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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (221061)	2/25/2007 9:36:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

MANY of us around the country feel that Bush's or Clinton's have been in the White House long enough...It's time for a change...Here are some interesting results from a national blog poll... mydd.com -s2@ObamaIsTheTigerWoodsOfAmericanPolitics.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (221061)	2/25/2007 9:59:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Unless I see Hillary as someone who is not defined by careerism and opportunism, I could not possibly vote for her. I think that is the essence of the objections against her. You forget: she is nasty and vindictive and she has a political tin ear. Careerism and opportunism, that's nothing. Couldn't you say as much of Bill? But he is a genius pol, a natural. People willingly pay to get lied to by Bill, he's so good at it. Finally, he is a fresh face in politics, and the voting public is exceedingly tired of the same old stuff being thrown at it. I would agree if the election were six months away. But it's twenty months away. You think Obama is still going to be fresh and new 20 months from now?

To: carranza2 who wrote (221061)	2/26/2007 1:15:26 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq war topples all four pillars GOP stands on ____________________________________________________________ By Thomas F. Schaller* COMMENTARY ContraCostaTimes Posted on Sun, Feb. 25, 2007 According to the latest Gallup survey, Republican self-identification has declined nationally and in almost every state. Why? The short answer is that President Bush's war of choice in Iraq has destroyed the partisan brand Republicans spent the past four decades building. That brand was based upon four pillars: that Republicans are more trustworthy on defense and military issues; that they know when and where markets can replace or improve government; that they are more competent administrators of those functions government can't privatize; and, finally, that their public philosophy is imbued with moral authority. The war demolished all four claims. In uniform or out, Americans think Iraq is a disaster, oppose escalation and blame Bush and his party for the mess in Mesopotamia. Heading into the 2006 midterms, polls showed Republicans trailing Democrats as the party most trusted to handle Iraq and terrorism. Nationally, Bush's war approval ratings hover around 30 percent. Military members are skeptical, too. A Military Times poll released in December revealed that only 35 percent of military members approved of the president's handling of the war -- despite that 46 percent of them are self-identified Republicans (down from 60 percent in previous Military Times polls), and just 16 percent are Democrats. According to a recent Zogby survey of troops serving in Iraq, 72 percent want American forces home within a year. Congressional hearings last week on war contracting dispel the second claim. Billions of dollars appropriated for Iraq cannot be accounted for, and contracts have been doled out with limited oversight and little regard for competitiveness. Robert Greenwald's powerful documentary "Iraq for Sale" exposes many of the absurdities. You wouldn't sign a three-year $250,000 lease for a vehicle you could buy outright for $50,000, but our government does. The "cost-plus" procurement protocol pays contractors a fixed percentage on top of whatever they spend, encouraging them to spend as much and as inefficiently as possible. So rather than vehicles with minor mechanical damage being repaired, many are junked in favor of expensive replacements. Meanwhile, the same troops Bush brags he will do "whatever it takes" to support often wait in two-hour chow lines or shower in bacteria-contaminated water. "The hearings and the introduction of legislation, while long overdue, will begin to have an immediate effect on those who have been ruthless and relentless in their profiteering," Greenwald says with hope. As for the third pillar -- superior management skills -- there's insufficient space here to revisit the myriad blunders made by America's civilian leaders. Little foresight was given to post-invasion scenarios. Disbanding the Iraqi army was an early colossal mistake. We had too few troops there, as Paul Bremer, former civilian administrator of Iraq, later admitted. And the torture policies on view at Abu Ghraib gave terrorists a fantastic recruiting tool. Notice, too, how management "success" has been steadily defined downward: from disarming an unarmed Saddam Hussein, to bringing liberation and democratization, to establishing basic security, to avoiding a domestic civil war, to "holding and clearing" Baghdad, to the current goal of preventing a regional conflagration that wouldn't be imminent had we not gone to Iraq in the first place. Talk about the soft bigotry of low -- and lowering -- expectations. Finally, there is the war's morality. In what moral system is it justified to wage a war without paying for it? Bush tormented Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in 2004 for "voting for before voting against" funding the war. But Kerry voted for a version of the $87 billion appropriations bill that also raised revenue to pay for it. Instead, we pile the war's costs atop our mountainous national debt, leaving future generations to pay for it later -- plus interest. The administration is asking for an additional $245 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- an amount that, were it set aside and allowed to accrue interest, could pay the entire budget of a midsize state like Maryland for almost a decade. This sum, too, will be added to America's giant credit card bill -- an act of moral cowardice from the same White House that gives lectures about the sanctity of marriage and embryonic stem cells. The Iraq war's human consequences abroad are far more tragic than any impact they are having on partisan politics at home. But for Republicans, the last casualty of Bush's war of choice may be the party itself. *Thomas F. Schaller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. © 2007 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources. contracostatimes.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (221061)	2/26/2007 10:10:13 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

barak will fade. He is an amateur and it will begin to show. Having been against the war in iraq as an illinois state legislator tells me nothing. PS I cant believe he is older than jfk. When i was on the side of the generational conflict, i would have described comments like these as damn dumb. Now i am not so sure. I do agree Hillary will have a tough time and the barak/hillary battles, especially if its mostly a draw may leave us with Edwards in front and a Gore move into the race at a later date. Some folks consider gore a left wing nut because of his stance on the environement. I have never thought of gore as a wild eyed liberal. I never liked him much because of his cartoon like presentation of himself. Gore could be this decades nixon in 68. Below is how i rank things right now. Hillary takes out barakamania and wins the nomination 50/50 Barak takes out hillary and wins the nomination 25/75 Edwards picks up the pieces of the barak/hill war and wins the nomination 40/60 Gore gets in if hillary out and he has to go up against barak or edwards 60/40