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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (3107)7/7/2003 11:05:37 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
//



To: calgal who wrote (3107)7/7/2003 2:05:16 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
There is an electrical problem, and suddenly I was offline!!!:) Will return asap.....!!



To: calgal who wrote (3107)7/7/2003 2:11:06 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Bush to Visit Africa Mired in AIDS Crisis

Bush Prepares for Five-Day Tour of Africa




Africans see Bush's visit as a key part of a strategy to combat rising anti-American sentiment on the continent and the image of Washington as an international bully, analysts say.

"Where else can they demonstrate Bush is more than just a cowboy than to come to the continent most in need of assistance," said Jakkie Cilliers of the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria.

The visit, the first by a Republican U.S. president to Africa, comes at a time Bush is considering sending American peacekeeping forces to Liberia, pressing for restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe, and promising a new $15 billion package to fight AIDS, most of it earmarked for African countries.

The new focus on Africa is a welcome change on a continent America shied away from after its efforts to feed victims of famine in Somalia turned to fighting warlords over nation-building and Rwanda was devastated by a genocide in the 1990s.

The fallout from the Iraq war and the need to keep African states in the anti-terror campaign has changed U.S. attitudes toward the continent, said John Stremlau, head of the University of the Witwatersrand's department of international relations.

Bush's decision to attack Iraq was roundly criticized in Africa, partly because of the large Muslim populations in some countries, but also because America was seen as thumbing its nose at the United Nations.

In the poor, weak countries of Africa, the United Nations is seen as the only stage for the continent to exert international influence.

To cut down on growing anti-American sentiment around the world, Washington decided it had to restart the Mideast peace process and demonstrate it was sensitive to development issues, including HIV-AIDS, poverty and trade, Cilliers said.

"The U.S. decided, 'Our credibility depends on demonstrating the U.S. is not the international bully,'" he said.

Africa benefits from the renewed American interest, which is also fueling a competition for influence on the continent with the French and British.

Analysts say Bush's African strategy revolves around building stability in key states. His stops include South Africa, which is seen as the key to continental peace and security; Nigeria, the top player in West Africa, and Senegal, which has West Africa's oldest democracy.

While supporting the countries that are doing well, the administration also is going on the offensive against what it views as rogue African leaders, such as Presidents Charles Taylor in Liberia and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Bush is demanding Taylor step down to bring peace to the country founded by freed American slaves in 1847. He is also insisting that Mugabe restore democracy in Zimbabwe, where 200 people have reportedly been killed in state-orchestrated political violence and many more have been beaten, tortured, raped and jailed for their beliefs.

Just before his visit, Bush upset some here by cutting military aid to countries, including South Africa, that do not support the U.S. position on the proposed international criminal court. His trip also comes at the same time, and takes some of the attention away, from the largest annual meeting of African leaders at the African Union summit in Mozambique.

Bush will have a tough time convincing African leaders to exert more pressure on Mugabe to restore democracy in Zimbabwe.

"I don't think President Bush will get much joy from African leaders. There will be the usual niceties but it will be so much hot air," said John Makumbe, a political scientist at Zimbabwe University in Harare.

Washington and Pretoria have said Zimbabwe will be high on the agenda when Bush and South African President Thabo Mbeki meet. Both countries favor resumption of political talks in Zimbabwe leading to a government of national unity. They differ on how to deal with Mugabe.

Bush has imposed limited sanctions on Zimbabwe's leaders, refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of Mugabe's re-election, and is seeking more concerted international pressure, especially from African nations.

Mbeki says he will not pressure Mugabe and instead favors what he calls "quiet diplomacy."

Beyond the continuing violence, Zimbabwe teeters on the brink of economic collapse. Unemployment stands at 70 percent. Inflation is over 300 percent a year, and the International Monetary Fund predicts it will exceed 500 percent by year's end. Millions face starvation, while shortages of fuel, currency and medicine worsen.

Washington blames Mugabe for the problems. Writing recently in The New York Times, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell accused Mugabe of "violent misrule" and predicted he and his cronies would lose their grip on power "dragging their soiled record behind them into obscurity."

Mbeki's quiet diplomacy is often criticized in South Africa for being simply silent. Unlike the Bush administration, he does not publicly condemn the policies of Mugabe and instead has sought at times to defend him.

