| To: LindyBill who wrote (111702) | 4/29/2005 7:20:18 AM | | From: John Carragher | | | | Putin said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety.
I expect the above is what i heard a few weeks ago. Long range canceled and only short range within Syria approved.
Putin also sought to allay concerns about the Syrian arms deal, saying the missiles should pose no threat to Israel.
"The missiles we are providing to Syria are short-range anti-aircraft missiles that cannot reach Israeli territory," he said. "To come within their range, you would have to attack Syria. Do you want to do that?"
Israeli warplanes bombed alleged militant training bases outside Damascus on Oct. 5, 2003, and have buzzed one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's palaces.
Putin said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety.
Officials who briefed reporters on the Putin-Katsav meeting said Putin said Russia had already signed a deal with Syria for missiles with a range of 300 kilometers. According to the officials, Putin told Katsav "then I checked and my experts told me that Israel has no way to intercept these missiles, so I canceled the deal."
"We are taking the opinions and concerns of our partners into consideration, and not changing the balance of power in the region," Putin said at the news conference. "Israel has no problem here."
moscowtimes.ru |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 7:22:29 AM | | | | | | Good analysis of Brownstein's column. There have been a lot of posts here longing for a "moderate" approach and wondering what happened to compromise. What happened is the end of the "Fairness" doctrine. Conservatives finally had a good chance to make their argument and no longer have to serve as "tax collectors for the welfare state." The wishy-washy Republican Senators left now number only about five.
Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For That "Moderate" Political Party
rightwingnews.com
By John Hawkins on Election 2008
Ron Brownstein wrote a column a few days ago for the LA Times that I've been meaning to discuss. It's called "Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party" and here's the crux of Brownstein's argument:
"We are now moving toward a very dangerous place for both parties," (Joe Trippi) says. "It is becoming much more possible for an independent or third party to emerge because they are leaving so much space in the middle."
The hurdles for an independent presidential candidate remain formidable. Even one that attracted a competitive share of the popular vote might have trouble winning many electoral college votes; the strongest candidate could still face the syndrome of finishing second almost everywhere, trailing Republicans in the red states and Democrats in the blue. To have any chance, an independent would need to nearly run the table in battleground states - like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - that don't tilt decisively to either side.
Yet if the two parties continue on their current trajectories, the backdrop for the 2008 election could be massive federal budget deficits, gridlock on problems like controlling healthcare costs, furious fights over ethics and poisonous clashes over social issues and Supreme Court appointments. A lackluster economy that's squeezing the middle-class seems a reasonable possibility too.
In such an environment, imagine the options available to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) if he doesn't win the 2008 Republican nomination, and former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, now that he's dropped his flirtation with running for mayor of New York. If the two Vietnam veterans joined for an all-maverick independent ticket, they might inspire a gold rush of online support - and make the two national parties the latest example of the Internet's ability to threaten seemingly impregnable institutions."
First of all, third parties don't win in America, they just split the vote. For example, the McCain/Kerrey ticket? Their chances of winning? Zero. The only question worth asking would be: which party would they hurt more and it would probably depend on who was on the top of the ticket. If it was Kerrey, it would be the Democrats and if it was McCain, it would be the GOP.
There are multiple reasons why a McCain/Kerrey ticket would have no chance. Brownstein discusses the biggest one in his column: even a strong independent ticket would have little chance in a state that tilts significantly towards one party or the other and quite frankly, that seems describes most states these days.
But there are two other huge problems an independent/moderate party would face.
To begin with, the energy in politics isn't in the center, it's on the sides. Put another way, conservatives and liberals just tend to care a lot more about their politics, which is why they, not moderates, provide most of the ideas, money, volunteers, and energy for their parties. Numbers wise, there may be a lot of moderates, but there aren't enough of them with a passion for politics to carry a political party on their backs.
But even if the moderates were as jazzed up as about politics on the whole as liberals and conservatives, there is no such thing as a "moderate" ideology. What it means to be a "moderate" literally changes from person to person. By that I mean, I can give you a pretty good description of what the conservative and liberal positions are on abortion, but what's the "moderate" position supposed to be? Ask 10 different moderates and they'll probably have 10 different answers. Same goes for foreign policy, gun control, judges, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. You simply can't build a lasting political movement in this country if you can't even explain what your "moderate party" believes in.
Independent/Moderate candidates can't win at the presidential level, they can only play the role of spoiler. That's not going to change anytime soon... |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 7:26:26 AM | | | | | | MICHAEL SILENCE points to this Gallup poll on what Americans would ask President Bush if they had 15 minutes, and observes:
Scroll way down the page and you'll find moral issues just got a response of 6 percent, and just 1 percent mentioned the courts and judicial system.
The war in Iraq, the economy and Social Security topped the list.
I'm not surprised by that, but some people will be.http://instapundit.com/archives/022716.php |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Ilaine who wrote (111648) | 4/29/2005 7:59:52 AM | | From: Mary Cluney | | | | I say this based on several arguments with my hard-left youngest sister, who insists that it doesn't matter whether something is true or not, if she feels that it is true, or feels that it should be true, then this must be taken seriously.
