SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (309916)10/20/2002 10:32:47 AM
From: Emile Vidrine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
What Christians don't know about Israel
By Grace Halsell
American Jews sympathetic to Israel dominate key positions in all areas of our government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing US policy? President Bill Clinton as well as most members of Congress support Israel-and they know why. US Jews sympathetic to Israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers.
The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere-among those who support Israel but don't really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to Israel-and Zionism-often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood.
I am one of those. I grew up listening to stories of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual Israel. This was before a modern political entity with the same name appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday School and watched an instructor draw down window-type shades to show maps of the Holy Land. I imbibed stories of a Good and Chosen people who fought against their Bad "unChosen" enemies.
In my early 20s, I began traveling the world, earning my living as a writer. I came to the subject of the Middle East rather late in my career. I was sadly lacking in knowledge regarding the area. About all I knew was what I had learned in Sunday School.
And typical of many US Christians, I somehow considered a modern state created in 1948 as a homeland for Jews persecuted under the Nazis as a replica of the spiritual, mystical Israel I heard about as a child. When in 1979 I initially went to Jerusalem, I planned to write about the three great monotheistic religions and leave out politics. "Not write about politics?" scoffed one Palestinian, smoking a waterpipe in the Old Walled City. "We eat politics, morning, noon and night!"
As I would learn, the politics is about land, and the co-claimants to that land: The indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for 2,000 years and the Jews who started arriving in large numbers after World War II. By living among Israeli Jews as well as Palestinian Christians and Muslims, I saw, heard, smelled, experienced the police state tactics Israelis use against Palestinians.
My research led to a book entitled Journey to Jerusalem. My journey not only was enlightening to me as regards Israel, but also I came to a deeper, and sadder, understanding of my own country. I say sadder understanding because I began to see that, in Middle East politics, we the people are not making the decisions, but rather that supporters of Israel are doing so. And typical of most Americans, I tended to think the US media was "free" to print news impartially.
"It shouldn't be published. It's anti-Israel."
In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify "news" depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to Israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture.
Israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the Israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the US media. Wasn't it news? Obviously, I naively thought, US editors simply didn't know it was happening.
On a trip to Washington, DC, I hand-delivered a letter to Frank Mankiewicz, then head of the public radio station WETA. I explained I had taped interviews with Palestinians who had been brutally tortured. And I'd make them available to him. I got no reply. I made several phone calls. Eventually I was put through to a public relations person, a Ms. Cohen, who said my letter had been lost. I wrote again. In time I began to realize what I hadn't known: Had it been Jews who were strung up and tortured, it would be news. But interviews with tortured Arabs were "lost" at WETA.
The process of getting my book Journey to Jerusalem published also was a learning experience. Bill Griffin, who signed a contract with me on behalf of MacMillan Publishing Company, was a former Roman Catholic priest. He assured me that no one other than himself would edit the book. As I researched the book, making several trips to Israel and Palestine, I met frequently with Griffin, showing him sample chapters. "Terrific," he said of my material.
The day the book was scheduled to be published, I went to visit MacMillan's. Checking in at a reception desk, I spotted Griffin across a room, cleaning out his desk. His secretary Margie came to greet me. In tears, she whispered for me to meet her in the ladies room. When we were alone, she confided, "He's been fired." She indicated it was because he had signed a contract for a book that was sympathetic to Palestinians. Griffin, she said, had no time to see me.
Later, I met with another MacMillan official, William Curry. "I was told to take your manuscript to the Israeli Embassy, to let them read it for mistakes," he told me. "They were not pleased. They asked me, 'You are not going to publish this book, are you?' I asked, 'Were there mistakes?' 'Not mistakes as such. But it shouldn't be published. It's anti-Israel.'"
Somehow, despite obstacles to prevent it, the presses had started rolling. After its publication in 1980, I was invited to speak in a number of churches. Christians generally reacted with disbelief. Back then, there was little or no coverage of Israeli land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes, wanton arrests and torture of Palestinian civilians.
The Same Question
Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, "How come I didn't know this?" Or someone might ask, "But I haven't read about that in my newspaper." To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of US correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people?
I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post - and most of our nation's print media - are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of Israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover Israel - and to do so largely from the Israeli point of view.
