns run high. A coalition of Florida citrus groups
has signed a $7 million lobbying and public relations contract with the
prestigious law firm Akin Gump to win tariff protections in the FTAA deal,
and the sugar industry warns of domestic forfeitures if South American sugar
is allowed to flow freely to the United States.
Most voters don't know where their orange juice comes from, whether their
T-shirts were made in Mexico, or if the steel in their office buildings came
from China - or why. But they do know that jobs are scarce.
Last month, the trade deficit hit $43.5 billion, the second largest imbalance
on record, behind the $44.9 billion trade imbalance in December.
"I think it will be a significant issue as part of the overall discussion
of the future of the American economy," Graham said in an interview last
week. "I believe our nation is benefited by global trade."
"My position is that trade should not be a law of the jungle," said Graham,
who has been an architect for several compromise trade agreements, including
pacts with Caribbean and some South American countries. "There should be
rules that everyone can abide by, and those issues should include labor
standards, human rights standards and environmental standards."
Among Democratic presidential contenders, Graham shares that view with
Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also
favor trade but argue they would be tougher negotiators than President George
W. Bush or former President Bill Clinton.
Rep. Richard Gephardt and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean want to renegotiate
NAFTA and other pacts. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio argues NAFTA should be
broken completely and the World Trade Organization dismantled.
Sen. John Edwards' voting record straddles both sides of the argument.
Last year, with support from Graham, Kerry and Lieberman, Congress gave
the president trade promotion authority that bars lawmakers from the negotiating
process and only allows them to vote for or against trade deals. Gephardt
and Kucinich voted against it.
Edwards, of North Carolina, initially voted for a version of the bill
that included protections for the textile industry and extended benefits
for workers displaced by trade, but he voted against the final version because
it didn't include those provisions.
"It's in Americans' interest to sell as much as we can abroad," said
Ed Turlington, a strategist for Edwards. "The question is, how do you have
agreements and how do you enforce them in a way that is good for America?"
AFL-CIO officials say the candidates' records on this issue will be key.
Gephardt, a longtime opponent of free trade deals, is leading with unions.
"Trade is going to be a part of the economic debate. There's no doubt
about it," said Michael Wessel, a former aide to Gephardt and trade policy
expert.
The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal pro-labor think tank, estimates
that trade cost 3 million more U.S. jobs than it created from 1994 to 2000.
Since 2000, the manufacturing sector lost 2 million jobs and some critics
say trade agreements helped encourage the drop. Conservatives, who favor
free trade as an economic necessity and a diplomatic tool, argue trade is
a scapegoat.
"There always will be the easy connection politically between someone's
economic woes and a trade agreement," said Michael Franc, vice president
of government affairs for the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Graham faces a challenge at home.
He said protecting a specific product isn't feasible, as citrus growers
demand for orange juice. Graham said he supports a broader mechanism to prevent
one country from gaining a world monopoly on any product, which citrus groups
argue would happen if tariffs on Brazilian juice are lowered. That safeguard,
however, isn't on the table yet in the FTAA negotiations, which are supposed
to be complete by 2005 and could be rejected or accepted by the winner of
the 2004 presidential election.
Milan Dluhy, chairman of the political science department at the University
of North Carolina at Wilmington, said the candidates have just begun to grapple
with the complex and often volatile trade debate.
"It's kind of a sleeper issue for the Democrats," he said.
|
| Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Thu Jul 17, 7:51 PM ET
By John Milne
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob
Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he
was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president
lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (news - web sites) it would
be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s
lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious
charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in
New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used
against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
Democrats and some Republicans have raised questions about the
unsubstantiated claim Bush made in his January State of the Union speech
that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa in its pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction.
Graham's comments came as reporters followed up on his remarks earlier
this week that any deception by Bush over Iraq might rise to the standard
of an impeachable offense -- as defined by the Republican-controlled House
of Representatives when it voted to impeach Clinton.
Clinton was ultimately cleared by the U.S. Senate after being impeached
by the House.
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying
he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely
academic one, adding that if Bush had misled the American public he would
pay the price for it in the 2004 presidential election.
In Washington on Thursday, Bush told a news conference that the speech
reference was based on "sound intelligence" and he was certain that Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.
"We won't be proven wrong," he said with British Prime Minister Tony
Blair (news - web sites) at his side.
The flap over Iraq upstaged Graham's economic proposals. He said his
plan would balance the federal budget within five years while providing
middle-class tax relief and creating 3 million new jobs.
His plan would repeal most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It would reinstate
a 38.6 percent tax bracket for wealthy individuals and create a new "millionaires
tax bracket" at 40 percent. Graham also proposed cracking down on individuals
and companies who transfer assets offshore or renounce U.S. citizenship to
escape taxation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Graham withdrew from the Presidential race, on October 6, 10-03-03,
stating that he knows he can't win, hasn't been able to get around to pick
up funds for the face, and that he had surgery for a health problem. He also
stated that he would not be supporting any one particular other candidate
at this time.
|
|
KERRY NEWS
KERRY MADE HIS BONES IN SECRET CLUB - LIKE BUSH
By Andrew Miga
Boston Herald
Thursday, May 15, 2003
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/national/bone05152003.htm
WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry expounds on many issues in his presidential
campaign, but he's completely silent on one topic: his membership in Skull
and Bones, Yale's infamous secret society.
"John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry," said
Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander.
Kerry is a respected senator and a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran,
but 36 years after he was initiated into what has been called the "ultimate
old boy network," he's wary of breaking the ultra-exclusive club's strict
secrecy code.
There's also another high-profile member of the club: President Bush.
Bonesmen already are buzzing over the prospect of the first Bones vs.
Bones presidential race should Kerry win his party's nomination and face
Bush in 2004.
"Bones don't care who wins," said author Alexandra Robbins, whose book
"Secrets of the Tomb" pierced the secrecy shrouding the 171-year-old society.
"If Kerry wins, it's still a Bones presidency."
Robbins calls the group "probably the most secretive and successful club
in America," and adds, "It's also pretty bizarre."
Every year, 15 Yale juniors are tapped for the club, which holds meetings
twice a week in a crypt-like building known as the "Tomb."
Robbins described the interior, replete with skulls and skeletons, as
a cross between the "Addams Family" and a slightly shabby English men's
club.
There are bizarre initiation rites, including a ceremony where new members
must spend an evening before a roaring fire in the Tomb recounting details
of their sexual history to fellow members.
