Did anyone just see CNN's ridiculous assessment of Kerry?

On the Judy Woodruff show....Bruce Morton did some incredible piece on "those who are most like Kerry don't like him".....Going on about Catholics (like Kerry) are mostly for Bush....wealthy (like Kerry) are mostly for Bush.....white men (like Kerry) are mostly for Bush....and others I can't remember off hand...It was just too ridiculous!....It's as if they are determined to convince the public that they MUST hate John Kerry!

Isn't it amazing how there don't seem to be "any groups against" Bush*?

This is absurd!

garbage.....It doesn't even seem like a logical line of questioning for a news organization to be following....:puke:

Catholics are mostly for Kerry.

Conservative Catholic pundits and the church hierarchy might not be, but the laity are mostly liberal.

Catholics are against Kerry. In fact, I've listend to priests (not Catholic but husband is) do sermons very much condemning Bush. Catholics were always a big bastion of the Dem party. These fuckers are trying to CONVINCE any Catholic listening that there must be something wrong with them because "all Catholics support Bush".....these people are being put on high whore alert...and I knew they would be.

so I guess I'm doing pretty good, and I voting KERRY, yahoooo!!!!

...don't seem to like Bush very much.

"On the Judy Woodruff show"

You actually think she would say anything positive about John Kerry? Pigs will fly out of my butt first

La Woodruff is one of Unca Karl's best agents.
P.S. They are getting ridiculously desperate, aren't they?

influenced against Kerry because of this garbage?

I hear they stoop pretty low. Judy was never this bad. I guess junior scared her pretty bad?

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Omaha&st=NE&last=Buffett&first=Warren

He hasn't donated to Kerry (yet), but check out who else he supports and for how much...

Biased GOP shills. :grr:

But didn't Gore take the Catholic vote last time ?

People thought that voting for Nixon would help end the war, but he escalated it. Now, some people are looking to Kerry for the same reason they looked to Nixon...but will Kerry be TOO much like Nixon???? Jesus H...they're out for him today!

will take Nixon over Bush any day.

Bush-lite to many voters. That is probably true at this point whether we like it or not.

Fortunately, there is a long time for Candidate Kerry to correct this impression prior to the election. Hint: a big fat move leftward will help.

Thanks to CNN for this timely constructive criticism of the Kerry campaign. You can't correct if you don't acknowledge any problems. Kerry is a smart guy. He is probably watching CNN and doing the "acknowledging" now as you read this reply. I can't wait for him to use this new info and make necessary adjustments.

You can't beat Bush by playing Bush's game or by being Bush-lite!

that wear/say "split the left" as their mantra - as they try to elect Bush.

Most seems to hide in the "thank god for Nader" world - or the "green" world - ignoring the disaster for the working folks and the disaster for those that care about green that has been the last 3 years under Bush.

But Kerry is not Bush-lite - no matter how many times CNN and mistaken posters at DU may suggest it (I did like the idea that Kerry was Nixon because their is a war that those on the left do not support - a bit of logic that may take a while to understand)

And no adjustment to Kerry positions are really needed - although the "win - or get out" that seems the majority position would be a better political place than his stabilze and leave current Iraq position - but I suspect the stabilze and leave is better for the US.

I have talked to enough non-GOPers over the past year to know that there indeed are liberals and moderates who do consider Kerry as Bush-lite.

You haven't come across these folks yet, but CNN has and I have. When you finally do meet these people, then I expect we will have a lot to chat about strategy-wise.

Your reply assumes that there are a lot of "mistaken" DU posters (like me) out there. As far as the "mistaken" part, what is the basis for this assumption that some kind of mistaken perception is going on?

Maybe our perceptions are correct, and your perception has been been limited by the fact that you have only really had political discussions with a small sample (tens?, hundreds? thousands? small samples all!) of acquaintances.

Another, related possibility that you get along better with Kerry supporters, and tend to be more inclined to talk politics with fellow Kerry supporters. If, hypothetically, this were somehow the case, then it would explain why you haven't met anybody who thinks Kerry is Bush-lite.

more different than Bushes so as to not be "lite"?

I'll assume National Health single payer ala Canada is one alternative position that we would both agree on as being better than Kerry's current position - but is the 700 billion to insure 27 million out of the 40 million currently not insured via expansion of CHIPS, MEDICARE, and MEDICAID a lite version of a Bush approach?

Likewise is Social Security wage cap increase leaving the Reagan age 67 retirement age unchanged - the Kerry position - a lite version of individual accounts with social security changed to a welfare program with lower benefits with higher payroll taxes for the next 20 years to cover current retirement payouts - which is the Bush position - albeit Bush does not dare say more than generalities about separate accounts at the current time?

