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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306015)	10/11/2006 1:41:13 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1577836

Colorado: State's Most Republican District a Tossup "No such thing now as a safe Republican seat". Republican, Democrat neck and neck. Events in Washington could change ownership of the seat, held by the GOP since it was created in 1972. By Erin Emery Denver Post Staff Writer Article Launched:10/10/2006 12:02:54 AM MDT Colorado Springs - In what may be the starkest depiction yet of the challenges Republicans face in maintaining control of Congress, a new poll shows the party is fighting to hold on to a traditionally Republican seat in Colorado Springs. No Democrat has won in the 5th Congressional District since it was created in 1972, but Democrat Jay Fawcett is tied with Republican Doug Lamborn, according to a poll conducted for The Denver Post by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. Fawcett and Lamborn each have 37 percent of the votes, while 26 percent of voters in the six-county district remain undecided. The poll was conducted Oct. 3 through Saturday and included 400 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. "It appears that Lamborn is now the first Republican who has ever had to fight hard to take that seat," said Bob Loevy, political-science professor at Colorado College. "A seat that should not have been competitive for the Democratic Party, as a result of a number of unusual events coming together - if the poll is correct - now appears to be competitive." Kate Bedingfield, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said she believes the scandal involving U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's sexually explicit e-mails to teen congressional pages may have influenced the poll results. Foley, a Florida Republican, has resigned. "Given the current climate, there is no such thing as a safe Republican seat," she said. Bedingfield declined to say, however, if the party would pump money into the race. The DCCC has a policy of not commenting on how it will spend money, she said. In a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats two-to-one, Lamborn has emphasized his 12-year record in the Colorado legislature and his social-conservative ideals. Fawcett, an Air Force Academy graduate who retired as a lieutenant colonel after 20 years in the Air Force, has stressed his expertise in the military and homeland defense, and the notion that he will listen to all people in the district, not just social conservatives. Loevy said a "perfect storm" may be brewing in the district. Lamborn is running for an open seat during the sixth year of an incumbent president's term and after a bitter six-way Republican primary fight. Lamborn's campaign took a blow when retiring Republican Rep. Joel Hefley, who has served the district for 20 years, declined to endorse Lamborn, saying he ran a "dishonest" and "sleazy" campaign. "Lamborn is going to have to work hard to hold on to it," Loevy said. "Lamborn has to motivate the people who should have been in his camp from the very beginning." The poll shows that Lamborn has 27 percent favorable name recognition compared with 20 percent for Fawcett. It also shows 26 percent unfavorable name recognition for Lamborn, compared with 7 percent for Fawcett. Of those polled, 13 percent did not recognize Lam born's name, compared with 41 percent for Fawcett. Poll called skewed Jon Hotaling, campaign manager for Lamborn, said the poll is flawed and skewed toward Democrats. He said internal polls show Lamborn has a "healthy" lead in the race, though he would not say how the polls are different because he "doesn't want Republicans to get complacent and not vote." Pollsters interviewed 47 percent Republicans, 27 percent independents and 26 percent Democrats. Secretary of state records show that as of September, the district was 46 percent Republican, 32 percent unaffiliated and 22 percent Democratic. "It polls too many Democrats and not enough unaffiliated voters. Our own internal polling shows that Doug has a healthy lead in this race and that we're going to continue working hard toward Election Day," Hotaling said. Pollster Brad Coker said the poll was of likely voters, which varies from actual voter-registration numbers. "Whether the Republican/ Democrat ratio is 47/26 or 46/22, it would only change the total point spread about a point - well within the margin for error," he said. Fawcett, 50, said the campaign has been talking to national groups about spending money on the race. "They've been watching the race carefully all along, waiting to see how some of these factors would play out, and as they have, they've become more and more interested," Fawcett said. Fawcett said his campaign will continue to reach out to Republican and independent voters. "We have to convince the voters of the 5th District that the individual matters more than the party," Fawcett said. "I think you see that that is paying off." Staff writer Erin Emery can be reached at 303-954-1201 or eemery@denverpost.com.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306015)	10/11/2006 7:02:46 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577836

They've become what they despise....

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306015)	10/11/2006 7:42:08 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577836

Solving the Korean Stalemate, One Step at a Time By JIMMY CARTER ATLANTA IN 1994 the North Koreans expelled inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and were threatening to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, giving them the ability to produce nuclear weapons. With the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula, there was a consensus that the forces of South Korea and the United States could overwhelmingly defeat North Korea. But it was also known that North Korea could quickly launch more than 20,000 shells and missiles into nearby Seoul. The American commander in South Korea, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated that total casualties would far exceed those of the Korean War. Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas. The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula. But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices. Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option. The current military situation is similar but worse than it was a decade ago: we can still destroy North Korea’s army, but if we do it is likely to result in many more than a million South Korean and American casualties. If and when it is confirmed that the recent explosion in North Korea was nuclear, the international community will once again be faced with difficult choices. One option, the most likely one, is to try to force Pyongyang’s leaders to abandon their nuclear program with military threats and a further tightening of the embargoes, increasing the suffering of its already starving people. Two important facts must be faced: Kim Jong-il and his military leaders have proven themselves almost impervious to outside pressure, and both China and South Korea have shown that they are reluctant to destabilize the regime. This approach is also more likely to stimulate further nuclear weapons activity. The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections. Although a small nuclear test is a far cry from even a crude deliverable bomb, this second option has become even more difficult now, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans will back down unless the United States meets this basic demand. Washington’s pledge of no direct talks could be finessed through secret discussions with a trusted emissary like former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who earlier this week said, “It’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.” What must be avoided is to leave a beleaguered nuclear nation convinced that it is permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.