Kerry was tapped for the club in 1968, two years after Bush, whose father
and grandfather were also Bonesmen. Kerry's brother-in-law from his first
marriage, David Thorne, was Bones. So was the late husband of Kerry's current
wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. The Bones alumni roster is flush with CIA officials,
business moguls, congressmen and Supreme Court justices. The club owns a
secluded 40-acre island retreat on the St. Lawrence River.
In 1986, Kerry allegedly tried to recruit Jacob Weisberg, then a college-age
intern at "The New Republic" magazine.
Weisberg, now Slate magazine editor, said Kerry made his pitch during
a private meeting in his Senate office. Weisberg declined, pointedly asking
Kerry how he squared his liberalism with membership in such an elitist club
that refused to admit women. "Kerry got sort of flustered and said, 'I've
marched with battered women,'" Weisberg told the Herald.
Five years later, Kerry was among those voting to force the club to admit
women after a bitter court fight.
|
Profile: Sen. John Kerry
By MURIEL DOBBIN
McClatchy Newspapers
May 19, 2003
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Sen. John Kerry contends his record as the only Democratic
presidential candidate who has fought in a war strengthens his position as
a challenger of President Bush next year in an election in which national
security and the economy will be major issues.
Still hoarse from a hectic weekend in South Carolina, where his reverberating
rhetoric at a political fish fry almost cost him his voice at the first debate
between the nine Democratic hopefuls, Kerry cast himself as a leader who
could keep America safe in a world threatened by terrorism.
"I can stand toe to toe with George W. Bush to talk about ways to keep
this country safe and to rebuild the economy," Kerry said in an interview.
He accused the president of failing to keep his word to provide financial
support for first responders who have the task of fighting the war on terrorism
at home, as well as sending the nation's economy into a tailspin of
unemployment.
Asserting that the first domestic terrorist assault on America on Sept.
11, 2001, had already demonstrated a lasting impact on the life of the nation,
Kerry reported lingering uneasiness among voters around the country, especially
about homeland security and the economy.
"People are worried about their children and their future, about health
costs and education, about decimated retirement, about lost jobs, about personal
safety," he said. "There is anxiety out there. That is why I think Bush can
be beaten."
There is a Kennedyesque flair to the senator who stands a head taller
than his Democratic competitors and looks like the well-tailored Boston Brahmin
he is.
Like Bush, Kerry is a child of privilege, scion of a wealthy family, now
the husband of Theresa Heinz Kerry, heir to her late husband's $600 million
ketchup fortune. Kerry has not ruled out tapping into family money in the
2004 campaign, in which Bush is expected to raise and spend $200 million.
Unlike Bush, who joined the National Guard, Kerry chose to volunteer to
serve in the Vietnam War. Although highly decorated after serving on a Navy
gunboat in the Mekong Delta, Kerry returned disillusioned by American policy.
He frequently evokes the memory of that dramatic era with a George Bernard
Shaw quotation favored by the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "Some men see
things as they are and ask why; I dream things that never were and ask why
not."
Kerry tells audiences those words were "seared into my memory," because
he associated them with hearing the news of Kenney's assassination while
sailing back to the United States from Vietnam.
"I believe it is again time for this country to ask why not," said the
senator who became an anti-war activist and environmental leader on his return
from Southeast Asia.
A three-term senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
for 18 years, Kerry voted in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing
the war in Iraq. But he was sharply critical of Bush's diplomatic style,
blaming it for the alienation of American allies in preparation for war with
Iraq and charging the administration with "blustering unilateralism."
Political pundits rank Kerry in the top three of the current Democratic
field, although Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire survey
center, said that at this early stage it was a question of how many people
had heard of the candidates, let alone having an opinion about them.
The Massachusetts senator has been criticized for being aloof, a charge
that evoked a wry reaction during the Democrats' South Carolina debate, when
he reflected, "Probably I ought to just disappear and contemplate that by
myself."
Kerry will announce a health care plan later this month that he said would
provide more options, some of them along the lines of the federal medical
care system.
"The president and members of Congress should offer the American people
the care they get themselves," he said.
Kerry has proposed reviving economic growth through a payroll tax holiday,
the extension of unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage and expanding
the earned income tax credit for low-income family. Kerry charged that the
president's proposed tax cut, which stirred controversy even among Republicans,
boiled down to "let's have a tax cut, no matter what."
MORE KERRY NEWS |
|
DENNIS KUCINICH
Come hear DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH
of Ohio, who happens to be VEGAN!!!! He authored the new DEPT. of PEACE in
Congress, and has been leading the anti-war movement on the hill. We even
interviewed him for the MAD COWBOY documentary!
http://kucinich.us
(please go to his site to read past speechs, his stand on issues, and
to sign up for email notices.)
“Yes, I am a candidate for peace. I am a candidate for economic
justice. I am a candidate for choice. I am a candidate for social justice.
I am a candidate who says we can change the outcome. We can change this country.
We can change the world.” --Cong. Kucinich (read more from him below)
FRIDAY, APRIL 04, 2003, 8:30pm
Temple Kol Tikvah, 20400 Ventura Blvd.,
1 blk W of Winnetka, Woodland Hills , FREE
SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2003, 1pm
Immanuel Presbyterian Church, 3300 Wilshire Blvd.,
near Vermont, L. A., FREE, but please RSVP: (323) 692-6912
He will be introduced by Ed Asner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the War
in Iraq within the House, issued the following statement on the House floor
this past Tuesday:
"Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to
get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological
and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will
find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at
greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.
Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat
in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take
up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.
Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was
not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda
may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on
this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from
Niger. This war is built on falsehood.
Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not
attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent
civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will
and up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental
needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America
less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge
of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the
sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the
United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war,
we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation
the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the
terrorists before they come to our shores.
Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters
of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans' benefits.
Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No
money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges
over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own
cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money
to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.
Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will
come to no good for this country.
Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop
it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment.
Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is
immoral.
Stop this war now."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, March 31, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/31/MN176142.DTL
"My role as co-chairman of the progressive caucus (in Congress) is to
be out front with progressive policies and alternatives," he said. "I want
to put out another view of America's role in the world."
Kucinich jumps eagerly into areas unseen in the platforms of the other
Democratic presidential contenders. He is backing an effort to end the death
penalty for federal crimes, wants universal heath care for all Americans
and calls for total nuclear disarmament.
If elected, he promises to end the country's participation in the World
Trade Organization, dump the North American Free Trade Agreement and return
to bilateral trade agreements, under which the United States can demand that
other countries pay workers a living wage, allow union organizing and respect
human rights.
Kucinich also worries about the country's willingness to go it alone
in world affairs, without treaties or other international agreements.