My learning experiences also included coming to realize how easily I could lose a Jewish friend if I criticized the Jewish state. I could with impunity criticize France, England, Russia, even the United States. And any aspect of life in America. But not the Jewish state. I lost more Jewish friends than one after the publication of Journey to Jerusalem - all sad losses for me and one, perhaps, saddest of all.
In the 1960s and 1970s, before going to the Middle East, I had written about the plight of blacks in a book entitled Soul Sister, and the plight of American Indians in a book entitled Bessie Yellowhair, and the problems endured by undocumented workers crossing from Mexico in The Illegals. These books had come to the attention of the "mother" of The New York Times, Mrs. Arthur Hays Sulzberger.
Her father had started the newspaper, then her husband ran it, and in the years that I knew her, her son was the publisher. She invited me to her fashionable apartment on Fifth Avenue for lunches and dinner parties. And, on many occasions, I was a weekend guest at her Greenwich, Conn. home.
She was liberal-minded and praised my efforts to speak for the underdog, even going so far in one letter to say, "You are the most remarkable woman I ever knew." I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered - from her point of view - the "wrong" underdog.
As it happened, I was a weekend guest in her spacious Connecticut home when she read bound galleys of Journey to Jerusalem. As I was leaving, she handed the galleys back with a saddened look: "My dear, have you forgotten the Holocaust?" She felt that what happened in Nazi Germany to Jews several decades earlier should silence any criticism of the Jewish state. She could focus on a holocaust of Jews while negating a modern day holocaust of Palestinians.
I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: Most "liberal" US Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one - the Palestinians.
How handily these liberal Jewish opinion-molders tend to diminish the Palestinians, to make them invisible, or to categorize them all as "terrorists." Interestingly, Iphigene Sulzberger had talked to me a great deal about her father, Adolph S. Ochs. She told me that he was not one of the early Zionists. He had not favored the creation of a Jewish state.
Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count.
Over five decades now, Zionists have killed Palestinians with impunity. And in the 1996 shelling of a UN base in Qana, Lebanon, the Israelis killed more than 100 civilians sheltered there. As an Israeli journalist, Arieh Shavit, explains of the massacre, "We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own."
Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, "are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become 'the Bible.' And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity."
In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden. The danger, of course, for US Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does.
Yet, I am not alone in suggesting that the churches in the United States represent the last major organized support for Palestinian rights. This imperative is due in part to our historic links to the Land of Christ and in part to the moral issues involved with having our tax dollars fund Israeli-government-approved violations of human rights.
While Israel and its dedicated US Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America - the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn't know about Israel. They were indoctrinated by US supporters of Israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most all did so under Israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the Israelis. As an example, delegates attending a Christian Sabeel conference in Bethlehem earlier this year said they were harassed by Israeli security at the Tel Aviv airport.
"They asked us," said one delegate, "'Why did you use a Palestinian travel agency? Why didn't you use an Israeli agency?'" The interrogation was so extensive and hostile that Sabeel leaders called a special session to brief the delegates on how to handle the harassment.
Obviously, said one delegate, "The Israelis have a policy to discourage us from visiting the Holy Land except under their sponsorship. They don't want Christians to start learning all they have never known about Israel."
- Grace Halsell was a journalist/writer of high esteem. She was born May 7, 1923, and grew up in West Texas. She studied at two Texas universities, Columbia in New York and the Sorbonne. On her first assignment overseas, she toured Europe by bicycle. Later, while writing for 12 Southwestern newspapers, she traveled in Europe, South America, Asia and the Middle East. Her dispatches have been datelined Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and Kosovo. In addition to writing for US newspapers, she was columnist for The Japan Times, The Hong Kong Tiger-Standard, Arab News, and La Prensa in Lima, Peru. She worked in the White House as staff writer for President Lyndon Johnson for three years. Grace Halsell is listed in Who's Who in America. She was named the Green Honors Chair Professor of Journalism at Texas Christian University and has received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the University of Pennsylvania. Her death in Washington, DC, on Aug. 16, 2000 was attributed to complications of multiple myeloma. Halsell is the author of 14 books, including Journey to Jerusalem and Prophecy and Politics. This is a reproduction of one of her writings in May/June 1998.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (309916)10/20/2002 10:48:08 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
THE NAKED KING HASN'T GOT A CLUE WHAT THE TRUTH IS