On defense the budget is cut under Kerry - and you and I would want larger cuts I would assume - but is this a lite version of privatizing and increasing the cost of defense plus new toys that do not even get tested to see if they work - like our star wars system that Bush will declare operational this fall?

Where is the Bush lite?

antitrust, military spending, the war in Iraq (get out!), insurance reform, fair labor laws in our foreign trading partner nations, corporate taxes (too low), capital gains taxes (too low).

Mostly antitrust, for me personally.

I could go on, but the foregoing could feed two months or so worth of stump speeches that would help dispel the popular notion that Kerry is BushLite.

given that the provisos and enforcement of anti-trust laws are mostly left to the courts not the president.

Even Clinton was testing the anti-trust clauses by going after Microsoft as fiercely as he did..you will recall the Clinton Admin was on the precipice of prevailing in that case when Bush took office and the case was dropped.

I further have spoken to many many people and RARELY hear people on the street saying Kerry is Bush lite..so on the anecdotal evidence scale I think we cancel each other out.

while the courts decide antitrust cases, it is the DOJ who decides how many suits to bring and on what terms to settle out.

Clinton could have pursued Microsoft as vigorously as he did David Koresh. He chose not to.

Are you saying that you talk to lots of people that aren't yet Kerry supporters? I applaud your willingness to consort with the enemy!

Clinton helped push this bill that has led to the monopolizing of radio & TV, Cable rates that are no longer regulated and set into full gear the loose spending and free-wheel dealing that led to Enron and still goes on.

Anti trust? And Microsoft wasn't anti-trust...it was its competitors trying to use the government to do to Gates what they couldn't do in the marketplace.

against MS with the vigor that FDR enforced antitrust, then there wouldn't be any lingering questions about who was really rnning the show there. He didn't and there are.

All due respect, the original suit against Microsoft was by Netscape when MS decided to bundle the browser and keep it free...eventually making it the leading browser and all but cooking Netscape's butt. I blame Netscape more than MS...being that I used to use Netscape for years but it was always hanging up on my machine, not to mention the problems it had with plug-ins, java and so on.

Netscape (and AOL/Time Warner that owns them) wanted to start charging for their browser...when Netscape had the lion's share of the browser market, while IE was going to stay free. That's what led to one of the suits that led to others piling on.

I've always contended that Microsoft's only guilt was developing the most efficient, accessible and innovative OS & Software, but it was never monopolistic. Yes, I'm familiar with those who had platform and source code issues, but it was Microsoft that made the PC truly PC when it made its OS available to many manufacturers that lowered the cost of CPUs...compared to Apple that wanted to keep everything properietory.

As far as a monopolisitic OS...I know plenty of people who run Unix and Linux boxes...or OS2 Warp or other systems. Sure, these people knew a lot about computers, but the contention was that Windows was THE only operating system. It wasn't. Again, I stand that this "anti-trust" was big money Silicon Valley high rollers trying to use the government to do for them what they couldn't in the open market. Enough said.

Clinton's pushing of DeReg in '96 has had far worse effects than anything Gates or MS has done. This opened the door for Clear Channel to dominate small and medium market radio (killing lots of local ownership), your local cable company to put on channels to those who paid the most for it as opposed to the agreements for local origination and other services that were original provisions for their charters...then to charge you as they see fit despite using publicly financed satellites and distributed via publicly owned utility poles and networks...he gave that all away.

Sorry, I am and was a big Clinton supporter, but not about this. It was a disasterous move that we see here on DU every day whenever there's another Hate Radio post. (excluding mine, of course :evilgrin:)

Gates is not a tech guy - but he is a great stealer of ideas and market maker. My brother-in law lost 5 million to a Gates idea theft - but the Gates lawyers make going to Court hopeless.

There have been books - and even threads at DU - on this ??

So one wonders where Gov should not have chased microsoft - and Clinton ok's Telcom 96 (after initial veto threat, modifications) - came from ... - can we say Fox Cable News?

Antitrust as an issue had all but been abandoned by Bush the father and for eight years before that by Reagan.

Clinton challenged a number of mergers that would have never been challenged by Bush and Reagan and the crux of the Microsoft case was not simply unfair competition but the use of their size to stifle innovation in the tech industry.

He fully funded the antitrust division of the DOJ, not pursued AT ALL during Reagan and Bush, and used the Federal Trade Commission as well to it's fullest. Any lawyer who practices antitrust could name at least a dozen tings done more aggressively by Clinton than by Reagan or Bush.

Clinton had more success than probably any American president since Roosevelt prosecuting price fixers.

He also had an entirely different playing board to manage due to increased trade and worked with branches of European governments and Canada to prosecute companies that had local and offshore affiliates in order to vigorously pursue price fixing which again STIFLES competition far more than mere size does. To that end he passed the International Antitrust Enforcement Act of 1994.