"This policy that makes the United States the policeman, judge, jury
and executioner of the world must be reversed," he said in his speech. The
United States "must work with the other nations of the world in matters of
international security."
But Kucinich always brought the topic back to the war in Iraq, where
he said he "supports our troops, but not their mission."
For years, Cong. Kucinich has done anti-war activism, including his plan
for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which would promote nonviolent solutions
to national and international problems.
Nonviolence and international cooperation are even more important now
that "a great nation is unleashing devastating destruction against a humble
nation ravaged by sanctions," Kucinich said.
"If a bomb drops in the marketplace in Baghdad, we feel it," he said.
"When a mother mourns the life of a child in Basra, it's our loss, too."
The war is not only hurting America's standing and reputation with the
other countries of the world, but also the people at home, Kucinich said.
"It's unconscionable that we have the money to blow up bridges over the
Tigris and Euphrates, but not the money to rebuild bridges in this country,"
he said.
Kucinich is confident that there's an audience out there for his liberal,
anti-war message. Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the age of 31, Kucinich beat
a Republican incumbent in 1996 to win his current congressional seat.
"I've shown the ability to attract votes to progressive Democratic programs
in Cleveland, which is Middle America," he said. "I fully expect that I'll
stay in contention for the Democratic nomination."
(c) 2003 San Francisco Chronicle
----------------------------------------------
Marr Nealon
Respect for Life productions
818-509-1255 marr@madcowboy.com
MORE KUCINICH NEWS |
|
|
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
Lieberman seeking monthly debates
Democrat is seen trying to capitalize on earlier showing
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 5/16/2003
DES MOINES -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday called on his fellow
Democratic presidential contenders to agree to a monthly series of nationally
televised debates, an idea that may bring order to a process that currently
finds the candidates swamped with debate requests from an array of special
interest groups.
Several of the rival campaigns expressed interest in the offer, which
would begin in July, even as some speculated privately that Lieberman was
attempting to sidestep appearing before liberal-leaning groups that might
oppose his more conservative record on subjects such as the environment.
One political analyst said the Connecticut Democrat was also trying to attract
attention after a successful performance in a debate two weekends ago in
South Carolina, which, unfortunately for Lieberman, occurred late on a Saturday
night before a limited audience.
''If we all agree that the Democratic primary should be one of ideas,
let's all agree to appear regularly before the voters on television in
media-sponsored, neutral debates that have the potential of reaching the
widest possible audience,'' wrote Craig T. Smith, Lieberman's campaign director.
''Doing so would not only help ensure that the voters hear our voices but
that the Republican Party is not permitted to dominate the political debate
with its fund-raising resources and with the media power of the
presidency.''
Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts,
said: ''It's an interesting proposal. Like every campaign, we have concerns
about the proliferation of debate invitations. . . . We welcome our obligation
to speak to as many interest groups and outside media outlets as possible,
but the travel requirements can become onerous.'' Erik Smith, spokesman for
the campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, agreed, saying:
''There are just too many requests to be able to do all of them. You want
to bring some organization to the process.''
As the schedule stands, the nine-member field has been invited to forums
before the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the League of Conservation Voters, and
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, all within
a six-day span next month. Those debates are scheduled to occur in Chicago,
Los Angeles, and Phoenix. In July, the candidates have been invited to three
more debates over a four-day span in Austin, Texas, Washington, D.C., and
Miami.
While signaling an interest in the Lieberman proposal, two campaigns
indicated it may enlarge the debating schedule.
''We would not be for something that said if we go this route, there
is not [a League of Conservation Voters] debate or other debates. We would
not be for that. We're for all debates,'' said Joe Trippi, campaign manager
for Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor.
Jennifer Palmieri, campaign spokeswoman for Senator John Edwards of North
Carolina, said: ''We wouldn't do it to the exclusion of other debates. We
think that if you could have a nationally available forum where you have
all the candidates talk about the issues once a month, that's good for John
Edwards and all the candidates.''
William Schneider, an independent political analyst with the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington, said the goal of Lieberman's proposal
is to corral media attention for the senator.
Amid questions about lax fund-raising and lackluster campaigning, Lieberman
came out strongly during the May 3 South Carolina debate. He not only chided
Dean and Kerry over the issue of war with Iraq but also took on Gephardt
over the cost of his health care proposal.
Yet the debate did not start until 9 p.m., and its viewership was restricted
to ABC stations in 50 markets. C-Span, the cable TV public service station,
aired it four times in the following days.
''Lieberman is widely regarded as having `won' the South Carolina debate
and no one was watching,'' Schneider said. While public opinion polls show
Lieberman leading his rivals in South Carolina, an early primary state, that
support is tenuous and based on his name recognition serving as Al Gore's
running mate in 2000.
''If he was perceived as the loser, believe me, this would not be
happening,'' said Schneider.
Glen Johnson can be reached at johnson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
MORE LIEBERMAN |
|
|
|
AL SHARPTON
NAACP threatens economic boycott
By Andrew Dys The Herald
(Published May 18‚ 2003)
York County Council's refusal to mandate a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday
has spurred plans by a national civil rights group for a countywide economic
boycott starting Monday.
Political effects on the council about changing the holiday are uncertain,
if there are to be any effects at all. County workers can now take the King
holiday or their birthday as a paid day off.
Political pressure on local politicians is almost nonexistent at this
point, said Rick Whisonant, a political science professor at York Technical
College and an expert on local politics. The local push for a change in county
policy so far has come mainly from the two county branches of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Both groups hoped to work
with the County Council on the issue. Neither were invited to speak May 6
when the council voted 6-1 against changing the policy.
"Right now, it appears there is no political risk for the County Council
to change its policy," Whisonant said. "If there is a large local outcry
about this issue, I haven't seen it."
The National Action Network, which is calling for the once-a-month boycott,
was founded by Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton. It is unclear
whether Sharpton will attend Monday's boycott kickoff, set for noon in front
of the York County Courthouse at the corner of Liberty and Congress streets
in York.
Greenville County, which has not mandated a King holiday, has seen
demonstrations and threats of economic boycotts led by native Jesse Jackson.
Lexington County is the other of the state's 46 counties that does not close
offices on the third Monday in January. Laurens, Pickens, and Union counties
have changed King holiday policies since January. Rep. Fletcher Smith,
D-Greenville, sponsored a bill that would mandate the holiday in all counties.
The bill failed.
Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, who opposed the bill, said the York County
Council made the right decision. Only Councilman Buddy Motz voted in favor
of a mandated holiday.
"I think York County made the right decision not to bend on their beliefs,
no matter if Al Sharpton threatens a boycott or not," Simrill said. "It's
a moot point. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can come here and beat their
chests, but this is a decision based on merit, not on political pressure."
