Election 2004

[Azat]

I don't get it. How can a sensationalist like Moore be held "accountable" for ANY political outcome?

As for the Nazi connection of Bush's family - if Israel were so concerned, they'd have taken whatever decisions for his ties with the oil-rich Arab elite.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Moore single handedly financed Nader's campaign in 2000. Well, actually there were many other donors, but he was the largest donor. He went through out the US and campaigned for Nader. I am 100% convinced that Bush won Florida last time because of Nader. So this is how he can be blamed for it.

[DominO123]

Moore single handedly financed Nader's campaign in 2000.  Well, actually there were many other donors, but he was the largest donor.  He went through out the US and campaigned for Nader.  I am 100% convinced that Bush won Florida last time because of Nader.  So this is how he can be blamed for it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I've read the same thing by democratics on the web. So the logic is, if those votes didn't go to Nader, Gore would have won, and Bush would never have been president?

[Azat]

there is no question about it Domino. Nader took votes away from Gore in 2000.

 

Anyways. its all water under the bridge now.

 

Sireli Gurgen, in this country over the last 10-20 years people have been fed the concept that other countries do NOT matter. Americans, especially in the rural areas do not know about or care about other nations. In Armenian we have a great saying "qti tsairits enkoghm chen tesnum"(cant see past their nose)

 

The Party that use to care is now completely out of touch with the people. They cant find excuses not. They need to stop the blame game, accept the mistakes that they have made and find better ways to relate to the common folk. Else like everyone thinks we democrats will be know as the party of elitists and a party that no one can relate to and a party that will over time disappear.

 

There is a VERY strong religious, conservative movement going on in this country now and I have no idea how that is going to come to an end.

Edited November 4, 2004 by Azat

[-=VAHE=-]

First of all lets speak the truth here it does not matter what other countries think about the U.S.because as long as it has it's money and has all those little countries dependant on it's foreign aid it won't matter if they agree or not.

 

How do you solely blame Bush for the losing of jobs. In a capitalistic system how was that Bush's fault? Could you really blame Bush for the dot coms that went down, taking millions of jobs with them?

[MJ]

WOW, Vava... Even a hard-core lefty like you may sometimes express sober thoughts. [j/k]

 

You can add the metallurgical industry, textile jobs, customer support jobs in software and other industries, most of the manufacturing jobs (microelectronics and so on), etc. How in the hell is anybody going to prevent the "outsourcing" of these jobs or bring them back to US, unless bringing the history back by about 15 years?

 

Besides, is it bad that such jobs have gone out to developing countries? Isn't it their only chance to have any jobs at this juncture in history? Finally, how about the possibility of some of these jobs landing in Armenia?

[Armen]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK05Aa02.html

 

'It's the culture, stupid'

By Spengler

 

James Carville, Bill Clinton's consigliere of 1992, kept the words "It's the economy, stupid!" pinned to his office wall. Substitute "culture" for "economy", and the basis of US President George W Bush's re-election victory becomes obvious. Evangelical Christians compose 40% of the American population, and three-quarters of them probably voted for the incumbent. Voter participation for traditional Democratic constituencies changed little, but the number of evangelical voters surged, just as Bush political adviser Karl Rove predicted. From available data it appears plausible that the increase in evangelical voter participation accounted for all of the president's 3.5-million-vote victory margin.

 

What brought 4 million more evangelical voters to the polling stations than in the previous presidential election? The US evangelical movement is not by nature political. Families join evangelical churches as a refuge against the septic tide of popular culture that threatens to carry away their children. Evangelical concerns center on family issues, child-rearing and personal values rather than national or global politics.

 

Liberal commentators blame the evangelical turnout on bigotry, noting that 11 states carried ballot referenda against same-sex marriage. The truth in that observation is misleading.