Granted during his entire term he only prosecuted 10 monopoly cases and won only six, but this was far more than Reagan and Bush combined. He also went to using outside lawyers to prosecute these cases not as a means of outsourcing but as a means of getting lawyers with actual expertise in the field rather than government lawyers, many of whom have no real success in private practice.

He prosecuted 16 basic Sherman violations that resulted in fines of over 17 billion dollars.

Domestically over 20 cases of Sherman Act violations prosecuted by Clinton's administration resulted in fines over 10 million dollars....5 of them over 20 million dollars which was also unprecedented.

Over the course of his administration he launched over 600 criminal investigations against corporations...again UNPRECEDENTED.

He launched over 50 restraint of trade cases on high profile industries such as pharmaceuticals and won nearly all of them.

All of these figures are available at the US Department of Justice site. I know what I am talking about as I debated this subject on a local cable show with Republican back in the late 90's.


These cases are staggeringly expensive to prosecute due to the deep pockets of the mega corporations fighting them so what I have listed was no small accomplishment.

I also notice that your advocacy seems to manifest itself mostly in the form of criticism of Democrats and a "devil's advocate" approach when claiming to criticize but actually defend Republicans. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

A few facts go a long way.

that is not what pursuing antitrust is all about

The bottom is that commerce (especially in the areas of media, health care, electricity, automobiles, agriculture and oil) were much more consolidated and collusive in 1999 than in 1992.

All those rink-dinky suits were window dressing. Also, compare what Clinton (and his first Congress) spent on antitrust enforcement to what they spent on the military or even on the prosecution of David Koresh. The antitrust budget may look big compared to the assets of regular folks, but antitrust was not treated by Clinton as job #1 (or job #2 or job #3 or job #4).

As far as MS goes, I remember a time when Democratic weren't too cheap to take an antitrust case all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe Gore had some kind of plans to do that to MS, but: (1) I managed to miss that plank of his 2000 campaign; and (2) I doubt it.

Also, appointing strongly antitrust judges is cheap (it don't cost a thing). Clinton generally chose not to.

Moving to your comparisons to Reagan and Bush Sr. Yes, Clinton put some degree of effort into antitrust while, in contradistinction, Reagan attacked it and Bush Sr. ignored it. Yes, that does make Clinton better on antitrust to some degree. But, similar to the doubts expressed by the voters interviewed on CNN, the nagging doubt is: are the differences big and meaningful, or do all modern Democrats tend to be Repuke-lite?

Most importantly in considering the Clinton legacy: there were Clinton-era Trade Agreements, which are not, strictly speaking, "antitrust." But it is an issue where big business wanted something and it got it from Clinton without a whole lotta quid pro quo.

What exactly did big business want here? Basically, tariff-less trading with various nations, regardless of how bad the nation's labor standards are. As I said above, Clinton gave it to them. Heck, he even helped out with their advocacy on this. In real world commerce terms, these trade agreements have certainly had more impact than Bush Sr.'s neglect of antitrust and possibly even more impact than Reagan's attacks on antitrust. Slave labor (at least that devoted to the US market) was more prevalent in 1999 than 1992.

Now the good news: it is not too late for candidate Kerry to start talking about antitrust. He could start by saying that he will make sure that every last penny of those $17 billion in Clinton-era fines are collected. If all that money has been collected already by Bush's DOJ, great, mission accomplished. On the other hand, if there has been some uncollected portions of these fines, then Candidate Kerry can tell us passionately how he will get to the bottom of that and get that $17 billion for us, by any means neccessary. If new anti-deadbeat legislation is needed here, then Kerry can propose some. America, whether liberal or conservative, loves going after deadbeats! Sounds like a popular message to me.

Next recommended step for Kerry: set a goal of $100 billion in antitrust fines (collected) per year. That is enough to finance some limited nation building in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be nice to have those Halliburton bills stop accruing to the deficit. While $100 billion may sound like a lot of money, I assure you that big business has the $100 billion and that they violate the Sherman Act on a basis so routine that nobody even notices it anymore. Kerry can make them notice if he chooses to. Again, sounds like a popular message to me.

Believe me: if Candidate Kerry follows these two simple steps, he will drastically reduce the proportion of voters who believe (mistakenly or not) that Kerry is BushLite.

You may be happy with Clinton's tough manhandling of big business, but I can envision so much more. So far Kerry hasn't seemed very dedicated to this lovely vision of mine. However, he is starting to talk about health care reform and some other good things this week -- so I hold out considerable hope. However, no progress will be made if everybody keeps saying that Kerry can do or refrain from doing whatever he likes policy-wise because he will always be at least marginally better than *.

And while I was not an advocate of Clinton's positions on trade as I felt they should be tied to human rights, I can't fault him for his basic philosophy which was that less people would starve if their countries had a crack at prosperity. It clearly didn't work but certainly Clinton's intentions were far less pandering to business than Bush's.

