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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (77836)	8/31/2006 4:52:37 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362385

You're not calling Conn? ;-))

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (77836)	8/31/2006 5:52:45 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362385

If we win #7 I will feel so good. Of course you knew that. BTW my first daughter and family moved to TN last year. They are moving back here this year. Life is getting better. It's been hard teaching their son guitar over the phone.:•)

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (77836)	8/31/2006 9:54:47 PM
From: Ron	Respond to of 362385

Bush Goes a Bridge Too Far The president's latest dumb speech. By Fred Kaplan Posted Thursday, Aug. 31 In his speech this morning before the American Legion's national convention, President George W. Bush may have gone a bridge too far. It was the first of several speeches he plans to deliver in the coming days to rally support for the war in Iraq (and, not incidentally, for Republicans in November). But one passage in particular reveals that the campaign is getting desperate: The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq. Here's the question: Does anybody believe this? If you do, then you must ask the president why he hasn't reactivated the draft, printed war bonds, doubled the military budget, and strenuously rallied allies to the cause. If, as he said in this speech, the war in Iraq really is the front line in "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century"; if our foes there are the "successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists"; if victory is "as important" as it was in Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal—then those are just some of the steps that a committed president would feel justified in demanding. If, as he also said, terrorism takes hold in hotbeds of stagnation and despair, then you must also ask the president why he hasn't requested tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for aid and investment in the Middle East to promote hope and livelihoods. Yet the president hasn't done any of those things, nor has anyone in his entourage encouraged him to do so. And that's because, while the war on terror is important and keeping Iraq from disintegrating is important, they're not that important. Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler or Stalin. Baghdad is not Berlin. Al-Qaida and its imitators don't have the economic resources, the military power, or the vast nationalist base that Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union had. So, the speech sends the head buzzing with cognitive dissonances. There's the massively exaggerated historical analogy (which should have been obvious, if not insulting, to the World War II veterans in the audience). And there's the glaring mismatch between the president's gargantuan depiction of the threat and the relatively paltry resources he's mustered to fight it. Such dissonances could further diminish, not revive, his support. President Bush is right about one thing: It would be a mistake to withdraw all our troops from Iraq—though, even here, he's right for the wrong reason. The danger is not, as he warns, that al-Qaida would take over Iraq. That's an exceedingly improbable scenario. First, al-Qaida's numbers in Iraq are small. Second, other well-armed militias, both Sunni and Shiite, would ferociously resist any such attempt to take power. The real danger is that Iraq might devolve into anarchy and total civil war, the likes of which would make the present turmoil seem placid by comparison. Killings could soar into the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Neighboring countries, whether for aggrandizement or security, would feel compelled to intervene—Iran siding with the Shiites, Saudi Arabia bolstering the Sunnis, Turkey suppressing the Kurds—and, from there, one good spark could set off a horrendous war across the whole region. Bush doesn't see this danger—he chooses not to see it—because it plays against his ideology. He views the world as locked in a titanic struggle between, as he put it in today's speech, the forces of "freedom and moderation" and the forces of "tyranny and extremism." This is, in his mind, "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." He acknowledges that some of these dark forces are driven by "different sources of inspiration"—some are Sunni, some Shiite, some homegrown terrorists. But he claims that they nonetheless "form the outlines of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology." As for the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq—a phenomenon that would seem to cast doubt on this Manichean vision—Bush explains it away as having been "inspired by Zarqawi." Certainly Abu Musab al-Zarqawi encouraged sectarian violence, but to say he contrived it is ludicrous. It's not simply ludicrous; it leads to bad policy. It reflects a gross misunderstanding of Iraqi society (which is far more complex than a checkerboard of freedom fighters versus extremists)—and of the real enemies we face (which are far less monolithic or unified than the president seems to believe). Not all of our enemies are fascists, and not all of our friends are democrats. The danger—really, the crisis—looming in the Middle East is not the threat to freedom and democracy but rather the threat to stability. This is the bugaboo Bush does not want to face. He has said, over and over, that his predecessors' infatuation with stability is what caused the festering stagnation and resentment that bred the terrorists who mounted the attacks of Sept. 11. "Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither," Bush said this morning. That's a matter of debate. In any event, the new danger is that Bush's neglect of stability to promote freedom will leave us with neither of those things—to the still-deeper detriment of peace: a trifecta of world misery. There are dangers. Bush is not mustering the resources to deal with them, mainly because we do not have the resources. He needs—we need—assistance from international players who have an even greater interest in preventing Iraq from collapsing or a regional war from erupting. However, Bush will not be able to rally this assistance as long as he makes statements like, "We will take the side of democrats and reformers throughout the Middle East." To the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and others, that sounds as if Bush would take the side of people who want to overthrow their regimes. He couldn't be serious; he is, after all, friendly with those regimes. But what is he up to? What are his real intentions? Why bail him out on Iraq if he sees freedom's triumph in Iraq as the harbinger for the rise of "reformers" throughout the region? To pursue a sound policy in the Middle East, to impede civil war and worse, would require Bush to shift gears—to drop his rhetoric on spreading some abstract concept of freedom (at least as a centerpiece) and to resume the long-standing pursuit of stability. Such a shift may be too humbling for Bush to endure. And so, as long as he keeps giving speeches on the war in Iraq and the war on terror, the cognitive dissonances will buzz ever louder. Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com. Article URL: slate.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (77836)	9/5/2006 7:49:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362385