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (309916)10/20/2002 11:26:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 769670
 
HOW THE DEMOCRATS COULD WIN

Poll Vault
by John B. Judis
Senior Editor
The New Republic
Issue date 10.28.02

The Democrats probably don't deserve to do well in November's elections. The party's national leaders have refused to make an issue of President Bush's tax cuts, which will threaten deficits through the decade; and many of them muffled their reservations about war with Iraq in the hope of refocusing on more politically congenial topics like prescription drugs and Social Security. The Bush administration, by contrast, has maneuvered brilliantly over the last six weeks, using the debate over Iraq to solidify the Republicans' standing as the party of national security. "[T]he President and the Republican Party are in a historic and positive position," exulted Matthew Dowd, Republican National Committee pollster and senior adviser, on October 12. On October 10, the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato predicted Republican pickups in the Senate and the House. And last week's cover story in Barron's was headlined, "GOP SWEEP: Republicans look increasingly likely to take the senate and hold onto the house in next month's elections."

Yet, if you look at the polling indicators that usually predict party success in midterm elections--from "right track/wrong track" opinion about the country's direction to views of which party will better handle education and the economy--they favor the Democrats. And if you look at specific races, you see indications that favor the Democrats as well. In spite of the party's timidity and the White House's political skill, the Democrats are actually in pretty good shape. If voters focus on the economy rather than national security in the remaining weeks, the Democrats may well increase their edge in the Senate, recapture the House, and dramatically reverse the Republican advantage in governorships.

Start with the measures that pollsters and political scientists typically use to predict which party is going to come out on top in national elections. When confidence in the economy and the country's overall direction is rising, the party in the White House gets the credit in national elections. When confidence is falling, the opposition gains at the polls. For instance, in November 1986, the percentage of Americans who thought the country was on the "wrong track" exceeded those who thought it was on the "right track" for the first time in four years. That fall, Democrats recaptured the Senate. In the month of August 1994, Democrats remained sanguine about their chances at the polls, but the percentage of voters who thought the country was on the wrong track jumped from 63 percent to 68 percent. That November, Republicans won the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years. By contrast, in 1998, when voters believed by 55 to 43 percent that "things are generally going in the right direction," the party in the White House--the Democrats--picked up seats in the House and the Senate.

This year the leading indicators are heading south. In April, a Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans were satisfied, and 37 percent dissatisfied, with "the way things are going in the United States at this time." By September those numbers had collapsed to 47 percent satisfied and 51 percent dissatisfied. The highly regarded Ipsos-Reid surveys found a similar pattern: In April, 54 percent thought that the country was going in the "right direction" compared with 38 percent who thought otherwise. By early this month the numbers were essentially reversed, with 50 percent believing the country was on the wrong track and only 44 percent believing it was on the right track. Confidence in the economy has also plummeted. In May, Gallup found 49 percent of Americans thought the economy was "getting better" and 34 percent thought it was "getting worse." By the end of September, 52 percent thought the economy was declining, and only 33 percent thought it was improving.

