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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	3/31/2007 6:18:44 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Early primaries: What's the rush? By Lloyd Garver jewishworldreview.com \| Our presidential primary system has been getting criticism lately, some of it deserved. But even with its flaws, at least the binding primary system is a lot more democratic than the old days when political bosses in dark, smoke-filled rooms decided who the candidates would be. And it's about to become even more democratic. We're all used to seeing candidates in places like Iowa and New Hampshire pretending to enjoy the sub-zero weather as they kick off the "primary season." But now somewhere between ten and twenty states will have their primaries on Feb. 5, 2008. And Nevada recently announced that it plans on having its primary even earlier — on Jan. 19, wedged between the Jan. 14 Iowa caucuses and the Jan. 21 New Hampshire primary. Why are all these states rushing to have their primaries so early? More and more, the early caucuses and primaries have become very important. Probably too important. Campaigning is so expensive and so dependent on contributions that one's showing in these early contests often determines whether a candidate continues or drops out of the campaign. So it's possible that in the recent past, the best candidates haven't even gotten a chance to run for president just because people in Iowa and New Hampshire didn't like them. Maybe these unfortunate candidates just didn't know enough about Iowa wrestling, or that the state insect of New Hampshire is the ladybug. Sorry, you can't be president. Because of this "undue influence" of a few states with early caucuses and primaries, this time around, more and more states want to get in on the action. So instead of voters from a few states determining which candidate has momentum and which candidate is through, voters from all over the country will help decide who their party's nominee for president will be. That's the good news. The bad news is that it's going to happen so early. We could know who the Republican and Democratic nominees for president will be on Feb. 5 — a full nine months before the election. All of the mystery, the wonder, and the "what ifs" of the campaign could be over. In February! I don't want to know who the presidential nominees are before some people in my neighborhood take down their Christmas decorations. This rush to have the primaries earlier than necessary reminds me of the people who buy their Sunday newspaper on Saturday. I always wonder, what do they do all Sunday morning? But more importantly, is it the best thing for the country to hurry the primary season? Won't some voters feel rushed into making a decision? And candidates are going to be traveling so fast in their private jets from state to state that their heads will be spinning. We'll hear things like, "It's great to be here in my favorite state, South ... I mean, North Carolina." They'll be whisked away by their handlers in the middle of a speech: "My position on the war is quite simple. I believe we should ... sorry, gotta go." Instead of all the states rushing to have early primaries, I think all the states should have a "later primary." A National Primary would be a good idea, with all the states voting on the same day. But not in February. Give us a chance to get to know these candidates, and give them a chance to mess up or surprise us with some great idea. My recommendation is that we have a National Primary in June. June would be perfect. Candidates and voters won't feel rushed, and it would be a nice break for me from watching the Cubs' pitching fall apart. However we tweak the primary system, there will be problems. But again, it's certainly more democratic than having those cigar-chomping, deal-making bosses of yore deciding who should be the candidates, election after election. And yet, that brings up a troublesome question. It's true that years ago, because of the binding primaries, we changed things so that the voters get to determine who the party nominees are instead of just the party insiders deciding. But since reforming the system, do we always come up with better candidates and better presidents than those guys in the smoke-filled rooms did for all those years? I'm just not sure. URL:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0307/garver.php3

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	3/31/2007 6:19:51 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

jewishworldreview.com

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	3/31/2007 6:20:35 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

jewishworldreview.com

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	4/2/2007 1:49:48 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Tommy Thompson to Run for President Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson on Sunday joined the crowded field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008 and proclaimed himself the "reliable conservative" in the race. Thompson, who was health and human services secretary during President Bush's first term, also said he is the only GOP candidate who has helped assemble both a state and federal budget. Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson speaks to Quad City area citizens gathered at Kelly's Irish Pub in Davenport, Iowa, Saturday, March 31, 2007. (AP Photo/The Associated Press, Louis Brems) Since announcing last year he was forming a presidential exploratory committee to raise money and gauge support, Thompson has lagged behind better-known rivals. Thompson, 65, has focused his strategy on Iowa, which holds the nation's first caucuses for presidential nominees. He has made weekly visits to the state and sought to make the case that it will take a candidate who can carry the Midwest to win the nomination. "Things are starting to coalesce and I feel very, very optimistic about my future," Thompson said Sunday, despite his single-digit polling. "I am the reliable conservative. My record shows that. All that people have to do is look at my record, and I am one individual that they can count on," Thompson said. Discussing some campaign issues, he said: _He would have "a completely different Iraq strategy" from the president's. Thompson said he would "demand" that the Iraqi government vote as to whether it wanted the U.S. to remain in the country. If the answer were yes, "it immediately gives a degree of legitimacy." If the answer were no, "We would get out, absolutely. It's a duly elected government." _He would veto the war spending bills in Congress that have timelines for a U.S. exit from Iraq. "This is an invitation to continue the kind of civil war that's going on right now. I think it's the worst mistake," Thompson said. _Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has made "terrible mistakes" in the handling of the fired federal prosecutors. "I would not have appointed Mr. Gonzales. I would have appointed somebody that was loyal to me," Thompson said. At a recent news conference in Wisconsin, Thompson called himself "the dark horse candidate. I was a dark horse candidate for governor. I was a dark horse candidate when I ran for the Assembly. I am the underdog, and I don't mind that." The son of a grocer, Thompson spent 14 years as governor of Wisconsin, pushing for an overhaul of the state's welfare laws. He also championed a school choice program for Milwaukee. His time in Bush's Cabinet included anthrax attacks, a flu vaccine shortage and passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefit law. In 2006, he briefly flirted with the idea of running for governor but in the end decided not to seek his old job. He had considered running for president in 2000 but scrapped that, too, deciding he lacked support. The leading GOP candidates in the race include former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Thompson was interviewed on "This Week" on ABC

