From: Gene McAloon 

Sorry, Will, I can't give you an opinion on Dean because at this point I
know next to nothing about him. I have seldom made it a habit to pay much
attention to the candidates this early in the game. Frankly I think it is a
waste of time to do so.

I will see what the rankings are after New Hampshire and then look into the
top candidates in some detail. To me, that will be more than early enough.
Of course
I already know a considerable amount about Gephardt and Lieberman because of the
prominent roles they have had in recent years, but that is about it at this stage.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:40:34 -0500, "William F. Zachmann"
 wrote:

>Gene,
>
>I would like to pose a question to you:  What is your take on Howard Dean?
>
>I am very much interested to know and would very much appreciate hearing
>your opinion of him.
>
>While I do not always agree with you, I have developed a great deal of
>respect over time for your crisp, incisive, and well-informed perspectives
>on a very wide range of topics.  You are also one of the people who most
>frequently surprises me with unexpected and sometimes, at least to my
>thinking, quite uniquely original ways of looking at things.
>
>So I am particularly interested to know what you think of Dean.
>
>All the best,
>
>will
>
>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:ad67tv83jblotb66g37vq6dpdnad7su36v{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:29:03 -0500, "Geo."
 wrote:
>>
>> >So you think if the steel industry was the major industry in
florida that
>> >bush would still have dropped the tariffs?
>>
>> Yes, he would have, for any number of reasons. For example, the steel
>industry
>> is in far better shape now than it was when the tariffs were imposed and
>because
>> Bush can't risk further alienating our allies. For example, Bush is now so
>> desperate for more troops in Iraq he is bypassing the EU and others to
>appeal to
>> NATO countries to contribute.
>>
>> Further and almost never mentioned in this somewhat complicated story is
>one of
>> the reasons he imposed those tariffs in the first place. He wanted
>Congress to
>> give him trade authority to reach trade agreements that Congress would not
>be
>> able to modify. The Republican controlled Congress had refused to give
>Clinton
>> that authority and was hesitant to give it to Bush as well, but relented
>when
>> Bush proved that he would act to protect US industry even if he had the
>trade
>> authority. He proved that by imposing the steel tariffs. That convinced
>many in
>> Congress, especially Democrats, that giving Bush what they were even
>reluctant
>> to give Clinton was justified.  Bush got the trade authority. Now that he
>has
>> got it, he no longer has to prove anything and can lift the tariffs.
>>
>> But again keep in mind that whatever tariffs the EU or others may have
>imposed
>> couldn't possibly have any significant affect on the economies of the
>states
>> effected before the elections next November. All the talk in the media
>about the
>> EU targeting states that Bush supposedly needs to get re-elected is pure
>drivel
>> initiate by that perpetual source of drivel, Pascal Lamy. Why anyone with
>any
>> sense would pay attention to whatever that man says is beyond me. But the
>media
>> saw a good story in it. Imagine, the EU trying to directly influence an
>American
>> presidential election through trade policy! The media couldn't resist
>running
>> with it and now we waste our time here arguing that nonsense.
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5