For three years, the state NAACP has pushed for a statewide economic
boycott to protest the Confederate flag. The flag was moved in 2000 from
the Statehouse dome to a monument on the Statehouse grounds, which did not
satisfy the NAACP. While most observers agree the boycott has not had a major
impact, some effects have been felt in York County.
The NCAA will not allow special events like national tournaments in South
Carolina because of the boycott, said Bennish Brown, Rock Hill/York County
Tourism and Sports Commission director. A college women's golf tournament
Rock Hill was awarded before the boycott, and later hosted, could not be
bid on again, Brown said. York County also could not bid on the women's
basketball tournament for the Division II South Atlantic Conference, of which
Rock Hill Mayor Doug Echols is commissioner, although the city was positioned
perfectly in size, connections and qualifications to net the tourney, Brown
said.
York County could become the focus of national media attention with its
refusal to change, said both Whisonant and John Holder, a Winthrop University
professor and secretary of the York County Democratic Party.
"As far as the outside world is concerned, it looks like York County
is 50 years behind the times," Holder said. "It is a national holiday and
a state holiday."
South Carolina has a long history of politicians disliking outside forces
telling them what to do, Whisonant said, even with the symbolism of the King
holiday that could resonate to national levels. Democratic presidential
candidates who visit York County will surely be asked their opinion about
the King holiday, Whisonant said.
Simrill said S.C. politicians' historic disdain for outsiders telling
them what to do "remains alive and well," all the way down to the local level.
The boycott is another example of how symbolism is important in the King
holiday debate, Whisonant said, but any policy change will have to come from
locals.
The proposed one Monday a month boycott of food and gas purchases would
have little or no effect, Simrill said. Whisonant said there may even be
a backlash with "a flood of people buying gas just to prove a point that
locals don't like to be told what to do by people from the outside."
Simrill has received no phone calls on either side of the issue from
his constituents, and said the media is stirring up the controversy.
Shelton J. Boyd, executive director of the Charlotte chapter of the National
Action Network that has called for Monday's march and boycott, said he wants
to raise awareness, not "shake things up." Monday is also the birthday of
slain civil rights leader Malcolm X, Boyd said.
Organizers expect about 30 people to attend the event, including speakers
who will talk about what King means to them and the importance of recognizing
his birthday.
"Imagine where this country would be today if there wasn't a Dr. King,"
Boyd said.
After the York County gathering, organizers are planning marches on other
counties in the Carolinas that don't recognize King Day as a full holiday,
Boyd said.
Contact Andrew Dys at 329-4065 or adys@heraldonline.com. Herald senior
reporter Caroline Brustad contributed to this article.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sharpton built his career on speaking loud, proud
By BOB DART
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Kevin Wolf / AP
Democratic presidential hopeful Al Sharpton addresses the Democratic National
Committee in Washington on Saturday. He says of his bid: "I'm going to slap
that [Democratic] donkey until he kicks George Bush out of the White House."
THE REV. AL SHARPTON FILE
• Age: 49
• Education: Graduate, Tilden High School, New York. Attended Brooklyn
College, but did not graduate.
• Experience: Unsuccessful candidate for New York Senate, 1978; U.S.
Senate, 1992 and 1994; New York mayor, 1978. Founder, National Action
Network.
• Family: Wife, two daughters
NEW YORK -- The Rev. Al Sharpton is a long shot to win the Democratic
presidential nomination. But he is the front-runner for most interesting
candidate.
"The Rev," as his supporters call him, was ordained at age 9, worked for
Adam Clayton Powell Jr. at 13, later befriended and managed James Brown,
the Godfather of Soul, and worked with boxing promoter Don King and civil
rights leader Jesse Jackson.
He also was an FBI informant, survived a stabbing and then visited his
assailant in jail, and went to jail himself. He still professes the belief
that Tawana Brawley was telling the truth, and he is proclaimed by former
New York Mayor Ed Koch -- who once called him "Rev. Charlatan" -- to have
more wit than the other nine candidates combined.
At 49, Sharpton -- whose campaign says he will speak at Atlanta's Spelman
College on Tuesday -- has been called a saint and a street hustler. But he's
never been accused of being boring.
His whole life has been built upon speaking up -- loud and proud. Even
the numbness left over from an emergency root canal couldn't silence him
last week.
"You're going to see me going all over this country slapping the donkey,"
Sharpton said, referring to the symbol of the Democratic Party. "I'm going
to slap that donkey until he kicks George Bush out of the White House."
'Boy Wonder Preacher'
Born Oct. 3, 1954, Sharpton was 4 when he put on his mama's bathrobe,
pretended that a candle was a microphone, and began preaching to his sister's
dolls.
The Sharpton family lived in a racially mixed middle-class neighborhood
in Queens, N.Y. His father, Alfred Sr., was a contractor and landlord who
drove a Cadillac. His mother, Ada, was a devout churchgoer. Young Alfred's
sermons soon spread from his sister Cheryl's dolls to real people filling
real pews. He was called the "Boy Wonder Preacher."
But in 1964, the Sharpton family fragmented. Young Alfred's teenage half
sister, Tina -- his mother's child by a previous marriage -- was impregnated
by his father. The two moved away together. The remaining family members
moved to the Brownsville housing project in Brooklyn and went on welfare.
Sharpton's early role model, Bishop Frederick Douglas Washington, became
one of a series of surrogate fathers. The minister urged the boy to read
widely. One of those books was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell Jr., minister
of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem and the first African-American
to represent New York in Congress.
Young Sharpton was so moved by the book that he and his sister took the
subway one Sunday to hear Powell preach. After the service, the boy preacher
boldly marched to the church office and announced that the Rev. Sharpton
was there to meet the Rev. Powell. Not long afterward, Sharpton became a
member of the congressman's entourage. Sharpton counts Powell, who died in
1972, as a major influence in his life.
"I learned from Adam Powell, I think, defiance," Sharpton said.
"Powell became very powerful even in the Congress and what we would call
the power structure," Sharpton said. But "he never lost his defiance, his
willingness and ability to stand up against great odds and against what he
felt was wrong."
In 1969, Sharpton was named national youth director for Operation Breadbasket,
a civil rights organization based in Chicago. The national adult director
was the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
"I learned civil rights from him," Sharpton recalled. "I learned civil
disobedience. Passive resistance. Protests. March. And then later, politics.
Jackson's runs for president were the case studies in how activism can transcend
into electoral politics."
In the early 1970s, Sharpton went backstage at a concert in New Jersey
and met the man who would teach him the showmanship that became a prominent
part of his career: James Brown.