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	4/2/2007 1:50:33 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Clinton, Edwards Top Fundraising Records Read Article & Comments (4) Trackbacks(0) Post Your Comments Two Democratic presidential candidates broke previous fundraising records during the first three months of the year, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton setting a high bar of $26 million in new contributions for the quarter. Former Sen. John Edwards raised more than $14 million since the beginning of the year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account, bringing her total receipts for the quarter to $36 million. Democratic Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., gestures while speaking at the Building and Construction Trades Department's AFL-CIO's candidate forum, Wednesday, March 28, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf) Unlike Edwards, Clinton aides would not reveal how much of her total was available only for the primary election and how much could be used just in the general election, if she were the party's nominee. By not breaking down the amount available for the primaries, the Clinton camp made it impossible to assess how much of an edge she actually has over Edwards. Edwards' aides said about $1 million of his $14 million in contributions could only be used in the general election, should he win the nomination. Neither Clinton nor Edwards disclosed how much money they spent in the quarter or how much cash they had in hand _ numbers that also give clues to the relative strengths of the campaigns. Still, the total raised by each candidate outdistanced past presidential election records and set a new bar by which to measure fundraising abilities. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois _ sandwiched in public opinion polls between Clinton and Edwards _ had yet to reveal his totals. Obama was expected to be among the top Democratic fundraisers. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign said he had raised $6 million in primary campaign money and had more than $5 million cash in hand at the end of the three-month period. Aides to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said he raised more than $4 million in the quarter, transferred nearly $5 million form his Senate campaign account and had $7.5 million cash on hand. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., had total receipts close to $4 million for the quarter, an aide said Sunday. That amount includes less than $2 million transferred from his Senate campaign account. Richardson, Dodd and Biden only raised primary election money. The rest of the Democratic field and the Republican presidential candidates planned to announce their first-quarter totals over the next few days. The fundraising deadline for the January through March period was Saturday, with financial reports due April 15. Republican Phil Gramm of Texas and Democrat Al Gore of Tennessee held the records for first-quarter receipts: $8.7 million for Gramm in 1995 and $8.9 million for Gore in 1999. Gramm dropped out before New Hampshire held the 1996 election's first primary. "We are completely overwhelmed and gratified by the historic support that we've gotten this quarter," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said. The Clinton total included $4.2 million raised through the Internet, typically a source of small donations. By not breaking down the amount available for the primaries, the Clinton camp made it impossible to make clear comparisons to past campaigns or to the Edwards total. "We're above our budget for the year," Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said. "We're completely on track to have all the money that we need to be highly competitive in the campaign." Fundraising has been the top priority of the presidential campaigns. Clinton has packed her schedule with gala events and intimate dinners and has received substantial help from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, a hit among contributors. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, has lawyers in prominent positions on his fundraising team. The Edwards campaign saw a spike in donations, especially online, after Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that her cancer had returned and was incurable. townhall.com

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	4/2/2007 1:51:53 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Democrats Won't Reschedule Gonzales The White House scrambled Sunday to move up Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' planned testimony to Congress about his involvement in firing eight federal prosecutors, only to get a cold shoulder from majority Democrats. The effort reflected the frustration by Republican senators and the White House over how long it is taking the embattled attorney general to explain himself under oath. Congress has just begun a vacation _ one week for the Senate, two for the House. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears at a round table discussion with law enforcement officials about his Project Safe Childhood initiative in Boston, Friday, March 30, 2007. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia) In a sign of Gonzales' diminished standing on Capitol Hill, the Senate GOP leader offered lukewarm support for the nation's top law enforcer, whose inconsistent explanations about the dismissals have become a distraction for the Bush administration. Asked directly if he has confidence in Gonzales, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "I can honestly say the president does." "What I can tell you at the moment is that he enjoys the support of the president, for whom he works," he said. "I think most Republican senators are willing to give the attorney general a chance to come up before the Judiciary Committee and give his side of the story." Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17. White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the committee ought to reschedule the hearing for next week. "Let's move it up and let's get the facts," Bartlett said. "Let's have the attorney general there sooner rather than later." The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said Gonzales had been offered earlier dates but turned them down. It was Gonzales who chose April 17, said Leahy, D-Vt., and that date will not change now because "everybody has set their schedule according to that." "It's the date that the attorney general originally picked. It's the date the hearing will take place," Leahy said. Until recently, department officials also said they wanted to give Congress enough time to go through the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails, memos, calendar pages and other documents detailing the decision to fire the prosecutors. That changed Friday _ the day after Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the committee _ when aides said they would try to get Gonzales to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to explain his side. In his testimony, Sampson said that Gonzales was deeply involved in the removal of the U.S. attorneys, contrary to the attorney general's public statements. "We are absolutely confused by the White House position," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "For the longest time, Alberto Gonzales wasn't going to come, maybe much later. Now the White House can't wait to bring him in." Gonzales himself instructed a top aide on Saturday to see if the testimony date could be moved up. townhall.com

To: calgal who wrote (55552)	4/2/2007 1:54:43 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Bush to Iran: 'Give Back the Hostages' Read Article & Comments (5) Trackbacks(0) Post Your Comments President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally. Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing. President Bush, right, and Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attend a joint news conference at Camp David, Md., Saturday, March 31, 2007. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) "It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong." It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans. The president said he supports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, now in its second week. Bush would not comment about Britain's options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq. "I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said. Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening. "The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise." Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation. "I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it." Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain. "Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran. The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Britain also insists the sailors were in Iraqi waters. townhall.com