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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (9870)	1/26/2006 2:49:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 541556

CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR IRAQ PULLOUT editorandpublisher.com [ The funny thing this is that this puts Clinton nemesis Scaife to the left of Hillary Clinton on the issue] GREG MITCHELL, EDITOR & PUBLISHER - As regular readers of this column know, I embarked on a tireless (to some, tiresome) mission more than two years ago, encouraging newspaper editorial writers to endorse a phased U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, or at least kick around the idea. Since virtually no one took me up on it, I've had to repeat it every few months. . . Nearly every major paper continued to ignore or oppose the idea, or even called for sending more troops. The Seattle Times and Minneapolis Star-Tribune were just about the only big-city exceptions. Last November, after Rep. John Murtha's well-publicized call for a pullout, I tried again. Like most Democrats in Congress, many newspapers found some merit in Murtha's proposal, or at least defended him from those who charged the longtime Marine with being a coward (not exactly a risky choice). But in the end, almost none said: Yeah, let's start to withdraw, and soon. USA Today, for example, called his plea "understandable" but "misguided." Now, this week, a full and unconditional endorsement of Murtha's notion has come from a completely unexpected source: the notably conservative Tribune-Review, which is based in Greensburg, Pa., but considers itself a full-fledged Pittsburgh newspaper. It's controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the chief funders of conservative think-thanks and activist causes around the country. Less than two months ago, the newspaper (daily circulation about 102,000), attacked Murtha's plan. Printed below is the text of the latest editorial, which was published on Tuesday. Perhaps a few other papers would now like to re-visit this subject, with the third anniversary of the start of the war approaching. \|\|\| We didn't agree with Jack Murtha in November when he called for an immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. The timing was not right. But the times have changed. When the Pennsylvania congressman made his call, critical December parliamentary elections were ahead; cut-and-run talk was inappropriate. But successful elections have passed. And contrary to what some may say, Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, as evidenced by the number dying in defense of their fledgling republic. Native Iraqi terrorists and those of the al-Qaida brand also are starting to battle each other. There's a growing sense of self-determination, which is a critical trait on the road to democracy. That said, the world situation has changed dramatically since November. The nuclear saber-rattling of neighboring Iran is heading for a showdown. To meet that threat should diplomacy fail, the United States must begin the six- to nine-month logistical process of drawing down its Iraqi force and repositioning it to respond, if need be, to the Iranian threat. This is not retreat. This is not cut-and-run. This is a recognition of the reality in Iraq -- one that has evolved into an Iraqi problem that only the Iraqis now can solve -- and that the paramount world security threat now is Iran. \|\|\|\|

To: JohnM who wrote (9870)	1/26/2006 3:57:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541556

That's not the point That's is my point, or at least part of it. the point is that the often unmentioned difference for the more tranquil hearings in the 90s was Clinton's decision to consult with Hatch. And Bush's failure to do so. I think that is a factor but far from the only one. No matter how much Bush consulted there was no way for him to have an appointment that did not run in to opposition. If he supported a judicial conservative than the Democrats would fight it. If he supported a moderate or a "steal candidate" (Miers has been described as one or the other by different people) than he would have problems with Republicans (although if the candidate was considered highly qualified he would probably get enough Republican votes for the candidate to get in with the help of Democratic votes). I don't think that less consultations accounts for the vast majority if the difference in the hearings and the eventual vote between Alito's experience and Ginsberg's. Scalia is probably to the right of Alito and he was voted in 98 to 0. I don't think Reagan did a whole lot of consulting with the Democrats on that nomination. Tim