******************President Hillary?
She's a popular senator, but how will Clinton sell herself nationally?
LUIZA CH. SAVAGE
Hillary Rodham Clinton could be the first female president of the United States -- that is, if women will let her. When she ran in 2000 for the hardly trailblazing role of 27th woman in the Senate, albeit the first from New York, the sisterhood nearly threw her to the wolves. Clinton knew to expect resistance from voters in the more conservative areas of upstate New York, but the reception she got from women -- especially white baby boomers and moms in the suburbs -- stunned the campaign. To say they had misgivings about the polished and pant-suited former first lady would be putting it charitably -- "cutthroat," "self-serving" and "backstabbing" were some of the nicer names in focus groups. But Clinton persevered, and after six years in office she stands on the verge of a re-election landslide. Her approval ratings among women are in the stratospheric 70 per cent range. "She's beautiful, awesome," gushed Kelli Williams, 37, a shopper in the upstate city of Rochester where Clinton was arriving for a campaign debate. "We need strong women in the political world."
But with Clinton considering a presidential bid in 2008, will the prospect of a President Hillary elicit similar reservations as in 2000? "In 2000 she was a giant Rorschach test for so many different things," recalls Dwight Jewson, a West Coast corporate advertising consultant brought in by the Clinton campaign then to unravel women's complicated feelings about her. "People were reaching into their stereotypes about what women were." Even liberal and intellectual women "were unconsciously colluding in that stereotype about strong women -- that they are cold, unfeeling, manipulative types."
For some women of her generation, Clinton wasn't feminist enough: she stuck by him, she was an "enabler," willing to endure humiliation to ride her philandering husband's political coattails. For others she was too feminist. Suburban moms found her too tough -- they felt she wouldn't let them empathize with her even if they had wanted to. Transcripts of two focus groups held by Jewson's team in June 2000 were published by journalist Michael Tomasky in his book, Hillary's Turn. Participants said things like, "She's cold," "She's very cunning, independent." One woman complained, "You get the sense that she doesn't think like a woman. She thinks like a man." Another fretted that, "If you differ with Hillary Clinton, she is going to nail you and squash you." It added up to a perception that "she doesn't represent me as a woman." Above all, women wanted to see some vulnerability, humility, or as one said, "The human side of Hillary Clinton. We really don't know who Hillary Clinton is."
Six years later, she has done almost nothing to reveal her "human side." She is disciplined and scripted in public -- but that no longer seems to matter. Pollsters at Manhattanville College conducted in-depth polls of women's perceptions of Clinton in September 2000, and asked the same questions again this October. They reported that women's thoughts about Clinton "have changed dramatically for the positive." In 2000, more white women had an unfavourable view (47 per cent) than favourable (45 per cent); now her favourable number is up to 64 per cent. She leads her Republican opponent, former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, 67 to 22 per cent among all women, and 68 to 23 in the suburbs. She still doesn't give anyone the warm-and-fuzzies -- only 28 per cent call her "warm and likeable" -- but the most usual descriptions are "intelligent," "hard-working" and "persistent." Critics still call her things like "snake," but more common are positive spins on the earlier power-hungry image: "She fights for what she really wants. She's tough and can play with the big boys."
How did she do it? Just before her debate with Spencer in Rochester, the front page of that city's Democrat and Chronicle noted that in 2000 she had pledged to bring 200,000 new jobs to upstate New York. Since then, the Rochester area alone lost 35,000 jobs. But people were clearly grateful that she had tried -- on jobs, and issues from Lake Ontario wave erosion to expanding markets for local produce and wines. That seems to have been enough. Anne Lloyd, a 50-year-old sales consultant, reflected on her change of heart toward Clinton at a fraying downtown Rochester shopping plaza. "I had reservations about her, that she didn't know the state, that she was opportunistic." But Clinton impressed her with attention to local economic woes in a county that had voted against her in 2000. Lloyd cited a conference where Clinton brought together oil company executives to discuss high-tech jobs in alternative energy. "She's done well. She talks about jobs a lot."
While Clinton's hyper-local approach has worked in New York, it remains to be seen how she can market herself nationwide. New York women no longer seem to believe that Clinton needs to represent them "as women" to represent them as voters. But that doesn't mean the rest of the country is ready to separate Clinton the political wonk from Clinton the woman -- without finding the second half of the equation wanting.
Take Elizabeth Edwards, the matronly spouse of boyish presidential wannabe John Edwards, who ran with John Kerry in 2004 and could be one of Clinton's chief rivals for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Edwards cheerfully accompanied her husband on the campaign trail two years ago, with their two adorable late-in-life preschool children. Only after the election did she disclose she'd been diagnosed with breast cancer during the campaign. This month, Edwards spoke at a luncheon sponsored by Ladies Home Journal, and sounded like Clinton's baby boomer critics in 2000: "She and I are from the same generation. We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I'm more joyful than she is." Edwards quickly apologized -- but her words evoked the culture-combat days when Clinton struggled to live down her quip that she was "no Tammy Wynette standing by her man," or that she chose her career over staying home to "bake cookies."
