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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (11017)	10/6/2003 4:17:47 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793912

Bush is right where I expected him to be on this issue. 911 was a bad day for Arafat and the Pals. __________________________________________ Bush Reaffirms That Israel Has Right to Defend 'Homeland' By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — President Bush said again today that he recognized Israel's right to defend itself, and he pointedly declined to criticize it for the retaliatory strikes into Syria after a deadly suicide bombing. Mr. Bush said he told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel on Sunday, "like I have consistently done, that Israel's got a right to defend herself; that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland." "However," the president said, "I said that it's very important that any action that Israel take should avoid escalation and creating higher tensions." Mr. Bush has said repeatedly that he knows Israel has a right to defend itself, and he has urged it repeatedly to not over-react and set off new spates of bloodletting in the Middle East. But his remarks today may have been significant, both for what he said and for what he did not say. Mr. Bush, speaking to reporters at the White House in an appearance with President Miwi Kibaki of Kenya, did not answer directly when he was asked if he thought Israel had gone too far with its surprise airstrike deep into Syria. And Mr. Bush's use of the word "homeland" recalled the many times he has used it when he has talked of protecting the United States from terrorism. Finally, Mr. Bush said today that a speech he gave on June 24, 2002, "should explain to the world and to the American people the policy of this government." "We have not changed," he said. In that Rose Garden speech, President Bush told the Palestinian people that they had to replace Yasir Arafat as their leader before the United States would support an independent Palestinian state. He also called for an end to Palestinian terrorism, and for free elections and economic reforms to end corruption. At the time, the speech was well-received by Israel, since it was tougher on the Palestinians than any of his previous statements. That speech, like today's far less-detailed remarks, came after Israel had retaliated to a series of attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers. Today, while saying that "all parties must assume responsibility" for ending bloodshed in the region, Mr. Bush aimed his remarks at Palestinians. He declined to answer directly when he was asked if he could "work with a Palestinian prime minister who says he would not use force under any circumstances against Palestinian militants." That was a reference to the stance taken by the new Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, who said he wanted to negotiate a truce with Israel but without using force. Mr. Bush said today that the Palestinian Authority "must defeat the terrorists who are trying to stop the establishment of a Palestinian state, a peaceful state, in order for there to be peace." Since Mr. Bush's Middle East policy speech of June 24, 2002, Mr. Arafat has been pushed somewhat to the sidelines, although not rendered completely irrelevant, as Mr. Bush would like. And Mr. Bush has said he still embraced the "road map" for a Mideast peace in which Israel and a Palestinian state would co-exist in stability and prosperity. Mr. Bush has said repeatedly that terrorism in the Middle East cannot be allowed to stymie efforts to achieve peace. But this weekend's suicide bombing, in which a score of people died, was one of the more serious incidents in recent months. Israel responded with an airstrike deep inside Syria, the first Israeli raid on that country in 30 years, since the 1973 Yom Kipur war, whose anniversary is today. nytimes.com

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (11017)	10/6/2003 4:25:12 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793912

California Insider A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub October 06, 2003 Beware the Q2 Skippers If Davis is recalled, one of the major stories on Wednesday might be the number of people who fail to vote for a candidate on the replacement portion of the ballot. This number could approach 10 percent of the electorate, which, depending on the turnout, would be somewhere between 800,000 and 1.2 million voters. And most of them are likely to be Democrats who vote no on the recall and then skip Question 2. The effect of this drop-off could be stunning. Suppose turnout is 60 percent, and the overall electorate matches conventional wisdom and comes in at about 43 percent Democrat and 38 percent Republican. I actually think it might be bigger and more balanced than that, but for the sake of this analysis, let's be conservative. Those numbers would produce about 9 million voters. About 3.9 million would be Democrats, and 3.4 million would be Republican. The remainder are independents or minor party voters. But then suppose 10 percent of those voters skip Question 2, and 70 percent of those are Democrats, and 20 percent are Republicans. That means you lose 900,000 votes, and 630,000 are Democrats and 180,000 are Republicans. The new electorate for Question 2 now looks like this: 3.3 million Democrats and 3.2 million Republicans, or virtually even. Such an adjusted electorate would be a highly favorable environment for any Republican, and certainly for Schwarzenegger in this race. If, as his campaign says, Schwarzenegger is weathering the groping stories just fine, this extra bump could drive his final numbers far higher than any polls have shown to date. And if, as the Democrats claim, the groping stories are undermining his campaign, the drop-off on Question 2 could be what saves him. Even if the drop-off is only 5 percent, it could play a very significant role in the outcome. Finally, there is another form of drop-off that could also be large and would have a similar effect, compounding the one described above. It’s the number of voters who cast a “protest” vote on Question 2 for one of the 130-some also-rans on the ballot. Posted by dweintraub at 07:11 AM Behind the numbers The Schwarzenegger campaign was circulating poll numbers Sunday from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association that showed the recall still winning big and Arnold far ahead in the replacement race. According to the campaign, the recall was leading 57-37 in the last four nights of the tracking poll, from Wednesday through Saturday. Schwarzenegger was leading the replacement race with 36 percent, followed by Bustamante at 21 and McClintock at 17. But those numbers didn't tell the whole story. A source outside the campaign who is familiar with that poll tells me that the daily splits are more revealing. According to this source, support for the recall slipped each night, from 63-30 on Wednesday to 54-41 on Saturday. In the replacement race, meanwhile, the shake-up was less dramatic. On that question, Schwarzenegger began the period up 32-19 over Bustamante and ended it up 39-26. McClintock is pretty much remaining flat in the mid to high teens. Remember, nightly tracking with small samples is dangerous on Friday and Saturday nights. But it looks like the trend some spotted in the Knight-Ridder/NBC poll is also evident here. The question is whether that slide on the recall issue has ended or continues through Tuesday's election. Posted by dweintraub at 07:09 AM sacbee.com