 

It is true that the Republicans have made evangelical issues into politics, but it is just as true, and far more important, that the evangelicals have made political issues into religious issues. That is especially true of the Bush administration's response to terrorism. It was the feminists of the 1960s who first stated that the personal was political, although they could not have imagined how this idea would evolve.

 

The world mis-estimated how Americans would respond to September 11, 2001. In the past, the United States came under attack for what it did; Japan's Pearl Harbor raid responded to a US trade boycott that cut off access to energy and raw materials. On September 11, the US came under attack for what it was. Osama bin Laden's dispute with the US was cultural rather than material. In last week's videotape he cast the airplane attacks as a retaliation for America's support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 20 years ago. In a lampoon published on November 2 (What Osama might have told America), I attempted to portray his underlying motives. The US barely can live with the freedom of the modern world without destroying itself; the same forces would utterly devastate the Arab world, which lacks the resistance the US has developed over the centuries.

 

Although Americans have difficulty articulating their response, few are so dim as to misunderstand the message. America's culture is in the judgment seat. Do they deserve the contempt, and even the violence, that the Islamists inflict on them? As they seethe with self-righteous anger against their attackers, do Americans take stock of themselves? The answer evident on November 2 is that many of them did. After September 11, a number of evangelical leaders, including the Reverend Jerry Falwell, claimed that the attacks constituted a divine punishment for America's sins. Silly as it sounded, Falwell's statement concealed an underlying truth. The US provokes the hatred of the Islamic world because the "freedoms" associated with the nether reaches of its entertainment industry are its most visible face to the rest of the world. The US, to most of the world, represents global mobility, but also the breakdown of the family, the collapse of hoary conventions of respect, the trampling of tradition.

 

First of all, America's tragic encounter with Islam is a confrontation between a modern and a traditional society, in which the traditional society only can lose. That it also is a confrontation between Christianity and Islam, two religions that respond in radically different ways to the fragility of traditional society, makes the confrontation all the more ferocious. Islam looks outward to defend the community, the ummah, against its enemies by conquering and transforming them in its own image. By its nature it is militant rather than self-critical. Christianity demands that the believer look inward to his own sin. Soul-searching after September 11 is what made the personal so political in the US.

 

The US is in danger of social decay - not as much danger as my Halloween apparition of bin Laden portrayed, but in danger nonetheless. When two-fifths of female university students suffer from anorexia or bulimia, and one-sixth suffer from depression, it is clear that the Witches' Sabbath of sexual experimentation that began during the 1960s has led to widespread misery. Parents cannot raise their children in isolation from violent pornography; young people cannot build their lives in a fraternity party.

 

It is the hard, grinding reality of American life in the liberal dystopia that makes the "moral issues" so important to voters. Partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage became critical issues not because evangelical voters are bigots. On the contrary, parents become evangelicals precisely in order to draw a line between their families and the adversary culture. This far, and no more, a majority of Americans said on November 2 on the subject of social experimentation.

 

Unlike the Europeans, whose demoralization has led to depopulation, Americans still are fighting against the forces of decay that threaten - but do not yet ensure - the ultimate fall of American power. That is the message of November 2.

[Azat]

First of all lets speak the truth here it does not matter what other countries think about the U.S.because as long as it has it's money and has all those little countries dependant on it's foreign aid it won't matter if they agree or not.

 

How do you solely blame Bush for the losing of jobs. In a capitalistic system how was that Bush's fault? Could you really blame Bush for the dot  coms that went down, taking millions of jobs with them?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Let me ask you a question Vahe. So the president is not responsible for jobs in this country. How do we measure the strength of the economy? Is it by where the NASDAQ and or NYSE are at? Or they have nothing to do with that as well? How about the debt? Or we can blame the debt on congress but take the glory is there is no debt.

 

I guess I want to know what makes a good president and what makes a bad president?