Sharpton went to work for the soul singer, known as "the hardest-working
man in show business."
"He's got just about every award you can get in music, but he did it on
his own terms," said Sharpton. "That's what I learned from Brown. You've
got to have enough courage and determination to go your way and do it your
way. If you do, in the end the world will have to respect you."
It was Brown who told Sharpton that "Alfred" was too long and not catchy
enough for an activist. The singer declared, "It's got to be Al Sharpton,"
the candidate recalled. "And from that night on, that's what I called
myself."
Brown even pushed Sharpton into his trademark straightened hairstyle.
In 1981 they were on their way to the White House to lobby for making the
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.
"[Brown] said, 'You're like my son, and I want you to style your hair
like mine so when they take your pictures . . . with me they'll know you're
like my son,' " Sharpton said.
While working for Brown, Sharpton became acquainted with Don King, the
wild-haired boxing promoter. Mobutu Sese Seko, then president of Zaire, wanted
a James Brown concert to go along with his country's hosting of the "Rumble
in the Jungle" heavyweight championship fight between Muhammad Ali and George
Foreman.
During this period, Sharpton drew the attention of law enforcement agencies.
In what he later called "a failed entrapment attempt by the government,"
the FBI taped Sharpton as he listened to an undercover agent discuss a drug
deal. However, no criminal charges were ever filed. Sharpton himself was
an informant for a time, a point of controversy in some circles.
"I gave the FBI information on drug dealers. And I think I should be saluted
for that," he said.
Brawley controversy
But the events that were most controversial -- and that made Sharpton
a national figure -- were racial protests in New York.
On Nov. 28, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old black girl living in
Wappingers Falls, N.Y., claimed to have been abducted and raped by six white
men. Sharpton became one of her advisers, organizing marches and protests
in her behalf. He accused an assistant district attorney of being one of
the assailants.
The case was thrown out of court in 1988, and a grand jury ruled Brawley's
story had been fabricated. A decade later, a jury found Brawley, Sharpton
and two other advisers liable for defamation. He was hit with a $65,000
judgment.
"I believe something happened to Tawana Brawley," Sharpton maintained
last week. "I think it is absurd that someone would say that a 15-year-old
girl could have made all that up, including fooling a hospital."
Sharpton has also been accused of some financial irregularities, including
failing to file a tax return in 1986. He told National Public Radio that
he subsequently filed it and paid the fine. He has been jailed several times
for illegal protests.
In 1989 Sharpton became involved in another racial incident that nearly
cost him his life. Sharpton was leading a protest in Bensonhurst, N.Y., when
a young white man broke through police ranks and stabbed him in the chest.
Though the wound was close to being life-threatening, Sharpton said, "I
ended up going to his sentencing and asking the judge to have leniency on
him."
After the attacker sent him a letter apologizing, Sharpton visited him
in prison.
"It was a difficult thing to do, because this man did try to kill me,"
he said. "But I thought it was the right thing to do and after I did it,
I thought it was one of the better things I've done in life."
In conversation, Sharpton speaks softly and without the cadence of the
pulpit.
"I want to be president because I think that not only does this country
need a new director, it needs a new direction," he said. "I think the direction
that the country is going in terms of these across-the-board tax cuts, these
foreign engagements like Iraq, and the whole matrix of moving away from the
respect and the sacred upholding of the vote and civil liberties is the wrong
direction.
"I happen to feel that too many in my own party, the Democratic Party,
have accommodated some of this, which is why I decided to enter the Democratic
primaries to win the nomination and challenge Bush," he said.
On the stump, Sharpton often attacks the Democratic Leadership Council,
a group that has pushed the party toward the political center and has counted
among its members former President Clinton.
"The swing vote is not on the right," Sharpton declared at a recent
Congressional Black Caucus gathering. "The swing vote is in the barrios and
the 'hood and the hip-hop generation."
Ed Kilgore, policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council, challenged
Sharpton's assessment of the party's direction.
"The myth that the Democratic Party is moving way to the right is just
that -- a myth," Kilgore said. "There is no shortage of centrist candidates
attacking the president."
More mainstream
In recent years Sharpton himself has moved toward the political mainstream,
forging an alliance with former New York Mayor Ed Koch, once a foe, when
they pushed together for legislation to end disparities in sentencing between
black and white drug offenders.
Politically, Sharpton has shown an ability to win African-American votes
but not elections. In the 1994 Democratic primary for the New York senator's
race, Sharpton received 80 percent of the black vote and 25 percent of the
total against Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Sharpton said the establishment routinely disrespects him as a
candidate.
"I think the media has an innate double standard -- not only with people
of color, but of candidates that don't fit their profile," he said. "For
example, in most national polls I am in the top five, top six candidates.
I've been ahead of Bob Graham and John Edwards in mostly all of the polls.
What makes them top-tier candidates and me second-tier?"
As for fund-raising, he conceded that his campaign would not "raise the
kind of dollars that others are raising."
"But I don't have to have those kinds of dollars," he said. "We're going
to have what we need to do what we want."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion and Politics Blur With Sharpton in Pulpit
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: October 5, 2003
The Rev. Melvin Brown was up at the pulpit one Sunday morning last month,
in front of his congregation at the Greater New Hope Baptist Church in
Washington, exhorting his followers to give money, cash or checks, to the
Rev. Al Sharpton. He wanted big donations.
"If the checks are good, and there is no rubber in them, you can make
them out to Rev. Al Sharpton," Mr. Brown said with a preacher's flair. "Remember
this is a love offering for a preacher. This is not political."
Dapper men with white gloves walked up and down the aisles, passing the
brass bowls the church uses for its weekly collections. The final count was
about $800, aides to Mr. Sharpton said. All of it went right in Mr. Sharpton's
pocket, they said, rather than into his campaign coffers.
The entanglement between the personal and public lives of Mr. Sharpton
has often proved controversial, especially in the area of finances. He once
claimed in a deposition not to own a television, a radio or even a suit,
but to have access to those items because, he said, they were either owned
by his businesses or given to him as gifts.
Now he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, and
once again the lack of boundaries between being a preacher, a civil rights
advocate, a businessman and a political candidate has raised some ethical
and legal questions.
A spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, which monitors campaign
fund-raising and spending, said Mr. Sharpton would have been safer if he
had sought an advisory opinion before passing the basket at his church
appearances. Such opinions are commonly sought by candidates to ensure they
do not violate campaign finance rules.
