Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: sandintoes who wrote (412742)	6/8/2003 7:14:49 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

An enduring majority By Gary J. Andres The dusty volume with yellowed pages sat innocuously on the gray metal shelf of a small local library. Who knew it could decipher 25 years of American political history — well almost. In 1969, Kevin Phillips wrote a prophetic book called the "Emerging Republican Majority," predicting a major political realignment in America, resulting in significant gains in the GOP's political strength. Mr. Phillips argued that conservative voters, particularly in the South and West, would shift allegiance from the Democrat to Republican Party, serving as the core of a new and potent electoral coalition. His analysis proved accurate at the presidential level almost immediately, but the predicted changes in Congress took a little longer. Yet, now that the GOP congressional majority has arrived, two more recent developments — redistricting and the decline of split-ticket voting — mean the Republican majority has not only emerged, but it may also endure throughout this decade. Mr. Phillips' predictions at the presidential level occurred not long after the publication of his book. Five of the seven American presidents since 1969 were Republicans. And the only two winning Democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) won only by campaigning as moderates, successfully cutting into the GOP's increasingly brawny bulwark in the South. Nonetheless, it took nearly a quarter-century for Phillip's prediction about a GOP majority in Congress to come to fruition, culminating with Republican majorities in the House and Senate after the 1994 election. Structural factors — such as redistricting, the power of congressional incumbency and increasing partisanship among voters — are the reasons why it took a little longer for the Republican majority to spread. University of California, San Diego congressional election expert Gary C. Jacobson agrees. Writing in the spring 2003 issue of Political Science Quarterly, he notes that these changes during the last quarter-century not only resulted in a GOP congressional majority, but may also cause it to last for a while. Congressional redistricting, particularly after 2000, provided a boost to Republicans. Reconstructing the 2000 presidential vote in the current 2002 congressional districts, Mr. Jacobson finds that even though Al Gore outpolled George Bush nationally, the president beat his Democrat opponent in 237 of the current House districts. According to Jacobson, "This means that Republican voters are distributed more efficiently than Democratic voters, and more so now after redistricting. Democratic voters are more likely to be 'wasted' in lopsided districts; 53 percent of the Gore-majority districts have more than 60 percent Gore voters, whereas only 41 percent of the Bush majority districts have more that 60 percent Bush voters." These numbers are even more troubling for Democrats because of another long-term trend — the decline in ticket splitting. Since the early 1980s, voters increasingly vote for the same party for president and Congress. After split-ticket voting reached a peak in the 1970s, voting patterns today are more like the 1950s, when voters tended to choose the same party in national elections for offices on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. What Jacobson terms a "structural disadvantage" means that, "Democrats would have to win 20 Bush-majority districts in addition to all the Gore majority districts to gain control of the House; Republicans would win a House majority similar to what they have now if they won only the Bush-majority districts." Another element in the GOP structural advantage is the dramatic rise in the number of "safe" seats, particularly in the Republican column. Mr. Jacobson estimates the number of safe seats between 1992-2002 increased for both parties. Yet Republican safe seats skyrocketed. He estimates Republicans gained about three times as many safe districts, and even after "losing most of their at-risk districts, Democrats still hold a majority of such seats." The trends in the Senate for Democrats are no better. Winning big states is important in presidential contests because they carry with them large numbers of electoral votes. Yet, when it comes to putting together a majority in the Senate, Kansas counts as much as California. Recent voting trends underscore why this redounds to the advantage of GOP control of the Senate, too. Mr. Gore won six of the nine most populous states, while Mr. Bush won 15 of the 20 least populated. According to Mr. Jacobson, "Bush, with less than half the national vote, took 30 states; Gore took only 20." Again, because of the greater consistency between presidential voting and other offices, if those 30 Bush states ultimately elect Republican senators, the long-term pattern of control should trend toward a 60-40 Senate GOP majority, compared to the current 51-49 split. Politics is a fickle business; these current patterns by no means guarantee Republicans long-term majority status. Yet when trends like those identified in Mr. Phillips' book conspire with structural dynamics such as redistricting and equal representation in the Senate, the "emerging Democrat majority" may be more appropriate for paperback fiction. URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030604-104139-6332r.htm

To: sandintoes who wrote (412742)	6/9/2003 2:18:02 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair by Neil Mackay Sunday Herald Sunday 08 June 2003 BRITAIN ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq. Operation Rockingham, established by the Defence Intelligence Staff within the Ministry of Defence in 1991, was set up to 'cherry-pick' intelligence proving an active Iraqi WMD programme and to ignore and quash intelligence which indicated that Saddam's stockpiles had been destroyed or wound down. The existence of Operation Rockingham has been confirmed by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, and a US military intelligence officer. He knew members of the Operation Rockingham team and described the unit as 'dangerous', but insisted they were not 'rogue agents' acting without government backing. 'This policy was coming from the very highest levels,' he added. 'Rockingham was spinning reports and emphasising reports that showed non-compliance (by Iraq with UN inspections) and quashing those which showed compliance. It was cherry-picking intelligence.' Ritter and other intelligence sources say Operation Rockingham and MI6 were supplying skewed information to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) which, Tony Blair has told the Commons, was behind the intelligence dossiers that the government published to convince the parliament and the people of the necessity of war against Iraq. Sources in both the British and US intelligence community are now equating the JIC with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the US Pentagon. The OSP was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'. He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.' Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an 'imminent threat' to the West was 'laughable and idiotic'. He said many CIA officers were in 'great distress' over the way intelligence had been treated. 'We've entered the world of George Orwell,' Johnson added. 'I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.' Many in British intelligence believe the planned parliamentary inquiry by MPs on the Intelligence and Security Committee will pass the blame for the use of selective intelligence to the JIC, which includes senior intelligence figures . Intelligence sources say this would be unfair as they claim the JIC was following political instructions. Blair has been under sustained criticism following allegations that intelligence on the threat from Iraq was 'sexed up' to make it more appealing to the public. The rebel Labour MP and Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, said he would raise the Sunday Herald's investigation into Operation Rockingham in the Commons on Thursday and demand an explanation from the government about selective intelligence. Ritter has also offered to give evidence to parliament. Both the MoD and Downing Street refused to comment on Ritter's allegations about Operation Rockingham, saying they did not make statements on intelligence matters. British and American intelligence analysts have also come forward to dispute claims made by President Bush that two military trailers found in Iraq were bio-weapons labs. CC