You keep bringing up David Koresh being prosecuted. This was in 1993, the first year of his term.....his justice dept dealt with a 53 day standoff. What do you suppose would happen to a cult storing arms today that was against the Bush administration? Anything less?

BTW, it was the Republicans that dragged out both Koresh and Randy Weaver, who while I mourn the loss of his family, still was stockpiling weapons and CAUSED it to be a showdown with law enforcement thereby endangering his wife and children.


Uh....Microsoft would have made it's way to the top...it was appealed several times throughout the case. The remainder of his cases were pursued vigorously.

Name a judge that Clinton appointed that was not strong on antitrust...can you? You might wish to recall that the majority of his judges were blocked. ( and I DO fault Dems for accomodating Bush on this and yes the force behind it was media consolidation for which I DO fault Clinton. He isn't without fault, but your assessment of him is lacking greatly...you respond as if he didn't have an 80 million dollar witch hunt taking place at the time.)

It's pretty clear you haven't even bothered to read Kerry's site or you would see that he plans to enforce labor and human rights agreements on trade issues.

Go read his policies than come back and debate this topic....

I will be gone today so if you don't get a response, it isn't because I don't have one. Find me another administration in recent history that pursued antitrust at the level Clinton did...you can't.

we seem to agree that anti-trust is good and that trade agreements should be tied to labor standards.

our main difference seems to be how important antitrust is. To you, moderately important. To me, vitally important.

Despite our disagreement as to characterize the Clinton administrations antitrust actions as "rinky dink" or "good to great to super-great," I had two very specific policy suggestions, on antitrust, for Candidate Kerry. Your reply doesn't address these two policy suggestions -- hopefully, upon reflection, you will see that they are good ideas for Candidate Kerry to embrace and they are policies that reflect our shared values.

As far as whether I can collect damage on aggregate antitrust awards from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and/or 1960s and then convert those aggreagte awards into 1995 dollars -- that is quite a research assignment and I may not have time for it. If anyone out there has time and inclination to do this, I would encourage it. If NMSA is right on this when the expenditures and fines are converted into a constant currency basis, I would like to know and I am eager to embrace Clinton's antitrust legacy in a manner more cherishing than currently I do.

All I can say is that I have read Prof. Areeda'a Antitrust (1967 ed.) cover to cover. Reading the case excerpts in this casebook, I sure got the feeling that there have been long periods of antitrust enforcement more rigorous than that practiced during the Clinton years. I also compare my direct memories of the MS case to earlier (pre-Reagan cases) like IBM and AT&T. My feeling is that Democratic administrations used to go after big companies harder at one time. Maybe the Clinton DoJ had a bigger antitrust budget (in constant dollars), but it is certainly possible to have a big budget and get nothing done for all the expenditure.

On David Koresh, we obviously have a difference of opinion on how big a menace to society this guy and his stockpiles really were. I was just trying to give a concrete example of a point I made above, which is: compared to most things the government does, antitrust enforcement is cheap. To further bolster that point: in theory, and somewhat in practice, antitrust enforcement pays for itself in a way that other government incursions, excursions and endeavors do not. (excepting the Post Office and the Patent Office, of course). Hopefully, we can agree on this, regardless of our respective opinions about the Koresh situation.

You seem to think that Kerry could not pursue antitrust more vigorously than Clinton did. This is puzzling, especially because you seem pretty sympathetic to antitrust generally.

Could Candidate Kerry mention the word "antitrust" more than Clinton did?

Of course, yes.

Could Candidate Kerry make antitrust a more central theme of his campaign than candidates Clinton & Gore did?

Of course, yes.

Could a President Kerry bring more and bigger and harder fought antitrust suits than the Clinton DoJ did?

Again, of course, yes.

Is candidate Kerry going to do any of these things in fact during his candidacy and potential presidency?

I say yes, you say no, you say stop, I say go, go, go. However, if this really is your position, accurately stated, your reasons remain obscure to me. From the general tenor of your replies, it doesn't seem like you would have any problem with Kerry getting tough on antitrust. If he chose to go this way, I get the feeling he would still retain your vote.

To speculate a bit, maybe you just have a strong affinity for Bill Clinton and really hate seeing him explicitly criticized (by me, now) or implicitly criticized (possibly by candidate Kerry's platform, later in the campaign). If this is what is motivating you, then let me restate my position into different words that might be more rhetorically effective on ya:

Bill Clinton was a wonderful, loving and virile family man who was extremely intelligent, quite creative, had lots of integrity and loved his country and ruled it wisely for 8 of the best years of all of our lives. One of his big, big priorities was antitrust. It would have been an even bigger priority absent those distracting, useless investigations into workplace sexual harrassment. Despite the distractions, Bill Clinton did more on antitrust than any other recent administration and he did it for the best reason of all: because he believed in it!