The spokesman, Bob Biersack, said the closest analogy he could find was
a 1992 case that involved a candidate for federal office who was being paid
for a speaking engagement. In that case, the agency said the candidate would
meet their criteria if he did not blur the lines between politics and his
work. To avoid that, no one could mention his candidacy at the speaking
event.
It was different at Greater New Hope Baptist in Washington.
"Wouldn't you like to have someone like that as president of the United
States?" said Mr. Brown, the pastor, after Mr. Sharpton had finished an hour
of preaching.
It is often hard to tell where Mr. Sharpton the preacher stops and Mr.
Sharpton the candidate begins. When he appeared before the congregation in
Washington, his campaign paid for his travel from New York, campaign staff
members said. But, they said, he was also there as a preacher.
Mr. Sharpton spoke about politics and his candidacy, as well as about
Jesus, faith and religion. He was introduced as the best in the field of
candidates for the nomination, but when it came time to solicit donations
from the assembled, Mr. Brown said that Mr. Sharpton was visiting as a preacher,
not a politician. He referred to the donations as a love offering, like others
he had asked the congregation to give visiting preachers.
Legal experts inside and outside government said it was difficult to say
whether Mr. Sharpton's activities would pass muster with the F.E.C. They
said the circumstances were unusual and touched on an area that the government
has generally tried to avoid policing: the nexus between religious organizations
and political activities.
But some watchdog groups have said that Mr. Sharpton's activities should
be looked at, to ensure that there is a level playing field for all candidates
and that churches are not misused.
"The concern that the Interfaith Alliance has is that to use religion
in that manner is to manipulate religion for a partisan political purpose,"
said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of a nonprofit group that promotes
the separation of church and state. "That ultimately hurts religion as well
as hurts government and the democratic process."
Mr. Sharpton scoffs at the notion that his collecting money in churches
might in any way be campaign-related. He says his preaching is a job and
should be viewed no differently from any other candidate's job.
|
|
DEMOCRACY
Friends & Fellow Citizens!
Our democracy is in dire danger of being systematically destroyed by the
zealots in the Bush administration. The recently enacted federal "election
reform" laws now prohibit paper ballots and exit polls. That means NO paper
trail and NO indication of voter preference. With all traces and records
of votes effectively removed, detection and prosecution of voter fraud becomes
virtually impossible.
For some obscure reason, the Democrats chose not to challenge the theft
of the presidency in 2000. They chose not to object to the purging of upwards
of 57,000 legal voters-over half of them black and Hispanic, most of them
Democrats- from the Florida voter rolls. Here are the interesting
connections:
The State of Florida contracted with Data Base Technologies (DBT), a division
of ChoicePoint of Atlanta Georgia. Most states purge their voter lists from
time to time to eliminate ineligible voters (died, moved, felons serving
prison sentences)-but no other state had ever privatized this process.
ChoicePoint proceeded to scrub thousands of names, purportedly because
of criminal records, acquired either in Florida or in other states, ignoring
the fact that most states restore voting privileges once the sentence has
been completed. Do the math: 57,000-plus mostly Democratic voters deprived
of their voting privilege-and George W. Bush "wins" by 500-some votes.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush was sued and was supposed to have returned the
illegally scrubbed voters to the rolls. He did not comply-and easily won
his last reelection.
We now find that this same company produces "touch-screen" voting machines,
used in a number of states in the 2002 elections. The results? Max Cleland,
a popular Vietnam vet, lost in Georgia. Several other Democrats, ahead in
the polls, met defeat on election day. Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
won in Nebraska. Hagel, it turns out, was the head of, and continues to own
part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed,
and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens
of Nebraska.
When Hagel's Democratic challenger, Charlie Matulka, requested a hand
count of the vote in the election, his request was denied. It seems that
Nebraska had a just-passed law that prohibited government-employee election
workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines
permitted to count votes in Nebraska are those made and programmed by the
corporation formerly run by Hagel. His surprise victory may prove to have
been a trial-run for the 2004 presidential election.
Our election process is being turned over to corporate-programmed,
computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines. This is a very scary
proposition. It makes moot all grassroots campaigning, all get-out-the-vote
efforts, all informative seminars and town-hall meetings, all precinct walking,
all political debates. An election, under these circumstances, becomes a
charade, a meaningless exercise.
We all need to contact our senators and congressional representative to
insist that they initiate and support a thorough investigation of this voter
fraud and the behind-the-scenes machinations. Further, urge that they act
to correct the inadequacies of the so-called "Election Reform" legislation
to preserve our right as citizens to vote.
For more, check out
<commondreams.org>. Also
read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Recipients are permitted, indeed encouraged, to distribute the enclosed
information.
Peace, freedom & democracy! louisa]
|
|
| Democratic National
Committee
Copyright © 1995-2003 DNC Services Corporation Powered by Plus Three
and QRSNewmedia.
Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — www.democrats.org.
...
The official Liberal Democrat
website
Website of the United Kingdom Liberal Democrats - get the latest news
on the party and find out how you can help. ... Copyright ©
2003, Liberal Democrats. ...
YDA :: The Young Democrats of America
::
The Young Democrats of America is a nationwide grassroots organization
with 42 chartered states and 780 local chapters open to anyone under the
age of 36
College Democrats of America
:: Home
Welcome to the website of the College Democrats of America! CDA is the
official college outreach arm of the Democratic Party and ...
New Democrats Online: The Democratic
Leadership Council's Online ...
New Democrats Online (NDOL) is the Democratic Leadership Council's online
community for political leaders at the forefront of the New Democrat
movement
National Stonewall
Democrats
Democrats Abroad
Democrats Abroad is the official Democratic Party organization for the
three million American citizens who live outside the United States. ...
Washington State Democrats
Washington State Democrats. Washington Democrats Vote for Early Caucus
|
| Baal, Baalim
(Hebrew Bá'ál; plural, Be`alîm.)
A word which belongs to the oldest stock of the Semite vocabulary and
primarily means "lord", "owner". So in Hebrew, a man is styled baal of a
house (Ex., xxii, 7: Judges, xix, 22), of a field (Job, xxi, 39), of cattle
(Ex., xxi, 28; Isa., i, 3) of wealth (Eccles, v, 12), even of a wife (Ex,
xxi, 3; cf. Gen., iii, 16). The women's position in the Oriental home explains
why she is never called Bá`alah of her husband). So also we read of
a ram, "baal" of two horns (Dan, viii, 6, 20), of a baal of two wings (i.e.
fowl: Eccles., x, 20). Joseph was scornfully termed by his brother a baal
of dreams (Gen., xxxvii, 19). And so on. (See IV Kings, i, 8: Isa., xli,
15; Gen., xlix, 23; Ex., xxiv, 14, etc.) Inscriptions afford scores of evidence
of the word being similarly used in the other Semitic languages. In the Hebrew
Bible, the plural, be`alîm, is found with the various meanings of the
singular; whereas in ancient and modern translations it is used only as a
referring deities. It has been asserted by several commentators that by baalim
the emblems or images of Baal (hámmanîm,
máççebhôth, etc.) should be understood. This view
is hardly supported by the texts, which regularly points out, sometimes
contemptuously, the local or other special Baals.