I kid you not.
For your youngest sister, you must be the sister from hell. You are better educated. You went to law school and you know a lot of stuff.
Your poor little sister probably did not apply herself in school as she should have, but she got by quite nicely without having to do any real hard work. In other words, she adjusted fairly well and she has terrific instincts as to what is right and wrong.
She can see that you are wrong all over the lot, but you have a great way with words.
The sister from hell is trying to make her kid sister feel like what she observes is all upside down - but in fact, of course she is right. She sees what is right and wrong from a purely innocent perspective.
So leave your kid sister alone <GGGG>. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: JDN who wrote (111696) | 4/29/2005 8:58:00 AM | | From: haqihana | | | | | JDN, Yes, that invasion from Cuba began quite some time ago. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from Castro, but we have just so much room to accommodate them. Maybe we should just go ahead, and blow Castro off the island, and make it our 51st state. (I'm not joking either) |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: LindyBill who wrote (111709) | 4/29/2005 9:03:33 AM | | From: michael97123 | | | | In response.
Personally i agree that it is unlikely that in a first try a third party would win. You start out roughly 40-40-20 but if the candidates are attractive you could end up with a three way dead heat in short order. Lets say for arguements sake republicans did nominate front runner Frist and dems went with kerry again. McCain-Kerrey or McCain-Giuliani or Powell might quickly gain parity with the majors. Will they have enough money, and enough staying power for the whole race. Dunno.
As far as a moderate ideology that is a bogus argument. Since one party is reactionary and the other bordering on being wedded to old ideas a moderate party with a progressive bent would do just fine. Mike |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 9:08:37 AM | | | | | | THE ROAR OF MSM DEMAGOGUES
By malkin
"I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off," President Bush said at his news conference last night. "This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security."
Democrats claim that Bush's plan constitutes a "cut" in future benefits for upper-income workers. That claim is being uncritically echoed by most MSM outlets:
New York Times, "Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits,"
President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.
Washington Post, "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits,"
President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances.
ABC News / Associated Press, "Bush Offers New Social Security Plan,"
After nearly 60 days on the road pitching Social Security changes, President Bush is offering a new plan to fix its finances by cutting benefits of more prosperous future retirees. Democrats still aren't buying it.
Not surprsingly, liberal blogger Josh Marshall loves this slanted coverage: "The Post pretty much nails the new Bush plan on the front page of tomorrow's paper: cut pretty much everyone's benefits a lot. The sweetener? Poor people's benefits won't be cut as much!"
If you read the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and liberal bloggers like Marshall you could be forgiven for thinking that, under Bush's plan, wealthy retirees will get less money in the future than they do now. That is not the case.
A few MSM outlets made this point. The Wall Street Journal reported, "Under his proposal to adjust benefit levels, low-income workers would continue, as they do under current law, to have their initial retirement benefits linked to the growth of wages in the economy. But the wealthiest seniors would have their initial benefits tied to price inflation, which generally rises more slowly than wages."
See also this USA Today analysis.
Yes, Bush's indexing plan is "cutting benefits" in the sense that upper-income beneficiaries would get less money than under the status quo. But no retiree is going to see his or her standard of living decline relative to where it stands now.
Those who oppose Bush's indexing plan are arguing, in essence, that Social Security benefits to upper-income beneficiaries should continue to grow faster than the rate of inflation. That's reckless given the program's long-term fiscal problems.
Bush's indexing plan is moderate and reasonable. Unfortunately, the combination of Democrats' demagoguery and the MSM's relentlessly negative coverage may bring the plan down before it even gets off the ground. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| From: LindyBill | 4/29/2005 9:11:07 AM | | | | | | Democrats Reject Compromise on Judges
powerlineblog.com
As we noted yesterday, Bill Frist's offer of a compromise on judicial nominations was a statesmanlike effort. It was scrupulously fair to both parties, constrained the majority just as it would the minority--more, really, since absent the compromise, the majority, Republican or Democrat, would always have the Constitutional option at its disposal--and effectuated the principle, endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Americans of both parties, that all judicial nominees should be voted on.
Harry Reid's response, as reported by the Washington Times, was childish and incoherent. Unable to deny the fairness or the logic or Frist's offer, Reid descended into babble:
[T]he Senate's top Democrat immediately expressed doubt about the proposal, calling it "a big wet kiss to the far right."
"I don't really like the proposal given, but I'm not going to throw it away," Mr. Reid said. "I'm going to work on it."
In his floor speech, Mr. Reid called Mr. Frist's proposal a "slow-motion nuclear option." "After 100 hours, the rights of the minority are extinguished," he said, acknowledging that the purpose of the filibusters hasn't been to continue debate on nominees, but simply to stop them.
"I say to everyone within the sound of my voice: 'Test us,' "he said. "Let's see how we can do in the future. I can't say there won't be any filibusters, but I think we're going to have a much better situation."
Reid's incoherence couldn't conceal what he didn't dare say out loud: obstruction is the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
The Times also reads Frist's speech as confirming our prediction that Priscilla Owen will be the nominee whose case is used to break the filibuster. |
| | Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