Voters' perception of how the country is doing feeds their view of which party's policies they prefer. If they think the country is going in the right direction, they credit the policies of the party in power, and vice versa. Of course, voters already favored the Democrats on key domestic issues such as the environment and Social Security. More significant is what has happened in those areas of domestic policy where Republicans held an advantage. Last May, according to Gallup, voters preferred congressional Republicans to Democrats on taxes 43 percent to 36 percent; by the end of last month they preferred Democrats 50 percent to 38 percent. Last June, voters were almost evenly divided over whether congressional Democrats or Republicans could best improve education; by late September they favored Democrats by an astounding 53 percent to 31 percent. There is now no domestic policy on which voters prefer congressional Republicans to Democrats, and, except on gun control, the margins by which they prefer Democrats are well into the double digits.

The only area in which Republicans retain an advantage is national security, where voters think congressional Republicans would do a better job on foreign affairs by 49 percent to 33 percent. This perception probably depressed Democratic poll numbers during the congressional debate over war with Iraq, when the public and the press were focused on national security. But with the debate resolved, voters are likely in the coming weeks to return to their traditional preoccupation with domestic issues--and to their preference for Democratic approaches.

At first glance the Democrats seem to have done little to merit this growing support for their domestic policies. They don't have a national program for improving education or reviving the economy. Most Democratic campaigns have been narrowly focused and uncreative: They have slammed Republican plans to privatize Social Security, they have called for including prescription-drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, and they have attacked Republicans for condoning corporate corruption.

But this timid agenda may prove surprisingly effective in today's peculiar economic climate. The American economy is not in a traditional recession, as it was during the 1982 election. Most Americans are not worried about losing their jobs right now. But they do worry that a fall in the stock market is depleting their savings and could eventually send the economy into a tailspin that would threaten their jobs. They are anxious about the future rather than the present--and that gives the Democrats' issues a particular resonance that they would not have in a boom (when voters aren't very worried about the future) or a during a deep recession (when they are fixated on immediate relief). Voters are angry about corporate corruption because it has robbed workers and stockholders of their savings. They don't want the government's savings program--Social Security--to be subject to the rise and fall of the Dow Jones index. And they worry about having to pay out their savings for rising drug costs. They prefer the simple, Democratic idea of plugging prescription-drug coverage into Medicare to the more complex--and far less generous--Republican and drug company plan of forcing seniors to pay premiums to private insurance companies for drug coverage.

And if the Democratic proposals are timid, the Republicans alternatives are either irrelevant or nonexistent. Some Republicans have resorted to the formula the party first used successfully in 1978--advocating cuts in taxes and spending while accusing the Democrats of being "tax-and-spenders." In Tennessee, Republican gubernatorial candidate Van Hilleary has attacked his Democratic opponent, Phil Bredesen, for raising property taxes three times as mayor of Nashville. In Fort Collins, Colorado, Republican congressional candidate Marilyn Musgrave has branded Democrat Stan Matsunaka "Stan the Tax Man" and "Stan Taxsunaka" because, as a state legislator, he opposed a Republican tax-cut plan. But these appeals don't resonate the way they used to. Voters no longer see tax cuts as the key to prosperity--in a poll last spring respondents said by a 72 percent to 23 percent margin that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who promised to balance the budget than for one who promised to cut taxes. Which may help explain why most of the Republicans who are using this kind of appeal--Hilleary, Georgia Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss, and Iowa gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross to name three prominent examples--are trailing their opponents in the polls.

