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: Road Walker who wrote (307763)	10/26/2006 3:25:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571438

I thought the goal was regime change in the ME so democracy could flower? Isn't that why we have our troop there? Lower oil prices would hardly help democracy in Iraq. Never mind, it's an entirely different argument: Is there more of a threat of terrorism if the ME is rich or poor? Its hard to tell, all we have is speculation. If you totally buy in to the "clash of civilizations" argument, and think that all or most of Islam will be against the west then it would perhaps reduce terrorism if the oil price went down, but I don't really buy in to that argument (at least not as something more than a potential unlikely worst case scenario), and apparently you don't either (as you call it crap). As for regime change collapsing in other countries helping democracy? Well it might, but probably only in the long run and in the mean time you might get a lot more terrorism. If the Saudi government collapsed you would be very unlikely to get a liberal democracy in its place. I'd guess you would be more likely to get a Islamic theocracy, or I guess its possible you could get a break up of the country (in which case at least part of it would probably be under an Islamic theocracy). Even places where there is a nascent democracy like Iraq and Afghanistan, you apparently have at least a short term, and perhaps medium term increase in terrorism. If governments start collapsing across the middle east you would almost certainly get an increase.

To: Road Walker who wrote (307763)	10/27/2006 5:08:55 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571438

The Dem is ahead by 20 pts. in the senatorial race in OH? Seems hard to believe but word is the RNC won't be running ads for the GOP candidate this last week before the election. Meanwhile, Allen pretty much has VA sewed up.

To: Road Walker who wrote (307763)	10/27/2006 5:12:46 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571438

War Now Works Against GOP Iraq Often Seen as Hindrance in Campaigns By Peter Slevin and Michael Powell Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page A01 DOYLESTOWN, Pa. -- A visitor to Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick's campaign Web site will immediately hear a 20-second audio clip of a contentious television interview about Iraq with his Democratic challenger, Patrick Murphy. The clip ends: "Tough times demand honest answers, not Pat Murphy." Fitzpatrick, a freshman Republican, hoped to throttle Murphy on an issue critical to the 2004 victories of President Bush and the Republican Congress. But Murphy, a 33-year-old West Point graduate and a veteran of the war, has battled his way into contention by directly attacking Fitzpatrick and Bush on their party's handling of Iraq itself. Democrat Patrick Murphy, center, has made the Iraq war a major issue in his challenge of Rep. Michael G. Fitzgerald in Pennsylvania's 8th District. A veteran of the Iraq war, Murphy calls for all U.S. troops to be withdrawn within 12 months. "We can change what we're doing in Iraq," he said. (By Chip Somodevilla -- Getty Images) "When we went there in 2003, we had a mission to get rid of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. We're still in Iraq 3 1/2 years later and the mission isn't clear," Murphy told an audience here last week. "Together we can change it. We can change what we're doing in Iraq." Just three months ago, Republican strategists believed that doubts about Iraq could be contained -- or even turned into an electoral advantage -- if the battle was framed as a vital front in the war against terrorism. Voters would be invited to choose: Stand firm or capitulate. But the issue is not playing out that way. In both parties, a consensus now exists -- buttressed by polls -- that disaffection with a war grown costly and difficult to manage is the gravest threat to continued Republican rule. Iraq is not only a potent issue in its own right, but is also a resonant metaphor for doubts about the competence and accountability of the Republican Party. In the most competitive races, Iraq echoes in varying ways, but almost always for Republicans it is a problem to be navigated and for Democrats a stick to be brandished. In Ohio, it helped put incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R) on the defensive. In House races in Pennsylvania and Illinois, it gave three Democratic war veterans and novice politicians an opening. "We are telling our candidates not to be afraid to talk about it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Who would have thought two years ago the Democrats would be affirmatively putting ads on television about Iraq and Republicans would be avoiding it?" Showing how the tables have turned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told interviewers in New Hampshire this week that Republican candidates should steer away from the war. "The challenge," Frist said, "is to get Americans to focus on pocketbook issues, and not on the Iraq and terror issue." In Connecticut and Ohio, in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, critical swaths of voters tell pollsters they are using the war as a lens to assess -- and in many cases punish -- the party in control of the White House and both houses of Congress. This appears particularly true of independents, who are considered most likely to determine whether the House and Senate change hands. A Pew Research Center poll this month found that 50 percent of independents listed Iraq among their top two national concerns, compared with 36 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Democrats. Overall, 58 percent of respondents said the war is not going well and only 38 percent said the battle for Iraq is helping the war on terrorism. CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next > washingtonpost.com