Stremlau said Bush doesn't have an answer for Zimbabwe's problems.

"He will defer to South Africa to handle the problem, as have the British," he said.


URL:http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_AFRICA?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME



To: calgal who wrote (3107)7/7/2003 2:15:05 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
Jul 7, 1:49 PM EDT

California Recall Drive Could Set Trend

By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer

URL:http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RECALL_HISTORY?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- If California's Republicans get their way, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis will join a club so exclusive it has only one member - Lynn J. Frazier, governor of North Dakota during World War I.

Frazier served from 1917 to 1921, when he became the first - and for now, the only - governor recalled from office.

He was ousted as the economy faltered and his Nonpartisan League party's socialist policies fell into disfavor. The voters were exercising a power they had attained just a year earlier.

"It was a symptom of the whole time of discontent because we were going into a time of lower agriculture prices, the wheat market plummeted, then we had a lot of banks that were starting to fail," said Marilyn Snyder, curator of education at the State Historical Society of North Dakota. "You've got a perfect parallel going on there."

A millionaire GOP congressman is financing a recall campaign against Davis, who is vulnerable because of voter wrath over the state's energy crisis and a budget deficit estimated at $38 billion. His approval rating is down to 21 percent, the lowest on record for a California governor.

Advertisement




He could fall victim to a process that has largely been used against city council or school board members.

If the Davis recall succeeds, California could once again set an example - for better or worse - for the rest of the country, just as it did in 1978 when Proposition 13 launched tax revolts across America.

"Most people had never even heard of recall prior to what's going on with Gray Davis out there, and that was similar to the initiative process prior to 1978. A lot of people had not heard of it, did not know how it could be utilized," said M. Dane Waters, president and co-chairman of the Initiative and Referendum Institute in Leesburg, Va. "If this recall effort is successful, there's no question there will be more interest in the recall mechanism."

Dennis Kucinich, now a congressman and Democratic presidential candidate, barely beat back a recall attempt as mayor of Cleveland in 1979. Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham was impeached and removed by the Legislature in 1988 for obstruction and misuse of state funds, averting a recall election. A recall aimed at Jesse Ventura when he was Minnesota governor in 1999 was stopped when a judge ruled the reasons for it were inadequate - an outcome that could not happen under California law.

California's recall measure was passed under Republican Gov. Hiram Johnson in 1911. It was part of a wave of Progressive Era legislation enacted nationwide in response to political and corporate corruption.

No provision for voter recall of federal officials exists.

Seventeen other states also have provisions for recalling state officials, but California is one of those in which recalls can be pulled off most easily, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To get a recall on the ballot, most states require signatures from at least 25 percent of the number of voters in the previous election. California requires just 12 percent. (The Davis recall campaign, which hopes to put the measure on the ballot this fall, needs 897,158 signatures by Sept. 2; the state has recorded about half that number so far.)

In addition, California allows more time than most states to collect the signatures. And while six states require recall supporters to specify reasons such as malfeasance or incompetence for ousting an official, California sets no such criteria. The California Constitution says that "sufficiency of reason is not reviewable."

Opponents said the Davis recall is a misuse of a tool that was intended to protect citizens from out-and-out crooks. But recall supporters say the language of the law sets no such standard.

"Hiram Johnson was a reformer who wanted to make sure government was accountable to the people," GOP strategist Kevin Spillane said.

Even so, getting a recall on the ballot is difficult enough that of 117 attempts at the state level in California, only seven - all of them involving state lawmakers - have made it to the ballot, according to the secretary of state's office. Four of those seven attempts succeeded. All 31 past attempts to recall a governor failed to make the ballot.

If the Davis recall makes it onto the ballot, voters will be asked two questions: whether to remove the governor, and which candidate on the ballot they want instead. The only declared major-party candidate so far is Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who is bankrolling the recall campaign.

"Many observers are concerned that this will set some kind of precedent. It has that potential," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

"I'd like to able to say that people in other states may have more sense, but I don't know. Frankly it would only occur if you had an incumbent who became horribly unpopular, really detested, with awful conditions as you have in California right now."

Advertisement



To: calgal who wrote (3107)7/7/2003 2:47:28 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Re-Post:

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/garner.htm