Now it is time for Candidate Kerry to pick up this exciting policy strand and make people start to notice this underappreciated aspect of Bill Clinton's legacy. * may have dropped the MS suit, but Candidate Kerry is gonna come back at them and go medieval all over their Redmond-based hineys in a way that would make Bill Clinton happy and proud.

Stated thusly, do we have some common ground now?

of facts that are easy to find. I even told you where to go to find them...so please don't feign facts when you've offered none.

our main difference seems to be how important antitrust is. To you, moderately important. To me, vitally important.

Pure conjecture on your part. I never said that.

Despite our disagreement as to characterize the Clinton administrations antitrust actions as "rinky dink" or "good to great to super-great," I had two very specific policy suggestions, on antitrust, for Candidate Kerry. Your reply doesn't address these two policy suggestions -- hopefully, upon reflection, you will see that they are good ideas for Candidate Kerry to embrace and they are policies that reflect our shared values.

I said to read his site, but you might start by reading my post and not mistating it. Nowhere did I say "great to supergreat." I did say substantially MORE than the two previous administrations.

You might wish to recall the Microsoft case was NOT popular with the general public as they thought it would increase their costs thanks to the scare campaign of Microsoft


As far as whether I can collect damage on aggregate antitrust awards from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and/or 1960s and then convert those aggreagte awards into 1995 dollars -- that is quite a research assignment and I may not have time for it. If anyone out there has time and inclination to do this, I would encourage it. If NMSA is right on this when the expenditures and fines are converted into a constant currency basis, I would like to know and I am eager to embrace Clinton's antitrust legacy in a manner more cherishing than currently I do.

Hell, all I am asking you to do is compare the 1980's to the 1990's. It would take about 5 minutes to prove yourself incorrect.

Yes I can see after bringing up Waco and skirt chasing while slamming Kerry that you are just dying to be more objective...


All I can say is that I have read Prof. Areeda'a Antitrust (1967 ed.) cover to cover. Reading the case excerpts in this casebook, I sure got the feeling that there have been long periods of antitrust enforcement more rigorous than that practiced during the Clinton years. I also compare my direct memories of the MS case to earlier (pre-Reagan cases) like IBM and AT&T. My feeling is that Democratic administrations used to go after big companies harder at one time. Maybe the Clinton DoJ had a bigger antitrust budget (in constant dollars), but it is certainly possible to have a big budget and get nothing done for all the expenditure.

Therein lies the problem. You are basing your opinion on what is to some degree antiquated information since the decision in Brunswick versus Pueblo (decided after this book) fundamentally altered key questions and conditions for when a case meets antitrust guidelines.
Furthermore, AT&T wasn't pre-Reagan and what happened in that case in the long run ripped off the public...AT&T had a regulated natural monopoly..Reagan broke it up then handed off publicly funded defense programs DARPA etc to a private interest...bills would have naturally gone down under the natural monopoly as well since the monopoly was broken up right at the time new technology had telephones travel over satellites instead of lines.


On David Koresh, we obviously have a difference of opinion on how big a menace to society this guy and his stockpiles really were. I was just trying to give a concrete example of a point I made above, which is: compared to most things the government does, antitrust enforcement is cheap. To further bolster that point: in theory, and somewhat in practice, antitrust enforcement pays for itself in a way that other government incursions, excursions and endeavors do not. (excepting the Post Office and the Patent Office, of course). Hopefully, we can agree on this, regardless of our respective opinions about the Koresh situation.

Antitrust enforcement is NOT cheap. These are some of the most expensive cases and time consuming tasks the DOJ does...far more than criminal or any other area of law. Furthermore, with the advent of the information age, the issues have changed as the constructs of intellectual property, patents and anti-trust became WAY more complicated than they were previously which is WHY the Clinton admin focused so much on the degree to which antitrust intertwined with stifling of innovation (which is FAR more valuable to the consumer.. as we have witnessed with the numerous bugs, viruses, trojan horses etc that seem to get into MS's programs but not Apple or Linux))

You seem to think that Kerry could not pursue antitrust more vigorously than Clinton did. This is puzzling, especially because you seem pretty sympathetic to antitrust generally.

Where the hell did I say it? I don't think that..I justthink AVERAGE people are not as concerned. That still doesn't mean I don't have confidence that Kerry will pursue it ten times more vigorously than it is now.

Could Candidate Kerry mention the word "antitrust" more than Clinton did?

Of course, yes.

Could Candidate Kerry make antitrust a more central theme of his campaign than candidates Clinton & Gore did?

Of course, yes.

Could a President Kerry bring more and bigger and harder fought antitrust suits than the Clinton DoJ did?