Just as it looked like Clinton could get back to campaigning on questions of war and jobs, her opponent, Spencer, made an issue of her womanly qualities. "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew -- I don't know why Bill married her," he said to a reporter from the New York Daily News on a plane. A recovered alcoholic who looks every day of his 59 years, Spencer added that the senator "looks good now" and must have had "millions of dollars of work" in plastic surgery. When his comments became news, he first denied them. Then he owned up and gave a taste of what Clinton has to look forward to if she runs in 2008: "As long as I don't say she's a lesbian, I'm okay."
Optimists like Jewson say Clinton's work in the Senate will define her, should she run for president. "I think her record as a successful bipartisan senator will trump." Maurice Carroll, the director of the Polling Institute at Quinnipiac University, who has polled extensively on Clinton, says he's never believed she had a woman problem. "What women said and what women did were two different things." For all the criticism of her personal life, he notes, "All my women friends blathered about it endlessly and didn't do a damn thing about it." That's not to say she won't face image problems. In a recent poll, Carroll asked New Yorkers whether Clinton could translate her success upstate to the red states. Democrats said yes, Republicans said no. If she runs, he predicts, Monica-gate will be dredged up, and there will also "be pictures of her in those granny glasses back at Radcliffe. That's how politics is done."
During the Rochester debate, Clinton and Spencer were asked whether America is ready for a woman president. "Absolutely!" said Spencer, whose critique of Clinton is based largely on the accusation that she will be too busy running for president to serve the state. Clinton was more cautious. "That will be up to America . . . It depends . . . I'm not going to speculate on that."
************
Americans go to the pollsNov 7th 2006 NEW YORKFrom Economist.com
How to watch the mid-term elections
AMERICAN elections resemble a marathon culminating in a 100-metre dash. Unlike European campaigns of a few weeks, even a mid-term congressional election seems to take most of a year. The final few days see furious efforts by rival parties to spin the headlines, followed by the “ground war” effort to get out the vote on the day itself. The turnout may be crucial, with roughly 40% of the electorate expected to vote.
As voters head to the polls, the latest news offers each party something to cheer. No doubt some Americans will be discussing the newly-issued death sentence for Saddam Hussein, for his part in one massacre in Iraq. George Bush, who has spent six days campaigning across America, is naturally talking it up. He concluded on Monday November 6th that “my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision and the world is better off for it.” Democrats, for their part, believe the long and miserable conflict in Iraq since Saddam’s fall has helped their party’s chances.
On the other hand, voters may be more concerned about scandal. One leading ally of the Republican party, Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals and a fierce opponent of gay marriage, confessed over the weekend to “sexual immorality”. This probably means he had sex with a male “massage therapist” who Mr Haggard alleges sold him methamphetamine. Mr Haggard had prayed in a sermon a week earlier that “lies” and “deception” would be revealed before polling day; Democrats are gleeful that his own have come to light at such an awkward time for the Republicans.
On election day, however, headlines are usually about individual races themselves. Following the more interesting seats, roughly from east to west as the polls close, will give an early idea of the overall news from America’s election. The first goal for the Democrats is taking control of the House of Representatives. They need a swing of 15 seats to do so, and for the past few weeks most commentators have suggested this is eminently achievable. Some last minute polls suggest the Democrats’ national lead had narrowed from a double-digit margin to just six or seven percentage points. Because gerrymandering has rendered all but a few seats safe, this may mean that many races are far closer than had been suspected.
Bellwether races to watch in the eastern time zone, where polls close first on Tuesday, are in New York, Florida and Pennsylvannia. In western New York, Republican Tom Reynolds, who heads the party's re-election effort in the House, had been considered vulnerable. He is fighting hard to keep his seat after reacting slowly to a scandal involving Mark Foley, a Republican colleague who sent sexually suggestive messages to teenage boys working in Congress. However polling just before voting day suggested Mr Reynolds had re-established a more comfortable lead, while another New York district (New York's 24th, see chart for most vulnerable Republican seats in the House according to polls) had become more exposed to a Democratic assault. Mr Foley’s own seat, in a conservative part of Florida, is now vacant. If the Democrats take these, their chances nationwide are good; if the Republicans hold them, the race for control of the House could be quite tight. Other toss-ups to watch are in Pennsylvannia and Connecticut, where several moderate Republican incumbents are fighting against the tide in a traditionally Democratic region.
Taking the Senate will be tougher for the Democrats, though the party seems well placed to grab at least three of the six Republican seats needed for a majority. Rick Santorum, a religious conservative Republican who is loathed by leftish types, will almost certainly lose his seat in the swing state of Pennsylvania. Lincoln Chafee, a likeable moderate Republican, will probably suffer the same fate in Democratic Rhode Island despite his efforts to distance himself from Mr Bush. The Democrats expect to pick up a seat in Ohio too.