 

-----

 

MJ - In many ways I agree with you. There is no prevention outside of the same task being done either cheaper or better in the states. But if the president/government is not going to help the "support" or any other one of the industries in this country then they should stop the support of tobacco and corn and sugar and and and other industries in the heathland. Hey its capitalism. Let them die hungry if they cant support themselves.

[Armen]

Let me ask you a question Vahe.  So the president is not responsible for jobs in this country.  How do we measure the strength of the economy?  Is it by where the NASDAQ and or NYSE are at?  Or they have nothing to do with that as well?  How about the debt?  Or we can blame the debt on congress but take the glory is there is no debt.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Azat jan, there is no way you can bring a semiconductor, software or car building plant back from China. The labor is too cheep. If they don't relocate they're going to lose in the long term. If you bring them beck they're going to be highly subsidized enterprises. This way they stay afloat.

I also think way to determine countries relative wealth are the balance of payments account (U.S. standing is amazing), GDP per capita, the ratio of invertments and savings in relation to GDP. If you just look at the numbers of invetments flowing to the U.S. from abroad you will loose your speech. The only thing is that when there is a Republican president this money is no being distrubuted evenly.

[DominO123]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK05Aa02.html

 

Liberal commentators blame the evangelical turnout on bigotry, noting that 11 states carried ballot referenda against same-sex marriage. The truth in that observation is misleading.

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

If people get influenced to vote against one party just because of the gay marriage issue, those people should even not vote.

 

Beside that, what's this "liberal" expression used repeatly to discribe those wanting a democrat in power? Seems as an intimidation tactic.

 

Concerning those referendums, one State I do not remember had a proposition regarding a representation in that state based on the % rather than you win and get all... and it was REJECTED!!! How can you reject such a democratic thing? I'm still VERY ANGRY that the project concerning Bombardiers wagons was rejected in a referendum. I wonder if there is just more than economics in here, something like Bombardier being Canadian.

[MJ]

Azat,

 

I think the president has responsibility. He has to help to offer alternatives. He has offered educational programs for the people whose job is not coming back, so they have to learn new skills. As always, he has not been very articulate in explaining his remedies and the ways of taking advantage of them. I don't think this is an issue of him not being articulate, only, since there are enough articulate people in their administration. It is, I believe, an attitude towards playing to the Media and using PR. I think they are disgusted to do it. I, personally, understand it, since I would be disgusted to play that game, myself. But I am not a politician and he is, i.e. he must play that game if he wants to shape proper public image.

 

Now, as to ethanol, cotton, and other subsidies, I am against them. I think it is a matter of time for all this to disappear. But it is tied to internal politics and there are some relevant interests preventing (for the time being) the office of the president and the congress from lifting these subsidies - whomever may run the country.

 

As to the stock market being the indicator of the state of economy, I don't think it is. The Clintonian era is the best proof of it 0 hyperinflated stock market, collection of higher than ordinary state revenues through taxation of the dividend income, however rotten economy which sooner or later will be adjusted downwards (Enron is the poster-child of that Clintonian blown-up out of proportions economics). To use another cliché, the stock market is not necessarily indicative of the current state of the economy, but of expectations for the future.

 

To suggest better indicators of the state of economy, I would repeat to a larger degree what Armen has already said.

 

Would like to add only one comments: the deficit is not always and necessarily a bad thing. As in any business, the same way for a country, the deficit sometimes may be a good thing, if it is not out of proportions. In businesses, there are benchmarks as debt/equity ratio or debt service coverage ratio. Businesses sometimes frequently operate under "deficit," at the expanse of the borrowing, to grow the company. According to this kind of logic, which is completely acceptable to me, the (4%) deficit, as we know it, is quite normal, if it is bundled with other measures, which stimulate adequate growth of economy. On this ground, Bush has done absolutely the right thing and it is consistently bearing significant positive results. Don’t want to make a commercial or academic speech, so I'll stop here.

 

P.S. I consider all these conversation on the religious right or “hicks” delivering victory to Bush to be garbage.