Most Republican candidates are turning away from traditional conservative economic appeals and instead are running Orwellian ad campaigns in which they claim that they never wanted to privatize Social Security and that they favor the Democrats' prescription-drug programs. They are denying that they ever tried to hamstring the Securities and Exchange Commission, and they are trying to portray themselves as corporate reformers and their opponents as sleazy lobbyists and speculators. For instance, when Jim Talent--the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri--was in Congress, he sponsored legislation to divert 16 percent of Social Security taxes to retirement accounts managed by private managers. Now Talent says he "has not voted and will not vote to fully or partially privatize Social Security." In South Florida, Republican E. Clay Shaw Jr. voted this year for the GOP prescription-drug plan that would have bypassed Medicare in favor of private insurance companies. Now he boasts that he voted for "a comprehensive prescription-drug benefit under Medicare." In Colorado, Republican Senate candidate Wayne Allard--who tried to block accounting reform in 2000 and was initially indifferent to corporate reform--runs ads criticizing corporate executives for "engaging in fraud" and announcing "Wayne Allard said, `Enough.'" But judging from the polls--which show the Democrats' edge on Social Security, prescription drugs, and corporate reform to be as large as ever--this GOP political cross-dressing isn't working.

In the past, Republicans have overcome their disadvantage on economic issues by using social wedge issues, such as guns and abortion. But in this election Republicans are likely to be more hurt than helped by these subjects. Chastened by their failure to win the votes of rural and Southern voters in 2000, Democrats have nominated candidates in those areas who oppose gun control and who are, in some cases, anti-abortion. Democrat Jim Humphreys, running against Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia, opposes gun control. South Carolina Senate candidate Alex Sanders is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Rural Pennsylvania Representative Tim Holden is anti-abortion and anti- gun control. By contrast, the GOP, outside the urban Northeast, is still dominated by conservative interest groups that demand adherence to their positions--even if that makes them vulnerable to moderate Democrats. Because of this, Republican candidates closely identified with the religious right or the NRA could lose to moderate Democrats in California, Kansas, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado, Arizona, Maryland, and New Jersey. In Kansas, Republicans chose Treasurer Tim Shallenburger in a gubernatorial primary against more moderate opponents. Shallenburger opposes abortion, supports citizens carrying concealed weapons, and opposes tax increases for any purpose--even to make up cuts in education funding. Although Kansas is a rock-ribbed Republican state, Shallenburger is well behind moderate Democrat Kathleen Sebelius in the polls.

The governors' races offer the best window into how voters' pessimism and their preference for Democratic social and economic policies could affect the November election. In these races the presumptive war with Iraq counts little, if at all. What counts is voters' perception of what the candidates will do about issues such as education and the economy. Republicans currently control 27 governors' mansions, Democrats 21, and Independents two. Thirty-six of those seats are being contested this year. If the current favorites win, Democrats will have gained eight seats--seven at the expense of Republicans--leading to a split of 29 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and one Independent. The last time such a dramatic shift occurred was in 1994-- when Republicans won a net gain of eleven seats. In that year, of course, Republicans also captured the Senate and the House.

The Democrats' likely gubernatorial successes suggest important inroads in what were once Republican or closely contested regions. In the 1990s, the industrial Midwest and the mid-Atlantic region were major battlegrounds between the parties. Up until 1998, Republicans controlled governors' mansions in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. But with this fall's election, Democrats will probably gain control of all these states except Ohio. (Even in Ohio, where Democrats have suffered from an incompetent party organization, a token Democratic gubernatorial candidate is running within ten points of incumbent Republican Robert Taft.) Democrats are also doing well in Sun Belt swing states, such as Arizona, which have been slowly turning their way over the last decade.

The Senate contests are less certain because it is hard to judge how deeply they have been affected by the debate over Iraq. Even here, however, polls look good for the Democrats. According to the most recent opinion polls, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, one of the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbents, has pulled nine points ahead of challenger Norm Coleman, and Democratic candidates are either tied with or ahead of Republican incumbents in Arkansas, Colorado, and New Hampshire. In Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, and New Jersey, Democratic seats once deemed at risk now appear secure. If the election had been held October 11, the day the Senate voted on Iraq, Democrats would have come out with a 51 to 48 advantage--52 counting Independent Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords. (And that's assuming vulnerable Democratic incumbents lose in Missouri and South Dakota.) In the coming weeks, as war with Iraq recedes as an issue, some of these races should turn further toward the Democrats.

