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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (175147)	9/16/2003 12:27:28 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1584072

California Recall Campaign in Chaos SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 16) - Candidates in California's recall election were moving ahead in their courting of voters Tuesday after a judicial panel postponed the balloting, which could now be more than five months away. California Gov. Gray Davis planned to continue his tour with national Democrats, campaigning with presidential candidate Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock were seeking the blessing of fellow Republican Peter Ueberroth, who dropped out of the running last week. ``I thought I was running a sprint, and it looks like I may have to run a marathon,'' said Steve Smith, an adviser to Gov. Gray Davis, the target of the recall. ``And I don't even like running that much.'' A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that California's planned use of punch-card ballots - the same kind used in the contested 2000 presidential election - would disenfranchise thousands of Californians. The court did not set a new date for the recall, but backed a suggestion from the American Civil Liberties Union that balloting be held during the March 2 presidential primary. One of the groups behind the effort to yank Davis from office planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the recall date Oct. 7. The circuit court's decision was stayed for a week to allow for such appeals. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the only major Democrat vying to succeed Davis if he is recalled, and Republican candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger promised to continue campaigning as the courts decide when to hold the election. Independent candidate Arianna Huffington praised the decision, calling voter disenfranchisement ``the dirty little secret of American politics.'' McClintock called it an ``outrageous decision'' by a court that is the ``laughingstock'' of the federal judiciary because it is the nation's most-reversed federal appeals court. Sean Walsh, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said the decision threatened to rob voters who had signed recall petitions. ``With this ruling, you risk disenfranchising voters. Does this serve the interests of democracy or the general public?'' The panel repeatedly referred to Bush v. Gore - the case that decided the 2000 presidential election - as its primary rationale. In that case, the Supreme Court stopped Florida's recount on the grounds that all votes were not being treated equally. The appeals court unanimously ruled it is unacceptable that six California counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots. Those counties are already under court order to replace punch cards with more modern systems such as touch-screen ballots by the March primary. The six counties include the state's most populous, Los Angeles, as well as Sacramento and San Diego counties. Altogether they contained 44 percent of California's registered voters during the 2000 election. Davis would probably benefit the most from the ruling if the election were held in March, because the presidential primary is expected to bring a large number of Democrats to the polls. It could also give Davis more time to address the state's budget crisis. Observers say a potential postponement could have the sharpest impact on McClintock, who has shown momentum in the polls in recent weeks. McClintock has raised much less money than the other major candidates and would likely lose the high level of media coverage that has largely buoyed his candidacy. ``The political impact of the ruling is the law of unintended consequences,'' said Republican analyst Allan Hoffenblum. ``It could mandate opening up the filing process again, so we'll have more candidates. People who dropped out could drop back in. Tom McClintock would be seriously impacted.'' The California official responsible for elections, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, told county election officials to prepare for the Oct. 7 election and said he would announce Tuesday whether he would ask the entire appeals court to review the ruling or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Voters reacted with mixed feelings about the decision. ``I don't like things when they are rushed. It's ridiculous, the wide field of candidates, the short election,'' said Vana Meydag, 50, of Whittier. ``Maybe postponing is a good thing to give people time to reflect on what's going on.'' Scott Fox, 47, of San Diego, was insulted. ``I think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just told us that the last 25 years of elections are inadequate to support the election of any candidates,'' he said. 09/16/03 09:19 EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

To: tejek who wrote (175147)	9/16/2003 6:11:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584072

Past history does support my position. When terrorists are allowed to attack with impunity they just get bolder and stronger. They are weaker only because they don't have the arms that we provide Israel. That's why their death rate is double Israel's. My point was merely that they were weaker and that's why they die in larger numbers when they fight. Your comment is just confirming my point. However they are not weaker only because they don't have the arms that we provide Israel. If we provided Israel with nothing the Palestinians would still be weaker. If Israel had the same level of concern about avoiding civilian casualties that the Palestinians do (namely absolutely none, because in fact civilian casualties are desired) then the difference in deaths would not be 2 to 1 but maybe 200 to 1. That's what's funny...........Israel is in no danger of looking weak. Any country, including the US looks weak if it allows attacks against itself with no response. Those who might want to make such attacks figure they can probably get away with it. its what keeps feuds going until one of the two parties collapses or one party obliterates the other or both parties become mortally wounded. This isn't a feud. Its not to close to equal parties engaged in a cycle of violence. Its one group of murderous thugs striking with stealth against soft targets while another much more powerful group tries to hunt them down. Its as much like the FBI hunting down a Mafia family as it is the Hatfields and the McCoys, the important difference being that the Mafia is in it to make money not kill people at random. Most importantly it is not a cycle of violence. Hamas is going after Israel whether or not Israel goes after Hamas. And soon, they will be saying the same thing with Iraq and that's what will perpetuate our stay there. And that's because there is no winning in Iraq. We have already lost. That simply isn't true. Tim