[Armen]

I'm still VERY ANGRY that the project concerning Bombardiers wagons was rejected in a referendum.  I wonder if there is just more than economics in here, something like Bombardier being Canadian.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Domino, what wagon referendum? It is interesting ... we did a case study on Bambardier just yesterday. It was about market strategy on regional jets.

Edited November 4, 2004 by Armen

[MJ]

... this money is no being distrubuted evenly.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What does this mean, Armen?

[DominO123]

Domino, what wagon referendum? It is interesting ... we did a case study on Bambardier just yesterday. It was about market strategy on regional jets.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

http://www.radio-canada.ca/url.asp?/nouvel...r-floride.shtml

 

Sorry it's in French... it is the high speed train project in Florida which was rejected. They rather spend billions for the war in Iraq, than building something in their own country.

[Armen]

What does this mean, Armen?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

MJ, I was not refering to Bush's case, but generally Republican presidents tend to give tax reliefe to the business, while not increasing the allocations to health, education etc enough to prevent public uneasiness. But that's not Bush's case. Investments comeing from abroad helped him to, what I call "redistribute" effectively. Meaning even if the jobs are being outsourced he is allocating the profits from the capital account to the population. It is basically along the lines of what you said about the education for finding a new job.

[Armen]

Would like to add only one comments:  the deficit is not always and necessarily a bad thing.  As in any business, the same way for a country, the deficit sometimes may be a good thing, if it is not out of proportions.  In businesses, there are benchmarks as debt/equity ratio or debt service coverage ratio.  Businesses sometimes frequently operate under "deficit," at the expanse of the borrowing, to grow the company.  According to this kind of logic, which is completely acceptable to me, the (4%) deficit, as we know it, is quite normal, if it is bundled with other measures, which stimulate adequate growth of economy.  On this ground, Bush has done absolutely the right thing and it is consistently bearing significant positive results.  Don’t want to make a commercial or academic speech, so I'll stop here. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

MJ, I understand that some debt/equity deficit is normal but what is the factor that changes it to a positive infuence?

[-=VAHE=-]

Domino jan I think your talking about Colorodo and if that went through then no politician would pay attention to Colorodo anymore. If all the states joined in that would be a different story but thats not the case here.

[Twilight Bark]

the deficit is not always and necessarily a bad thing.

True, as a standalone statement. However, when the inevitable future trends are taken into account, it is a very bad thing.

 

As in any business, the same way for a country, the deficit sometimes may be a good thing, if it is not out of proportions.  In businesses, there are benchmarks as debt/equity ratio or debt service coverage ratio.  Businesses sometimes frequently operate under "deficit," at the expanse of the borrowing, to grow the company.  According to this kind of logic, which is completely acceptable to me, the (4%) deficit, as we know it, is quite normal, if it is bundled with other measures, which stimulate adequate growth of economy.

Again, true as an isolated statement. But the US has been running large deficits for many years, and appears set to run much more of the same in the coming decades. At some point, as it already started to happen, its currency would devalue and even China and Japan cannot buy enough of it to keep it afloat. Then, in order to keep financing its deficit and to attract foreign investment, the interest rates would have to go up to a level that would more than wipe out any stimulant effect of the loose monetary policy of the preceding decades. America has gotten away with fiscal "sins" that no other country could have because of its "special" status, prestige, and the world's disbelief that it could ever go bankrupt. Once that assumption is shaken (which is bound to happen at currrent course), the shock to its economy and society would be unbearable. While it would be nice to be confident that our offspring will be living in Yerevan when that happens, we know that that's unlikely and that they will bear the burden of today's thoughtless policies.

 

P.S.  I consider all these conversation on the religious right or “hicks” delivering victory to Bush to be garbage.

