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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (16495)	1/12/2007 4:06:54 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid 06:29 PM CST on Thursday, January 11, 2007 Associated Press dallasnews.com HOUSTON – Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican. Paul filed incorporation papers in Texas on Thursday to create a presidential exploratory committee that allows him and his supporters to collect money on behalf of his bid. This will be Paul's second try for the White House; he was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988....

To: longnshort who wrote (16495)	1/14/2007 1:07:28 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The courage of his convictions By Donald Lambro Saturday, January 13, 2007 WASHINGTON -- If President Bush's decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq tells us anything about him, it is this: He isn't someone who bases his policies on the polls or the results of the last election. He is acting on his deepest conviction that, as he said in his address to the nation, we are engaged in "the decisive ideological struggle of our time" against Islamic extremists who have declared war against the West and the United States, in particular. Abraham Lincoln, beset by a series of defeats and setbacks in the Civil War, told the nation "we must think anew so that we may act anew." Bush, facing a long guerrilla war that his new secretary of defense said we are losing, essentially told Americans that failure was not an option and that we must readjust our military strategy so that "We can and we will prevail." It was a gutsy, sober decision that he knows will hardly make him more popular with the American people. Polls show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans oppose the war and think it was a mistake. His party lost the House and Senate in an election that turned into a referendum on the war. But Bush has long ago made peace with fact that he is not going to win any popularity contests for the remainder of his presidency as long as the war continues and casualties mount. Sending more troops to secure the Iraqi capital against a stronger and far more lethal insurgency is clearly in the long-term security interests of our country, and he is willing to leave office two years from now with low-approval polls but secure in the knowledge that he fought the terrorists as hard as he could and kept America safer than it was before he came into office. Only now Bush faces two wars, one in Iraq and the other on Capitol Hill, where Democrats were gearing up to challenge him on two fronts: 1) A nonbinding resolution that declares Congress' disapproval of increased combat forces and calls for troop withdrawal by this year. 2) Withholding funding for any additional forces being sent there or other provisions that would further restrict appropriations for the war. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be careful about overplaying their hand on both scores. Thus far, as most polls show, a majority of Americans oppose an immediate or precipitous pullout of all forces in Iraq that would result in a bloodbath for the Iraqi people. Indeed, a number of Democrats would not support a speedy withdrawal if it would endanger our remaining forces there. A congressional funding cutoff, which would have to clear a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate and then overcome a presidential veto, would be a political disaster for the Pelosi Democrats. It would threaten needed funds for our troops in the midst of war. How many Democrats would want to vote for that? Bush explained the stakes in Iraq last week without sugarcoating what the future holds, even if his plan succeeds in pacifying Baghdad and the terrorist-infested Anbar province. "Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he said. The question, he added, "is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe it will." I think we will see a change for the better on the streets of Baghdad with increased troop levels. But if there is one change I would make in the new strategy, it would be a much sharper increase in the number of U.S. forces to train more Iraqi fighters. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposed a massive increase in the number of U.S. military trainers by 10,000 to 20,000 to quickly escalate the size and skill of the Iraqi army. Bush's plan would just expand the number of advisers embedded in existing Iraqi forces. The key to longer-term success and to an eventual drawdown of U.S. forces is a larger, better-trained Iraqi security force that can bear the brunt of the fighting and kill more of the enemy. That side of the military equation must be ramped up beyond anything that is now being contemplated. Meantime, Bush is fully committed to his new strategy. He has received new promises from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to commit additional brigades to the war and to get a lot tougher combating sectarian violence. He is bringing new generals into Iraq and the region, and a new ambassador into Baghdad, to carry out the plan. He is embarked on this course because all of the other options, such as a phased withdrawal this year, were nonstarters in his mind -- signaling to the terrorists that they had won, that we would back down in the face of their threats and that would make us and the free world more vulnerable to their attacks. It was perhaps the toughest and loneliest decision of his presidency but one that was made solely to keep our country safe. Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times. Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network townhall.com

To: longnshort who wrote (16495)	3/7/2007 10:46:02 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Bulls-Eye on Landrieu Republicans will be defending 21 Senate seats next year while Democrats have only 12 seats to protect. That makes it vital for the GOP to field its strongest possible candidate for every Democratic seat where Republicans have a chance of winning. The No. 1 target for Republicans is Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who has won two successive races with less than 51% of the vote. The state is likely to have become more Republican since Hurricane Katrina dramatically reduced the population of liberal New Orleans. In 1996, in a close election, Ms. Landrieu won solely on the basis of her 100,000-vote margin in New Orleans. She lost the rest of the state by 95,000 votes. In that same election, Bill Clinton carried Louisiana over Bob Dole by a full 12 percentage points. Now it appears that Woody Jenkins, the man who came so close to defeating Ms. Landrieu in 1996, is planning a comeback. Mr. Jenkins, a former state legislator, has just sold one of the television stations he owns and at age 60 may well be interested in picking up his political career. In a sign that Mr. Jenkins may be planning a comeback, Rep. Charles Boustany, a Republican now serving his second term in Congress, has just announced he won't be running for Ms. Landrieu's Senate seat. The other prominent Republican still mentioned for the seat is recently elected state Secretary of State Jay Dardenne. A Southern Research Media and Opinion poll in January showed Mr. Dardenne polling 38% against Ms. Landrieu's 53% in a hypothetical matchup. Allies of Mr. Jenkins believe polls would show him faring even better against Ms. Landrieu and that their man knows her vulnerabilities best. -- John Fund opinionjournal.com