House seats are even more difficult to predict because there are so few nonpartisan polls by which to evaluate candidates' chances. But there are indicators that the Democrats are running even or slightly ahead. In Newsweek's October 10 poll of generic congressional choices, Democrats led by 46 percent to 43 percent among likely voters. Republican pollster Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates has surveyed voters in the 40 most competitive House districts, as defined by The Cook Political Report. In mid-September, Republicans led by 43 percent to 38 percent; at the end of September, Republicans and Democrats were tied at 41 percent. Because twice as many of these contested seats are currently held by Republicans, if the Democrats win a little more than half of them, they will pick up several additional seats--perhaps enough to retake the House.

For the GOP to win back the Senate and retain the House, voters would have to put national security above economic and social concerns. To this end, Republican Senate candidates in Georgia, Minnesota, and South Dakota have run ads insinuating that their Democratic opponents are soft on Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But these attacks don't seem to have made a difference in any of these races--including Minnesota, where Wellstone voted against the administration's Iraq resolution. According to the Zogby poll, Wellstone actually went from a six-point deficit to a nine-point advantage during the time Coleman was attacking his credibility on foreign policy. Wellstone reversed Coleman's advantage among Twin Cities voters, Independent voters, and women--suggesting, perhaps, a backlash against Coleman's attacks or even support for Wellstone's dissent on the war in Iraq.

More to the point, past precedent suggests that by November 5, foreign policy will no longer overshadow domestic concerns. Midterm elections in 1982 (when U.S.-Soviet tensions were at their height) and in 1990 (when Iraq was occupying Kuwait) were both dominated by domestic issues, and the party in power lost ground because of voters' worries about the economy. Republicans like to point to the 1962 midterm elections, conducted only one week after John F. Kennedy successfully faced down the Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis. In those elections the Democrats lost only four House seats, while picking up three Senate seats. But the circumstances then were quite different. When voters went to the polls in 1962, the air was still thick with tension from the crisis, and Kennedy and the Democrats benefited from the rush in popularity that comes in the immediate aftermath of a dramatic military success. More important, Kennedy and the Democrats didn't have to worry about the economy: During Kennedy's first 22 months the United States had climbed out of a recession, with unemployment falling from 7.1 percent in May 1961 to 5.4 percent in October 1962. While comparable polling measures are not available, the Americans who voted that November probably felt optimistic about where the economy and the country were going. This year pessimism abounds.

The White House itself recognizes that Republicans cannot rely exclusively on war with Iraq as we approach November 5. In these last three weeks, Bush will reportedly shift the campaign debate from foreign policy to the economy. Perhaps that will boost Republican chances. But it is equally possible that it will merely speed the transition from a political terrain where the Republicans have an advantage to one where the Democrats do. If that happens, Republicans will be in trouble. One of the parties might get swept this November, but it is not likely to be the Democrats.
____________________________________________

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic.

tnr.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (309916)10/20/2002 11:30:24 AM
From: MSI  Respond to of 769670
 
Re: harassment from the Right - spontaneous evenings of expression, music and protest are hard to counter...

Thanks for the report, I'm starting to see the same spontaneous activities in LA, that last place I would expect (Anthony Hopkins says it's 'too happy' -g-). I'm making the rounds among financial and real estate types, and here in La La land, nobody trusts the administration or this war-mongering, and protests are becoming a common idea. The media isn't reporting anything yet, so it's purely world of mouth so far.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (309916)10/20/2002 9:21:11 PM
From: RON BL  Respond to of 769670
 
Hey you absolute and utter moron. Every police state comes from a centralized government in absolute control of your lives and that is what you believe in.

The sad choice is that we have the Socialist Republicans who believe in American sovereignty and the UN GLobalist Democrats who despise the concept of US sovereignty.