Regardless of what one considers one thing or another, it is true. The Republican base is the "peasants", mostly rural, but also some urban kind as well. And the rest is the elite that gleefully manipulate them. In fairness, a Democratic victory would also be "delivered" by another set of simpletons who think they are voting for their economic benefit, and the rest of their base is a nerdy elite that patronizes them. The fundamental problem is the lack of thinking ability. When even the "elite" suffers much from it, it is unrealistic to expect anything from the evangelicals, peasants, or the "proletariat".

 

The current system of personality-based democracy is very unlikely to deliver anything better.

[MJ]

Armen,

 

I am not sure I have a direct answer to such question. It depends on a lot of things. But I can give you an analogy: if you had a busyness, that has had a good track record for a couple of years, have good pro-forma estimates demonstrating solid earnings, you can borrow something like 75% debt against 25% equity (if collateralised, then even higher leverage may be created). I'm bringing this example for illustration purposes, only. Note that three are such businessmen who cannot imagine any borrowing (mom & pop shops, primarily, and Ross Perot).

 

I could give a more commercial answer saying that I know very conservative funds, which lend as long as 1.2 debt service coverage ratio is met. But this would not be a HyeForum conversation.

 

As to your other comment regarding corporate taxes and Republicans, I think it is resulted from misconceptions. To speak more rigorously, C-Corp owners traditionally have paid very high taxed by virtue of paying taxes twice on the same income - first (currently) 33-35% federal corporate tax, and then the owners pay dividend tax. Note that there is no such practice in many developed countries, including in UK. In the Clinton and Bush era, dividend taxes have come down to even the field.

[gamavor]

As to your other comment regarding corporate taxes and Republicans, I think it is resulted from misconceptions. To speak more rigorously, C-Corp owners traditionally have paid very high taxed by virtue of paying taxes twice on the same income - first (currently) 33-35% federal corporate tax, and then the owners pay dividend tax. Note that there is no such practice in many developed countries, including in UK.  In the Clinton and Bush era, dividend taxes have come down to even the field.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

That is not very accurate. In most developed countries divident earnings are taxed seperately from corporate taxation just like in the States. The S-Corporations have some shortcomings in this regard, however they are more flexible in off-setting corporate expences through deductions.

 

All in all the type of business usually dictates the choise of the legal entity for the purported business activity.

 

Edit: Sorry, I meant not shortcoming but rather the opposite - advantages. Those are formerly "Subchapter S" of Internal Revenue Code. The shortcomings are rather the 'close' status with regard to shareholding. Non-natural persons cannot be shareholders in S-type companies.

 

As to C-Corp, - never heard of such.

Edited November 5, 2004 by gamavor

[Armen]

At some point, as it already started to happen, its currency would devalue and even China and Japan cannot buy enough of it to keep it afloat. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

TB, although it is true about Japan I wouldn't state the same about China. China is into its third year of WTO agreement implementation and rhight now they are gradually opening their financial market. Also, in two years from now the repatriation of earnings from China is going to be much easier. China was never a big buyer of U.S. goods. In fact U.S has a huge trade deficit with China. However, with the opening of the financial markets the returns on U.S. investment in China are going to increase dramatically. Also, U.S. is pressuring China to let Yuan fluctuate and find its real value, which will appreciate Yuan (its real value after years of growth is much higher than the official 8.27 to $1) and incease U.S. exports to China. Although the Chinese are against but at some point they are going to do that because it is in the context of their WTO commitments and in a couple of years it will also be dictated by the market.

[Twilight Bark]

TB, although it is true about Japan I wouldn't state the same about China. China is into its third year of WTO agreement implementation and rhight now they are gradually opening their financial market. Also, in two years from now the repatriation of earnings from China is going to be much easier. China was never a big buyer of U.S. goods. In fact U.S has a huge trade deficit with China. However, with the opening of the financial markets the returns on U.S. investment in China are going to increase dramatically. Also, U.S. is pressuring China to let Yuan fluctuate and find its real value, which will appreciate Yuan (its real value after years of growth is much higher than the official 8.27 to $1) and incease U.S. exports to China. Although the Chinese are against but at some point they are going to do that because it is in the context of their WTO commitments and in a couple of years it will also be dictated by the market.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Armen, I was referring to China and others buying US dollars and government debt. That won't go on forever at current interest rates. US cannot expect the rest of the world to finance its consumers' consumption or government's deficit forever, and on the cheap. And "forever" is what current US policies appear to count on.