Again, of course, yes.

Is candidate Kerry going to do any of these things in fact during his candidacy and potential presidency?

I say yes, you say no, you say stop, I say go, go, go. However, if this really is your position, accurately stated, your reasons remain obscure to me. From the general tenor of your replies, it doesn't seem like you would have any problem with Kerry getting tough on antitrust. If he chose to go this way, I get the feeling he would still retain your vote.

Rather than blather on and on..I don't see much value in Kerry campaigning on a subject poorly understood by the general voting population.



To speculate a bit, maybe you just have a strong affinity for Bill Clinton and really hate seeing him explicitly criticized (by me, now) or implicitly criticized (possibly by candidate Kerry's platform, later in the campaign). If this is what is motivating you, then let me restate my position into different words that might be more rhetorically effective on ya:

Bill Clinton was a wonderful, loving and virile family man who was extremely intelligent, quite creative, had lots of integrity and loved his country and ruled it wisely for 8 of the best years of all of our lives. One of his big, big priorities was antitrust. It would have been an even bigger priority absent those distracting, useless investigations into workplace sexual harrassment. Despite the distractions, Bill Clinton did more on antitrust than any other recent administration and he did it for the best reason of all: because he believed in it!

No I get sick of seeing you explicitly criticize all Democrats. I've yet to see you say a positive thing. I notice you once again bring up the sex thing and WACO...most people who come to this site to use those as talking points don't last long...I guess you've wowed everyone with your intellectual verve since they would be impressed by someone who references an obsolete book where antitrust law is concerned. I'm less impressed.

No we have no common ground...you base opinions on something other than facts and when confronted with them do a dance around everything but the facts you were confronted with.

We simply differ on the best political strategy based on the facts. The closest I come to attacking your facts is to so that non-constant dollar comparisons have greatly diminished value as a tool of comparison. As far as whether Clinton did a better job on antitrust than the republican admin's of the 1980's: we agree on this point, as should be clear from my previous replies.

As far as whether Clinton did as good a job on antitrust as FDR or Truman -- you say that intervening events (eg, Brunswick case, technology) make those comparisons inapt. I disagree, but this seems more like an opinion than a fact issue. I certainly agree with the underlying facts that Brunswick does make antitrust enforcement harder and that constantly-advancing technology makes antitrust enforcement harder, too. I just draw different inferences from those facts than you do.

Moving from facts (where I still think we are in substantial agreement), on to opinions:

I must admit I am kind of confused on how important antitrust is to you after your latest reply. Is antitrust as important to you as it is to me (as a policy, not as a campaign plank)?

As far as Clinton, I praised the man highly at the end of the previous reply, so I have no idea why you think I am being critical there. Also, all the nice things I said about at the end of the previous reply about Clinton are objectively true. You (incorrectly IMO) characterized that portion of my post as "critical," but did not point out any factual disagreements we may have regarding anything in my paragraphs of praise for Clinton. I was saddened that these paragraphs didn't have you clambering onto the antitrust bandwagon the way I thought they would, but hopefully I have planted an intellectual seed that will gradually take hold over time.

I appreciate all the facts you are turning me on to about antitrust. I understand that reading an old textbook that I picked up for $1 in Needles ain't gonna make me an expert. That is why my antennae are still out for helpful info, like that in your last couple replies.

In fact, your latest reply gave me an idea for another possible Dem plank in 2004; specifically: **overturn Brunswick.** Its my new meme!

I now understand that you think antitrust campaign planks are a turn-off to voters (regardless of the level of importance of antitrust to you personally). In my defense here, I will say that antitrust has been a main theme of exactly no presidential campaigns in my lifetime, so that makes it harder to predict what a good politician could do with the issue in the 21st century.

In other words, our disagreement here is not in the realm of fact, but in the realm of speculation. I think Kerry is up to the challenge of "selling antitrust" as a communicator. You don't seem to think anybody could pull it off. Maybe we will find out who is correct in 2004 and maybe we won't.

85% of them thought Iraq was behind 9/11 prior to the war....this is the same public you think might be impressed with a politician campaigning on antitrust. For that matter, Clinton did not campaign on antitrust but by his second year in office was vigorously pursuing it (even if we disagree on that fact.)

I don't think it is a "turnoff" to voters near as much as I think that it is complicated and doesn't get a long attention span. I don't think it is an issue worth running on..I would much rather Kerry go with the populist rhetoric he has pursued ala NAFTA by pointing out (using NAFTA as an analogy here) that NAFTA DOES have provisions concerning labor and environmental protections and they simply aren't being enforced in favor of corporate greed. This does resonate with the public.


In fact, every law is written into some CODE and enforced by regulations..so when Republicans scream DEREGULATION..what they are really saying is "don't enforce the law."