BAAL AS A DEITY
When applied to a deity, the word Baal retained its connotation of ownership,
and was, therefore, usually qualified. The documents speak, for instance,
of the Baal of Tyre, of Harran, of Tarsus, of Herman, of Lebanon of Tamar
(a river south of Beirut), of heaven. Moreover, several Baals enjoyed special
attributions: there was a Baal of the Covenant (Bá`ál Berîth
(Judges, viii, 33; ix 4); cf. 'El Berîth (ibid., ix, 46}; one of the
flies (Bá`ál Zebub, IV Kings, i, 2, 3, 6, 16,); there also
probably was one of dance (Bá`ál Márqôd); perhaps
one of medicine (Bá`ál Márphê), and so on. Among
all the Semites, the word, under one form or another (Bá`ál
in the West and South; Bel in Assyria; Bal, Bol, or Bel im Palmyra) constantly
recurs to express the deity's lordship over the world or some part of it.
Not were all the Baals -- of different tribes, places, sanctuaries -- necessarily
conceived as identical; each one might have his own nature and his own name;
the partly fish shaped Baal of Arvad was probably Dagon; the Baal of Lebanon,
possible Cid "the hunter"; the Baal of Harran, the moongod; whereas in several
Sabean Minaean cities, and in many Chanaanite, Phoenician, or Palmyrene shrines,
the sun was the Baal worshipped, although Hadad seems to have been the chief
Baal among the Syrians. The diversity of the Old Testament intimates by speaking
of Baalim, in the plural, and specifying the singular Baal either by the
article or by the addition of another word.
What the original conception was is most obscure. According to W.R. Smith,
the Baal is a local God who, by fertilizing his own district through springs
and streams, becomes its lawful owner. Good authorities, nevertheless, oppose
this view, and reversing the above argument, hold that the Baal is the
genius-lord of the place and of all the elements that cause its fecundity;
it is he who gives "bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink" (Os, ii, 5;
in the Hebr. text 7); he is the male principle of life and reproduction in
nature, and such is sometimes honoured by acts of the foulest sensuality.
Whether or not this idea sprang from, and led to the monotheistic conception
of supreme deity, the Lord of Heaven, of whom the various Baals would be
so many manifestations, we shall leave to scholars to decide. Some deem that
the bible favours this view, for its language frequently seems to imply the
belief in a Baal par excellence.
BAAL-WORSHIP AMONG THE GENTILES
The evidence is hardly of such weight as to justify us in speaking of
a worship of Baal. The Baal-worship so often alluded to and described in
Holy Writ might, perhaps, be better styled, Çid-worship, moon-worship,
Melek (Moloch)-worship, or Hadad-worship, according to places and circumstances.
Many of the practices mentioned were most probable common to the worship
of all the Baals; a few others are certainly specific.
A custom common among Semites should be noticed here. Moved, most likely,
by the desire to secure the protection of the local Baal for their children,
the Semites always showed a preference for names compounded with that of
the deity; those of Hasdrubal (`Azrû Bá`ál), Hannibal
(Hanni Bá`ál), Baltasar, or Belshazzar (Bel-sar-Ushshur), have
become famous in history. Scores of such names belonging to different
nationalities are recorded in the Bible, and in ancient writers, and in
inscriptions.
The worship of Baal was performed in the sacred precincts of the high
places so numerous throughout the country (Num., xxii, 41; xxxiii, 52; Deut.,
xii, 2, etc) or in temples like those of Samaria (III Kings, xvi, 32; IV
Kings, x, 21-27) and Jerusalem (IV Kings, xi, 18), even on the terraced roofs
of the houses (IV Kings, xxiii, 12; Jer., xxxii, 29). The furniture of these
sanctuaries probably varied with the Baals honoured there. Near the altar
which existed everywhere (Judges, vi 25; III Kings, xviii, 26; IV Kings,
xi, 18; Jer., xi, 13, etc.), might be found, according to the particular
place, either an image of the deity (Hadad was symbolized by a calf), or
the bætylion (i.e. sacred stone, regularly cone-shaped in Chanaan)
supposed to have been originally intended to represent the world, abode of
the god; of the hammanim (very possible sunpillars; Lev., xxvi, 30; II Par.,
xxiv, 4, etc.), and asherah (wrongly interpreted grove in our Bibles; Judges,
vi, 25; III Kings, xiv, 23; IV Kings, xvii, 10; Jer., xvii, 2 etc.), a sacred
pole, sometimes, possible, a tree, the original signification of which is
far from clear, together with votive or commemorative stelae
(máççebhôth, usually mistranslated images), more
or less ornamented. There incense and perfumes were burned (IV Kings, xxii,
5; Jer., vii, 9, xi, 13, and according to the Hebrew, xxxii, 29), libations
poured (Jer., xix, 13), and sacrifices of oxen and other animals offered
up to the Baal; we hear even (Jer., vii, 31;xix, 5;xxxii, 35; II Par., xxviii
3) that children of both sexes were not infrequentlly burned in sacrifice
to Melek (D. V. Moloch, A.V. Molech), and II Par., xxviii, 3 (perhaps also
IV Kings, xxi, 6 ) tells us that young princes were occasionally chosen as
victims to this stern deity. In several shrines long trains of priests,
distributed into several classes (III Kings, xviii, 19; IV Kings, x, 19;
xxiii, 5; Soph., i, 4, etc.) and clad in special attire (IV Kings, x, 22)
performed the sacred function; they prayed, shouted to the Baal, led dances
around the altar, and in their frenzied excitement cut themselves with knives
and lancets, till they were all covered with blood (III Kings, xviii, 26-28).
In the meantime the lay worshippers also prayed, kneeling, and paid their
homage by kissing the images or symbols of the Baal (III Kings, xix, 18;
Os., xiii, 2, Hebr.), or even their own hands. To this should be added the
immoral practices indulged in at several shrines (III Kings, xiv, 24; IV
Kings, xxiii, 7; cf. Deut., xxiii, 18) in honour of the Baal as male of
reproduction, and of his mate Asherah (D.V. Astarthe, A. V. Ashtaroth).