[Armen]

Armen, I was referring to China and others buying US dollars and government debt.  That won't go on forever at current interest rates.  US cannot expect the rest of the world to finance its consumers' consumption or government's deficit forever, and on the cheap.  And "forever" is what current US policies appear to count on.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That is true TB. However is case of only China and if we consider the overall exchange of economic activity I should say that both U.S. and China have advantages and gains in various sectors and they almost offset each other.

 

As to U.S. debt ... it has alwasy been a contraversial issue. We have two economics professors who are at each others troats on this. So, after seeing their "debate" in our class I understood that this issue is changing its nature every time U.S. economy makes another corner

[joseph parikian]

From Times Online-World

 

November 05, 2004

 

'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot'

By Tim Reid

The Democratic challenger repeatedly shot himself in the foot

 

 

 

JOHN KERRY constantly squabbled with his difficult and hypochondriac wife, ran a campaign team riven by internal feuding, and repeatedly begged the Republican senator John McCain to become his running-mate, according to a riveting inside account of his doomed presidential bid.

The Massachusetts senator was so obsessed with getting advice from a multitude of rival advisers that one aide confiscated his mobile telephone. His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, became such a moody distraction that in the closing weeks of the campaign another aide instructed her to stop whispering advice in his ear and back off.

 

 

 

At the same time, according to Newsweek, the relentlessly disciplined Bush White House, which only once descended into near panic after the President’s disastrous first debate performance, became so aghast and delighted at Mr Kerry’s ability to shoot himself in the foot that they almost felt sorry for him.

 

One of the untold stories of the presidential campaign was the erratic behaviour of the candidate’s wife, the Heinz heiress Mr Kerry married in 1995, according to Newsweek. She drove her Secret Service detail mad with her chronic lateness, constantly demanded attention, including her husband’s (who seemed to tread on eggshells when around her). She even sent him off on errands, such as fetching bottles of water. She clashed with Mary Beth Cahill, Mr Kerry ’s campaign manager, and Mr Kerry was caught in the middle.

 

At the climax of a coast-to-coast campaign tour after the Democrat convention in August, Mr Kerry’s aides had crafted a family holiday hike in the Grand Canyon, with the candidate’s wife and two daughters, Alexandra and Vanessa. But shortly after the hike began, Mrs Heinz Kerry was soon complaining of migraines, telling her husband that she could not go on.

 

The end of the hike led to one of the biggest blunders of Mr Kerry’s campaign, one of several times he fell squarely into traps set for him by Mr Bush’s re-election team.

 

For several days, Mr Bush had been issuing this challenge to Mr Kerry: if he knew before the Iraq war that no weapons would be found, would he still have voted to authorise the war (Mr Bush insisted that he, as President, would still have invaded). Asked this by a reporter at the Grand Canyon, Mr Kerry said yes, he would still have voted to give Mr Bush “the authority” to invade.

 

In Bush-Cheney headquarters, they could hardly believe their luck that he handed them another flip-flop. But they had always believed that, properly baited, he could be led into a trap. Inside the Bush re-election “Strategery Room” (named after a famous Bush malapropism), a sign above the door read: IT’S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID, a reference to Mr Kerry’s constantly shifting positions.

 

The greatest moment inside this room came when Mr Kerry, after days of baiting by the Bush campaign over his vote for the war, but his vote against an $87 billion (£47 billion) request for funding it, told a rally: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

 

“Oh my God,” said Terry Holt, Mr Bush’s communications adviser, as he watched the blunder on television. Mark McKinnon, Mr Bush’s advertising chief, said: “The second we saw it, we knew we had a new ad. The greatest gifts in politics are the gifts the other side gives you.”

