Buffet picks Kerry! (?!)

[Moses]

    <br>    Reporting by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism



Buffett's presidential pick: John Kerry


By Lisa Lambert, May 3, 2004 11:26 AM

Forbes reported yesterday that Warren Buffett will be an economic advisor on John Kerry's campaign (the story).

"I personally think our election will be a referendum on George W. Bush," he told the magazine. "The Kerry campaign is much less important than how people feel about Bush."

Back that bus up. This is Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world; the captain of his own fortune; the Arnold Shwarzenegger supporter.

Just a few months ago, Buffett joined the team that made Schwarzenegger governor. At first, Shwarzenegger put him in center ring. Then, Buffett suggested repealing a California law limiting property taxes (which would mean raising taxes) and Schwarzenegger yanked him out. Still, Buffett and Schwarzenegger are good buds.

According to the San Diego Tribune, Buffett offered the governor advice during the state legislature's battle over workers' compensation reform last month. Schwarzenegger had begun to agree with Democrats that reforms should include regulating insurers' rates, but Buffett "turned him against regulation. Buffett apparently told Schwarzenegger that he wouldn't recommend that insurers come to California if the state regulates workers' compensation because regulation would create too much uncertainty."

The San Francisco Chronicle, reported that Buffett was by Schwarzenegger's side on Wall Street to sell Proposition 57. The proposition, which passed in March, authorized the sale of $15 billion worth of bonds to finance California. "Buffett gave a glowing testimonial to Schwarzenegger," the Chronicle reported, "comparing the California governor's first 100 days in office to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's successful effort during his first 100 days in office to rally a dispirited nation during the Great Depression."

Then, there was Buffett's shareholders' meeting of his Berkshire Hathway Incorporated last week, where Schwarzenegger was featured in a videotaped skit.

Many said Schwarzenegger's election proved a Republican could win the state in the presidential contest. After all, a Republican had won California's governorship. But now an economic advisor to this Republican governor has landed in Kerry-land. What will die-hard Democrats think of Buffett's presence? How does a man who trumpeted looser regulation of workers' comp insurers now talk to the party of labor unions? The populist rhetoric coming from Democrats is that George Bush gives to the rich with his tax plan and Iraq contracts while stealing from the poor. So, then, what is it about this election that gets the richest people in the world so riled?

[Moses]

Bush or Kerry, 'War on Terror' Unlikely to Change
Mon May 3, 2004 11:16 AM ET
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nuance and tone may be different, but no matter who wins this year's presidential election, political realities will limit the victor's policy options in the U.S. battle against terrorism, political analysts say.

The "war on terror" is a central campaign topic, and President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry have been at pains to highlight their differences while painting the other as weak on security.

But analysts say both men agree on most of the core issues and see stabilizing Iraq, hunting down militants abroad, tightening security at home, and reviewing domestic intelligence as central pillars of the fight.

"The difference between the two on the war on terror is much less than most people think. There might be a difference in emphasis, but not overall gist," said John Hulsman, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

"Because frankly, it's like (Rolling Stones guitarist) Keith Richards said to Mick Jagger: 'It's bigger than the both of us."'

Analysts and foreign diplomats say that despite differences in approach, political realities such as escalating violence in Iraq, continued militant attacks across the globe, limited resources, the congressional make-up and public opinion at home will dictate Bush and Kerry's security policies.

While Kerry disagrees with Bush's contention that Iraq has always been a centerpiece in the war on terror, the Democratic senator says the United States must create stability there now lest Iraq become a "failed state" and magnet for extremists.

"The government and the world are on an escalator. You can't just stop and say I think I'll get off," said Stephen Hess, an expert on presidential politics at the Brookings Institution.

LITTLE 'MARGIN TO MANEUVER'

One former Bush administration official told Reuters Kerry might wage a more effective war on terror than Bush because he was likely to take a more complex approach, looking at broader threats while coupling military force with "soft power" such as alliance building and a battle for hearts and minds.

Some analysts also say Kerry will seek more alternatives to military force to fight the terrorist threat. Nonetheless, they do not expect a dramatic departure from Bush's security policies if he takes office in January 2005.

"Kerry will be more diplomatic and try to enhance U.S. relations with other countries. But the margin to maneuver on policy in the war on terror is very narrow," an Arab diplomat said.

Even some campaign officials in both camps were hard pressed to summarize major differences in vision for the war on terror, and resorted to charges of unfulfilled pledges or inconsistent policies by the rival candidate.

As outlined on campaign Web sites, the security programs of the two sides appear strikingly similar. Both pledge to stay the course and secure stability in Iraq as part of the battle against extremists. Both say a more peaceful Middle East in general will contribute to U.S. security.

Both plan a review of the U.S. intelligence community, more money for "first responders" like police and firefighters and call for tight domestic security, a continued crackdown on terrorist financing while hunting down terrorists abroad.

Analysts say even the Patriot Act, which critics say expanded police powers too far in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is unlikely to change much under a President Kerry because of the valuable tools it offers law enforcement.

"It may be a rallying cry politically, but policy-wise, again, I see very little difference," Hulsman said.

Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas, said that even if Kerry's security policies themselves do not differ significantly from Bush's, he might have an easier time winning the support of other countries.

"The biggest difference is new people, a fresh start, a possible willingness on the part of some allies to reconsider entrenched positions," he said.

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

[Moses]

Kerry pitches Business

Liberals worry that, in the White House, Mr. Kerry is likely to tack even further toward the center. Some on the left complain Mr. Kerry is already doing so _ undercutting the populism that was a key part of Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign. "The risk is that he's going to run the way Clinton governed, rather than the way Clinton ran," says Robert Kuttner, editor of the liberal American Prospect. "No president ever got elected by promising to appease the bond market."


Comment: I ain't a "liberal" but my heart is bleedin'