BAAL WORSHIP-AMONG THE ISRAELITES
Nothing could be more fatal to a spiritual faith than this sensual religion.
In fact, no sooner than the Israelites, coming forth from the wilderness,
been brought into contact with the Baal-worshippers, than they were, through
the guile of the Madianites, and the attractions of the licentious worship
offered to the Moabitish deity (probably Chamos), easily seduced from their
allegiance to Yahweh (Num., xxv, 1-9). Henceforth the name of Beelphegor
remained like a dark spot on the early history of Israel {Os., ix, 10; Ps.
ev (In the Hebr. cvi), 28}. The terrible punishment inflicted upon the guilty
sobered for awhile the minds of the Hebrews. How long the impression lasted
we are hardly able to tell; but this we know, that when they had settled
in the Promised Land, the Israelites, again forsaking the One True God, paid
their homage to the deities of their Chanaanite neighours (Judges, ii, 11,
13 etc.). Even the best families could not, or did not dare, resist the
seduction, Gedon's father, for instant, albeit his faith in his Baal seems
to have been somewhat lukewarm (Judges, vi, 31), had erected an idolatrous
altar in Ephra (Judges, vi, 25). "And the Lord, being angry against Israel,
delivered them into the hands of their enemies that dwelt round about."
Mesopotamians, Madianites, Amalecites, Ammonites, and, above all, Philistines,
were successively the providential avengers of God's disregarded rights.
During the warlike reigns of Saul and David, the Israelites as a whole
thought little of shaking Yahweh's yoke; such also was, apparently, the situation
under Solomon's rule, although the example given by this prince must have
told deplorably upon his subjects. After the division of his empire, the
Northern Kingdom, first led by its rulers to an unlawful worship of Yahweh,
sank speedily into the grossest Chanaanite superstitions. This was the more
easy because certain customs, it seems, brought about confusion in the clouded
minds of the uneducated portion of the people. Names like Esbaal (I Par.,
viii, 33; ix, 39), Meribbaal (I Par., viii, 34; ix, 40), Baaliada (I Par.,
xiv, 7), given by Saul, Johnathen, and David to their sons, suggest that
Yahweh was possibly spoken of as Baal. The fact has been disputed; but the
existence of such a name as Baalia ( i.e. "Yahweh is Baal", I Par., xii,
5) and the affirmation of Osee (ii, 16) are arguments that cannot be slighted.
True, the word was used later on only in reference to idolatrous worship,
and even deemed so obnoxious that bosheth, shame, was frequently substituted
for it in compound proper names, thus giving, for instance, such inoffensive
forms as Elioda (II Kings, v, 16), Yerubbesheth (II Kings, xi, 21, Hebr.).,
Isboseth (II Kings, ii, 10) and elsewhere, Miphiboseth (II Kings, ix, 6;
xxi, 8); but these corrections were due to a spirit which did not prevail
until centuries after the age with which we shall presently deal.
Achab's accession to the throne of Israel inaugarated a new era, that
of the official worship. Married to a Sidonian princess, Jezebel, the king
erected to the Baal of her native city (Cid or Melkart) a temple (III Kings,
xvi, 31, 32) in which a numerous body of priests officiated (III Kings, xviii,
19). To what a forlorn state the true faith in the Northern Kingdom fell
Elias relates to III Kings, xix, 10, 14: The children of Israel have forsaken
thy covenant: they have thrown down thy altars, they have slain thy prophets
with the sword. There remained but seven thousand men whose knees had not
been bowed before Baal (III Kings, xix, 18). Ochozias, son of Achab and Jezebel,
followed in his parents footsteps (III Kings, xxii, 54) and although Joram,
his brother and successor, took away the maccebhoth set up by his father,
the Baal-worship was not stamped out of Samaria (IV Kings, iii, 2, 3) until
its adherents were slaughtered and its temple destroyed at the command of
Jehu (IV Kings, x, 18-28). Violent as this repression was, it hardly survived
the prince who had undertaken it. The annals of the reigns of his successors
witness to the religious corruption again prevailling; and the author of
IV Kings could sum up this sad history in the following few words: They forsook
all the precepts of the Lord their God: and made to themselves two molten
calves, and groves [asherah], and adored all the host of heaven : and they
served Baal. And consecrated their sons, and their daughters through fire:
and they gave themselves to divinations, and soothsayings: and they delivered
themselves to do evil before the Lord, to provoke him. And the Lord was very
angry with Israel, and removed them from his sight . . . . and Israel was
carried away out of their land to Assyria, unto this day. (IV Kings, xvii,
16-18, 23).
Meanwhile the kingdom of Juda fared no better. There, also, the princes,
far from checking the drift of the people to idolatry, were their instigators
and abettors. Established by Joram (IV Kings, viii, 18), probably at the
suggestion of Athalia his wife, who was the daughter of Achab and Jezebel,
the Phoenician worship was continued by Ochozias (IV Kings, viii, 27). We
know from IV Kings, xi, 18 that a temple had been dedicated to Baal (very
likely to Baal honoured in Samaria) in the Holy City, either by one of these
princes or Athalia. At the latter's death, this temple was destroyed by the
faithful people and its furniture broken to pieces (IV Kings, xi, 18; II
Par., xxiii, 17). If this reaction did not crush utterly the Baal-worship
in Juda, it left very little of it alive, since, for over a century, no case
of idolatry is recorded by the sacred writers. In the reign of Achaz, however,
we find the evil not only flourishing again, but countenanced by public
authority. But a change has taken place in Juda's idolatry; instead of the
Sidonian Baal, Melek (Moloch), the cruel diety of the Ammonites, had become
the people's favourite (II Par., xxviii, 2; IV Kings, xvi, 3, 4). His barbarous
rites rooted out Ezechias, appeared again with the support of Manasses, by
whose influence the Assyro-Babylonian astral deities were added to the Pathenon
of the Judean idolaters (IV Kings, xxiii, 4, 5) produced no lasting results,
and after his death the various superstitions in vogue held sway until "the
Lord cast out from his face Juda and Jerusalem" (IV Kings, xxiii, 32, 37;
xxiv, 9, 19, and elsewhere).
The Babylonians invasions dealt to the Baal-worship in Palestine a deadly
blow. At the restoration Israel shall be Yahweh's people, and He their God
(Exech., xiv, 11), and Baal will become altogether a thing of the past.
FROM:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02175a.htm
|
|
... Carl Levin (D., Mich.), the panel's ranking Democrat hailed the measure
as a "good bipartisan bill,'' adding that "it makes sure that our forces
remain the best ...
declared winner