 

Mr Kerry, now in sessions with a speech coach, grew increasingly frustrated. After a faltering press conference by Mr Bush in April, and with Iraq in turmoil, Mr Kerry exclaimed: “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot”.

 

During the early summer, Mr Kerry implored Mr McCain, the maverick Republican who ran against Mr Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, to become his running-mate, meeting him seven times. He even offered to expand the vice-presidency to include running the Pentagon. “I can’t say this is an offer because I’ve got to be able to deny it,” Mr Kerry told Mr McCain. “But you’ve got to do this.”

 

Mr McCain told him he was out of his mind, and went on to embrace Mr Bush. “Goddammit,” a furious Mr Kerry said to an aide. “Don’t you know what I offered him? Why the f*** didn’t he take it?” At the time, Mr Kerry also thought that John Edwards, his eventual choice, was overly ambitious. “What makes this guy think he can be president?” he asked staff in February.

 

After the anti-Kerry Swift Boat veteran attacks in August that questioned his Vietnam service, Mr Kerry’s campaign was in turmoil, beset by feuds, indecision and dithering. Mr Kerry, often generous to his staff but a constant whiner, had reverted to indecision, unable to straighten the mess out.

 

Enter James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former strategist. So appalled was he by the chaos inside the campaign, and so desperate to see Mr Bush defeated, that in early September he decided that Miss Cahill had to be ousted, and Joe Lockhart, Mr Clinton’s former spokesman, inserted as manager. When he called a meeting with the pair, he was so worked up, he began to cry, screaming to Miss Cahill: “You’ve got to let him (Mr Lockhart) do it!” Mr Lockhart duly took over, and Mr Clinton’s former campaign team virtually moved in. When Mr Kerry telephoned Mr Clinton in hospital hours before his heart bypass surgery to wish him luck, he received a 90-minute lecture.

 

Mr Clinton, correctly sensing that “values” would play a crucial role in voters’ minds, urged Mr Kerry to back local ballot initiatives calling for a ban on gay marriage. (Mr Kerry refused).

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...1345580,00.html

[DominO123]

Azat, did you read the stuff writen about Moore? They have brought him into the mud. They have even writen at least a book about him. "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man." A documentary about him titled: "Michael Moore Hates America." This kind of behavour remind me the Turkish mass mentality, where people call those criticising the nation as those hating it. On the web site of the documentary you read: "A documentary that tells the Truth about a Great Nation."

 

You won't see that sort of things done against any producers here in Canada, or even Europe. This kind of mentality is against freedom of speech... intimidating someone like this and even making fun of his physical appearance, attacking him under the belt just because he criticise the system. They slander anti-Bushists in the worst way possible.

 

This brings me to the conclusion that I will NEVER EVER vote for the Conservative party here in Canada.

[Siamanto]

Armenian National Committee of America

888 17th St., NW, Suite 904

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (202) 775-1918

Fax: (202) 775-5648

E-mail: anca@anca.org

Internet: www.anca.org

 

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Serouj Aprahamian

Tel: (202) 775-1918

 

ARMENIAN AMERICAN ISSUES SUPPORTERS

WIN BIG IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

 

-- 100% of ANCA Endorsed Candidates for Senate

and 98.5% of House Endorsees Win Reelection

 

-- 138 of 142 Armenian Caucus Members to Return to the House

 

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Armenian American community scored bipartisan

Congressional victories across the political landscape yesterday,

with 199 of 202 Senate and House candidates endorsed by the

Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) winning their

elections.