Before Kerry can overturn anything we need a break from rightwing activist judges. I trust Kerry's appointments far more than Bush's..Pickering and Priscilla ( I never met an industry I wasn't sympathetic toward) Owens are proof enough of that.

If I remember correctly, this sub-thread started because I gave a short list of issues that Candidate Kerry could use to separate himself from Bush and show not just that he was somewhat different than Bush, but much, much different.

Although I cited antitrust as my pet issue on the list, but any of the issues would work well, to my way of thinking.

The exciting part: I think I had trade agreements on my short list. If Kerry provides exciting leadership and aggressive ideas on the issue of trade agreements, then he can go easy on the antitrust rhetoric and enforcement as far as I care. This would seem to bring us into substantial harmony, even on strategy matters.

The caveat: by being "aggressive" on trade agreements, I don't mean "hey, we need little changes here and there." what I mean is no more slavery, regardless of how pitiable 3d world people may be in their natural state, unhelped by the US. Slavery might have seemed like a cool quick fix for saving starving people at some times (eg, 1810, 1993), but it is not really a moral solution -- or even one that is good for our long-run economic interests here in the US.

By being aggressive, I mean tearing up teh existing trade agreements and rewriting them with fair labor standards as an integral and pervasive aspect of the agreements. We don't need to outlaw slavery. We just need to burden it with tarriffs sufficient to make sure we have fair reparations to give all the slaves at the end of the day (or hopefully sooner). That may or may not be a little rad for your tastes, but that is what I think candidate Kerry should do if he downplays antitrust in the manner that you believe is wisest.

and American corporations outsourcing to them get to run an end game around NAFTA and around environmental regulations simply because laws concerning labor and environment are not being pursued by this administration.

This is why when someone calls him Bush-lite simply because he does not cancel NAFTA, I get a bit annoyed...free trade (or more specifically FAIR TRADE ) has ALWAYS been a Democratic party issue. I can think of nothing LESS liberal than to offer charity to developing nations rather than trade. I don't believe in protectionism ala Pat Buchanan. I do believe the best way to lift the world out of poverty is through commerce. I believe a challenge to Chapter 11 of NAFTA is far more important even than antitrust but that will take international cooperation to accomplish..it cannot be achieved unilaterally due to the confines of international law.

This global problem has a great deal to do with antitrust since, given that we live in a global economy, companies based in America need to be strong enough to compete with companies based in other countries where their government might subsidize the industry or allow a monopoly in order to preclude our own competitiveness. This is why the law that Clinton passed in 94 WAS important and vital...trade is outside the confines of our own constitutional process and while I have a huge problem with monopolies operating in an unregulated fashion in America, I think we need to be vigilant of unintended consequences...i.e pursuing something to presumably help the underdog and harming them in the process. I do think Kerry will look for some global cooperation and does stand a chance of getting it...the rest of the world (save for Israel and Australia and a few other nations) appears to be moving back towards the more populist left rather than the reactionary right (England remains to be seen).

Arthur Leavitt, Clinton's former SEC chair has written and spoken extensively on the subject and the remedies. I do think Kerry has listened and is responding...it's more subtle than Dean or Kucinich has stated, but frankly, I am glad neither prevailed. Having traveled extensively through Latin America, I've seen upsides and downsides to the current trade situation..... I think the most progressive approach is to rework deals rather than cancel programs outright...I also think using agreements with other governments to reign in their own corporations is a good start..in fact, with NAFTA given the tribunal that oversees NAFTA agreements, it may not even be possible to pull back entirely...Bill Moyers did a great program a few years back called TRADING DEMOCRACY that touches upon the realities of the current situation. William Greider from the Nation is interviewed in it as well..he has written extensively on the subject as well.

They are helpful to me for my own vote, but also as ammunition to better advocate for Kerry.

I do not agree that huge, market-dominating companies are neccessary for global trade. I know that big multi-nationals swear up and down that this is the case, but I don't believe it. besides, if big multi-nationals want to sell in the US (and they do), then they, too can and should be subject to US antitrust law. What they do outside our borders may not be within US jurisdiction, but the second they want to sell the fruits of their labors in the US, we suddenly have a jurisdictional hook, and I think we should use our hook.

Also, I wouldn't get too annoyed at people who think that Clinton abandoned the ideal of fair trade. I know you think that the consequences of the trade agreements he did were unintended and unforeseeable. However, I foresaw the consequences and I know others did too. If the Democratic Party has to eat a little humble pie on these errors, I hope the party has the integrity to do that candidly and forthrightly.