Who will wind up in the next Senate? _____________________________________________________________ By John J. Miller National Review Political Reporter September 5, 2006 Pundits like to say that political campaigns don’t really start until Labor Day. Herewith, a review of the hottest one-day-old Senate races in the land. This assessment updates my previous one, posted about two months ago. I’ve switched Minnesota from “toss up” to “leaning Democratic retention,” and I’ve moved Montana and Ohio from “leaning Republican retention” to “toss up.” Republicans currently control 55 seats in the Senate, compared to 45 seats for the Democrats. Because Vice President Cheney would cast any tie-breaking votes, Democrats must gain a total of six seats in order to take over. That’s going to be tough: It will require wins in Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island — i.e., running the table in the races I’ve scored as “toss ups” — plus a big-time upset in Arizona, Tennessee, or Virginia. ARIZONA: Democratic nominee Jim Pederson has poured millions of dollars from his bank account into his campaign, but so far he hasn’t been able to overcome a fairly consistent 10-point deficit against Republican senator Jon Kyl, a conservative favorite. Last week, an Arizona State University poll of registered voters put Kyl ahead, 46 percent to 36 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION CONNECTICUT: Although Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joe Lieberman in last month’s Democratic primary, Lieberman appears well positioned to return to the Senate. He’s technically running as an independent, but he retains the support of many loyal Democrats and says he will remain within the party if he’s re-elected. Lots of Republicans are backing the incumbent as well: Last week, Lieberman said that Jack Kemp would stump for him. (They must have met at the annual gathering of the Loser Veep Candidates Association.) A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters gave Lieberman 49 percent and Lamont 38 percent. The GOP candidate, former state representative Alan Schlesinger, is mired in the low single digits. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION FLORIDA: A couple of months ago, a poll gave Democratic senator Bill Nelson a 30-point lead over GOP congresswoman Katherine Harris. It’s hard to imagine, but things have gotten better for the incumbent: A GOP survey of likely voters, conducted about a week ago, put Nelson up, 63 percent to 20 percent. Can it get any worse for Republicans in a state where they really ought to be competitive? LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION MARYLAND: Next Tuesday, Democratic primary voters will choose between Rep. Ben Cardin and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume. The winner goes against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a Republican. A recent poll of registered voters gave Cardin an edge over Mfume in the primary, 43 percent to 30 percent. Cardin’s sizeable money advantage should help him preserve this lead. The same survey also gave Cardin a small lead over Steele, 44 percent to 39 percent, in the general election. Steele, however, runs a bit ahead of Mfume, 42 percent to 38 percent. Interestingly, Steele performs much better among Democrats than either of his potential opponents do among Republicans; against Cardin (who is white), Steele (who is black) appears to draw about 20 percent of black voters. If he can improve that figure just a little, he may surprise. Expect him to camp out in Prince George’s County, home to many middle-class blacks. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION MICHIGAN: Sen. Debbie Stabenow will benefit from anti-GOP attitudes, but not as much as Democrats elsewhere: Michigan, which is the only state besides Louisiana to have lost jobs over the last year, may be in thoroughly anti-incumbent mood. Still, she holds a lead over her Republican opponent, Oakland County sheriff Michael Bouchard. A recent GOP survey put her up, 49 percent to 42 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION MINNESOTA: Although it’s far too early to toss in the towel, this open-seat race has disappointed Republicans. In other states, such as Florida and North Dakota, they’ve struggled to recruit first-class candidates. In Minnesota, they got exactly the guy they wanted: Rep. Mark Kennedy. But in last week’s USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters, Democratic county attorney Amy Klobuchar held a 10-point lead, 50 percent to 40 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION MISSOURI: Three recent polls have given Republican senator Jim Talent a slight lead over Democratic state auditor Claire McCaskill. The latest, a survey of likely voters by USA Today/Gallup, put the contest at 50 percent for Talent and 44 percent for McCaskill. This is a significant development, reversing a trend from earlier this year when McCaskill tended to hold a small advantage. TOSS UP MONTANA: Although a Rasmussen poll of likely voters had this race tied a month ago, Democratic state Senate president Jon Tester has otherwise led Republican senator Conrad Burns. Last week’s USA Today/Gallup survey gave him 48 percent, with 45 percent for Burns. The 50-year-old Tester, who sports an old-school crew cut, has proven to be a much more formidable challenger than even members of his own party suspected. His populist campaign may well terminate the career of the 71-year-old Burns. TOSS UP NEBRASKA: After underwriting an expensive primary campaign, Republican businessman Pete Ricketts has pumped about $2.5 million of his own money into the general election race against Democratic senator Ben Nelson. Unfortunately for the GOP, this contest probably was lost on the day that President Bush asked Gov. Mike Johanns, a potential candidate against Nelson, to serve as agriculture secretary. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION NEVADA: This race isn’t really worth tracking, except that it’s fun to think that Jimmy Carter’s son, Democratic nominee Jack Carter, is going to get squished like an empty can of Billy Beer. A Las Vegas Review-Journal poll last month gave Republican senator John Ensign a healthy lead among likely voters, 54 percent to 33 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION NEW JERSEY: Tomorrow it’s Bush vs. Clinton in the Garden State, with President Bush flying in to help out Republican challenger Tom Kean and former President Clinton visiting to boost Democratic senator Bob Menendez. A Republican poll of likely voters in August gave Menendez a slight advantage, 42 percent to 40 percent. Possible upside for Kean: Menendez has a much higher unfavorable rating. TOSS UP NEW YORK: In next Tuesday’s primary, Republicans will choose a sacrificial lamb to take on Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The choice is between former Pentagon official Kathleen Troia McFarland and former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, with Spencer probably favored to win. A month ago, a poll of registered voters showed him losing badly to HRC, 58 percent to 32 percent. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION OHIO: Earlier this year, Republican senator Mike DeWine led all the polls. Since July, Democratic congressman Sherrod Brown has enjoyed the position of frontrunner. About two weeks ago, a Rasmussen survey of likely voters gave Brown a three-point edge, 45 percent to 42 percent. DeWine is hobbled by GOP scandals in Columbus and a general lack of enthusiasm among conservatives; he may yet benefit from exposing Brown’s liberal voting record in Congress. TOSS UP PENNSYLVANIA: Conservatives applauded the performance of Republican senator Rick Santorum in his Meet the Press debate against Democratic state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. on Sunday. Will it help? A lot of his supporters probably were at church. Over the last few months, this race — probably America’s most-watched Senate contest — has tightened significantly, as most people suspected it would. A few weeks ago, a Keystone Poll of registered voters gave Casey a lead of 44 percent to 39 percent — much different from the double-digit margins of earlier this year. Santorum’s unfavorable rating is far higher than Casey’s, and this will continue to dog him. What’s more, last week’s USA Today/Gallup survey of likely voters gave Casey an 18-point advantage. Wild card: The candidacy of Carl Romanelli of the Green party, who is polling at 3 or 4 percent. One survey suggests that these votes come right out of Casey’s column. TOSS UP RHODE ISLAND: GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, a liberal, faces Cranston mayor Steven Laffey, a maverick conservative, in next week’s GOP primary. If Chafee survives this test, an equally difficult challenge awaits in the form of Democratic former attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse. For Chafee, it’s possible to see either race going either way — these are coin-flip contests. The probability of a quarter landing on heads twice in a row is 25 percent. TOSS UP TENNESSEE: In a hard-fought, three-way contest, former Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker captured the Republican nomination last month with an impressive 48 percent of the vote. He’ll go against Democratic congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the race to succeed GOP Sen. Bill Frist, who is retiring. In July, a poll of likely voters showed Corker beating Ford, 49 percent to 35 percent. LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION VERMONT: Republican businessman Richard Tarrant is spending nearly $5 million of his own money on this election, but he remains a serious underdog against congressman Bernie Sanders, a socialist “independent” who will caucus with Democrats. Next Tuesday, Tarrant is expected to beat retired Air Force colonel Greg Parke in the GOP primary. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION VIRGINIA: Can former Reagan administration official James Webb, running as an antiwar Democrat, actually oust GOP senator George Allen? Last month, a Zogby Interactive poll put the race at 48 percent for Webb and 47 percent for Allen. Every other recent survey, however, has given Allen the edge: A Rasmussen poll of likely voters, for instance, had it 47 percent for Allen and 42 percent for Webb. There still appear to be enough undecided voters to give Webb hope, and Allen’s notorious “macaca” comment has hurt the senator. Yet Allen, a likely 2008 presidential contender, has a lot more money in the bank. This one remains his to lose. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION WASHINGTON: In a different national political environment, GOP businessman Mike McGavick might actually be leading Democratic senator Maria Cantwell. He’s a good candidate and Cantwell has weaknesses. He tends to do much better in polls of likely voters as opposed to registered voters — not a surprise — but he always seems to trail. A GOP poll of likely voters late last month put Cantwell at 48 percent and McGavick at 43 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION WEST VIRGINIA: GOP businessman John Raese has struggled to gain traction against Democratic senator Robert Byrd, who will be 89 years old when he’s sworn in for a new term next year. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION article.nationalreview.com