 

"We are extremely pleased that such an overwhelming majority of our

supporters won yesterday, including over 98% of those we endorsed

in the House of Representatives and 97% of the Congressional

Armenian Caucus," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We

look forward to working with these friends and the many new members

of the 109th Congress on issues ranging from affirming the Armenian

Genocide to strengthening Armenia and defending Nagorno Karabagh's

right to self-determination within secure borders."

 

"More than ever, we were gratified by the dramatically increased

involvement of Armenian Americans in the electoral process, in

particular, by the positive response to our voter education

campaign on the ground in local communities and on our website -

www.anca.org. In the weeks prior to the election, we registered

over 50,000 unique visits from Armenian American activists

interested in learning more about where their candidates for office

stood on the issues of importance to our community," added

Hamparian.

 

In a separate statement issued earlier today, ANCA Chairman Ken

Hachikian congratulated President Bush on his election victory,

thanked Senator Kerry for a hard fought election campaign, and

praised the Armenian American community for an unprecedented level

of activism in this season's electoral contests

 

U.S. Senate

------------

All ten ANCA endorsed Senate incumbent candidates were re-elected,

including Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Evan Bayh

(D-IN), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Harry Reid (D-

NV), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

and Russell Feingold (D-WI).

 

In a stunning upset, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) lost

his seat yesterday to former South Dakota Congressman John Thune.

Daschle, who had received a "C" grade on the ANCA report card, had

been largely unresponsive to Armenian American concerns,

withholding his support for the Genocide resolution (S.Res.164) in

the 108th Congress.

 

Of the eight members of the Senate retiring, two - Illinois

Republican Peter Fitzgerald and Oklahoma Republican Don Nickles -

had received an "F" grade from the ANCA. The others, including

Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Bob Graham (D-FL), Zell

Miller (D-GA), John Breaux (D-LA), and Fritz Hollings (D-SC)

generally failed to take a stand on Armenian American concerns. Of

the incoming Senators, the ANCA had endorsed Barack Obama (D-IL),

who had reached out to the Armenian American community in the

months leading up to the elections and Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-GA),

who, as a House Member, had supported Armenian Genocide recognition

initiatives. Rep. David Vitter (R-LA), who will be replacing Sen.

Breaux (D-LA), had received an "F" rating in the House from the

ANCA for his opposition to Armenian American concerns.

 

A consistent supporter of Armenian American issues, Democratic

Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards, will be replaced by Rep.

Richard Burr (R-NC), who has received a "C" rating from the ANCA.

 

U.S. House of Representatives

-----------------------------

 

Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairmen Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and

Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) both will return to the 109th Congress,

along with 138 of the 142 Caucus members from the 108th Congress.

Also returning are Armenian American Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-

CA) and John Sweeney (R-NY) each winning re-election by large

margins.

 

Caucus member Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX) lost, in what emerged as one

of the most expensive House races, to Rep. Jeff Sessions, who has

received an "F" rating from the ANCA. Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-PA) lost

his bid for the Pennsylvania Senate to Republican Senator Arlen

Specter. Other Caucus members retiring are Gerald Kleczka (D-WI)

and Jim Greenwood (R-PA).

 

ANCA endorsed non-incumbents Jim Costa (D-CA-20), Kenny Marchant

(R-TX-24), Joe Schwarz (R-MI-7), Dan Lungren (R-CA-3) and Cynthia

McKinney (D-GA-4), each of whom won their election bids. Central

California ANC members worked closely with the Costa campaign in

the months leading up to the vote. McKinney, who served in the

House of Representatives until 2002, was an outspoken advocate of

Armenian Genocide reaffirmation efforts, serving on the House

International Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Michigan area

Armenian American activists worked with and fundraised extensively

for Joe Schwarz, who is replacing outgoing House member Nick Smith,

who has received an "F" rating from the ANCA. Other House Members

with "F" ratings leaving Congress include New York Republican Amo

Houghton and Florida Republican Porter Goss.

 

For a full listing of ANCA endorsements visit www.anca.org.

 

 

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg96382.html