But these are small issues in the grand scheme. The important thing is that you are showing me that Kerry is getting back on board with fair trade and ending foreign slavery. That is a development I find positive and exciting. I encourage him to continue in this direction, AND (EVEN IF WE DISAGREE ON THE DETAILS) i BET YOU DO, TOO. (sorry, unintended CAPS).


an aside on antitrust, if you are interested:

as you probably know their are plenty of reasons to be wary of large market-dominating companies. One popular reason is that these companies tend to get too much influence over the political process. I share this concern, but have more fundamental reasons for being such an "antitrust radical."

Specifically, when the theory of capitalism was laid out, Adam Smith was very quick to point out that one of the assumptions of his economic model was that companies set their prices and other discretionary policies independently, without knowledge of what the other players in the market were doing. The less that assumption holds in reality, the less the invisible hand of capitalism can work.

This wasn't a problem with the buthchers and the bakers and the candlestick makers that Smith liked to use as example back in 1776.

By 1890, largely because of technology advances, however, the assumption of numerous businesses acting independently had become a joke. So the US and Canada started passing antitrust laws. Some people saw these laws as a curb on capitalism, but really they are an integral part. The invisible hand ceases to function when businesses know what most of their competitors are doing.

It took decades of effort to get courts to enforce antitrust law. Through the efforts of heroes like Wilson and FDR, the courts did begin to take antitrust seriously and the economic results were (of course) good when the invisible hand began to function more actively again.

However, now decades of hostility and relative neglect have lead to a world where there are only a handful of oil companies and agricultural companies and health care providers. This is especially troubling when one considers that the US market is larger than ever before -- you would think there could be more market diversity -- not less!

Now big business will tell you all kinds of reasons why they have to be big: desire for bigger-than-free-market profit margins and the additional margin of investment that these big profit margins can cause, economies of scale, better access to foreign slave labor, etc, etc, etc.

As far as I am concerned, even assuming that all of their concerns are valid, none of it justifies wiping out the invisible hand upon which capitalist theory is based. You may get profitable, exciting psuedo-capitalism in the short run (the 1990s?). In the long run you get a corporate controlled command economy (welcome to the 21st century).

For anybody who is interested, this is why I personally get so excited about antitrust.

Insurance reform? To me, this is like saying Bush and Kerry's houses are almost exactly alike, because they both have a dust kitty in one corner of the livingroom.

What percentage of voters will agree with *any* candidate on every single issue? 5%? Less?

to some people, Bush and Kerry do seem like similar houses where one is a bit cleaner than the other.

Fortunately, there is plenty of time for Kerry to trash that metaphor. His recent remarks on health care are a good start. More, please, Mr. Kerry!

did you take it as such?

Insurance reform to Bush is only lawyer limits - a useless excercise if one wants to control costs - as any actuary - and I am an actuary and have priced the products - can tell you.

Why not respond to "What percentage of voters will agree with *any* candidate on every single issue? 5%? Less?"

I agree with you that thinking people do not generally agree with their candidate on every issue. Less than 5%.

Getting now down to brass tacks:

(a) if Kerry embraces the important issues I listed on this thread, then he will get both our votes.

(b) if candidate kerry fails to embrace *any* of the issues important to me (listed on this thread), then he risks losing my vote to a candidate that better reflects what I believe in. In this situation, speculating based on your reply, I believe he may very well still retain your vote, even if he picks up on none of "my" issues.

(c) all other thngs being equal, situation (a) is more favorable for candidate kerry than situation (b).

so it wouldn't follow that Kerry would be Joe-six-pack-lite-lite. :shrug:

no way you can believe Kerry is smart AND allowing a bunch of hacks who can't get real journalism jobs to dictate his message to voters.

It's not even news.

:D

The INTELLIGENT group!


I vote, does you?

I almost vomited when I saw it. They interviewed not one single pro-Kerry voter. I'll call to complain to the whores, not that it will do any good.

but from your description, it sounds accurate.

perhaps morton was trying to showcase the sad irony.

bruce morton is a liberal by the way.

People who are just like bush will vote for him:

illiterate dumbasses

spoiled momma's boys

fake religious zealots

crooked businessmen

I've sent two e-mails to CNN already, though, so I'm just going to ignore them from now on. Yesterday, she had on a stupid segment about Kerry and French connections. What about DeLay's last name? Unbelievable! It was just a silly say-nothing piece that should never have been run when this misadministration has enough corruption for a million Presidencies.

.

Y'know the story about how a drunken GWBush accosted Al Hunt in a restaurant and spewed obscenities at him in front of Hunt's small child? Al Hunt and Judy Woodruff are married. That was their small child.

She's the most lopsided lefty on cable news. I'm almost embarrassed to watch her half the time... like, "geez Judy, tone it down." She got so bad during the primaries that I assume she got talked to about it and may be overcompensating for a while, but she's a hardcore Democrat.

(She doesn't like Kerry himself but that's only because she had a school-girl crush on John Edwards and she was pretty disappointed.)