Republicans may possibly hold two seats in the South that the Democrats had hoped to snatch. Both races have been mud-brawls. George Allen, Republican, had been ahead of his rival Jim Webb in most polls in Virginia, despite reports of Mr Allen’s frequent use of the word “nigger” in years past. The Allen campaign has responded by making a fuss about sexually lurid sections of Mr Webb’s novels. Nobody seems particularly interested in policies. Next door in Tennessee, Harold Ford is a bit behind in his bid to beat the Republican candidate, Bob Corker, in a campaign marked by ugly television ads. But if the Democrats pull off one or both seats, and if their ethically-challenged incumbent in New Jersey, Robert Menendez, keeps his seat, the Senate is in reach.
The race for the Senate then moves westwards. Missouri and Montana, both with Republican incumbents, are too close to call. And the Democrats even have a slim chance to unseat Jon Kyl in Arizona.
A win in the Senate would be a big achievement for the Democrats. While a Democratic House may stymie Mr Bush’s plans, a Democratic Senate would have the power to withhold approval for Mr Bush’s choices of judges and ambassadors, including, for example, John Bolton at the United Nations. The Economist’s endorsement? Brew coffee.
****************************
Underdog Ford Gets a Little Help From His Illinois Friend
Monday, November 6, 2006; Page A08
NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.
But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.
Democratic Senate hopeful Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., left, worked the crowd yesterday in Nashville with the help of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Though Republican Bob Corker leads most polls, Ford has made the race close. (By Alex Brandon -- Associated Press)
Election Resources
Congressional CountdownRating the Races Key Race MapIn-Depth Video2006 Voters & IssuesBellwether IssuesControl of CongressMixed Messages2006 Political AdsCongressional VotesIncumbents' Records
• Party Control & Trends:House & Senate Governorships
» Full Coverage: 2006 Elections
The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."
"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.
Ford probably needs the help. In his contest against Republican Bob Corker, a wealthy businessman and former mayor of Chattanooga, Ford faces formidable challenges, some of them purely demographic. He is a Democrat in a state that has been friendlier to Republicans. He is African American, and if elected he would be the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. And his family members, including his father, have been the subject of political scandal.
It is one of the oddities of the campaign that no one seems too sure about what the polls are saying, because while they generally have Corker leading, the margin has differed widely. Some have suggested it is too close to call; others have shown Corker -- who campaigned in Nashville last night with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- ahead by eight points or more. While acknowledging what the other polls say, Ford tells crowds that his own polling shows him ahead by one point.
"There are some folks who still think he can't win," Obama told a diverse crowd at a downtown rally Sunday. "It doesn't matter how big the crowds are. . . . When I ran for office, folks said, 'He seems like a good guy, but let's face it: You can't elect somebody named Barack Obama.' They couldn't even pronounce my name. Called me 'Alabama.' Called me 'Yo mama.' And yet here I am."
*******************Dobbs: U.S. is best democracy money can buy
POSTED: 8:29 a.m. EST, November 2, 2006
By Lou DobbsCNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- We're now less than a week away from our midterm elections, and Republicans and Democrats are down to their final tens of millions of dollars in media buys, their hyperbolic rhetoric all but expended and their candidates all but exhausted.
It's amazing what a mere $2.6 billion can buy in a democracy. That's what the two parties will have spent in their campaigns leading up to these midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And most of that money for Democrats and Republicans alike comes from corporate America. So what will be the outcome of this election? The only certainty is that corporate America will get what it's paid for, and that's more of the same.
Whether the Democrats or Republicans take control of the House and Senate, corporate America has just bought a license to outsource more middle-class jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, to continue unabated so-called free trade and the destruction of more manufacturing jobs, and most likely to promote amnesty for the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens living in this country.
So, no, I'm not real excited about what some see as a potentially tectonic shift in political power in the House of Representatives or U.S. Senate.
While the name of the party in charge may change from Republican to Democrat, it's really only a branding issue. And just as my friend James Mtume says, it's still the same bird, just a different wing. And believe me, middle-class America will still be getting the bird.
Neither party at the national or local level is talking about what to do about the education crisis in our public schools. Both parties seem to think a 10-year plan to measure the decline of our schools through the No Child Left Behind law is an adequate response to what is an outright emergency.
Both parties seem happily content to give their multinational corporate masters exactly what they want in the form of so-called free trade, which has cost millions of middle-class Americans their jobs to outsourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing production to cheap overseas labor markets.
And God forbid we should disturb the orthodoxies of both parties that insist that we not secure our borders and ports, despite radical Islamist terrorist threats, the multibillion-dollar illegal drug trade and what is nothing less than an invasion of illegal aliens into this country.
Yes, I said "country." America really is a nation, but you couldn't convince those who lead the Democratic and Republican Parties of that. Both parties now see America as nothing more than an economy, a marketplace, and not a sovereign nation. They don't see you and me as citizens of this great nation; they see us as units of labor, consumers and taxpayers.
Corporate America long ago quit talking about corporate citizenship and corporate responsibility, and with both the Democratic and Republican Parties as its tools, corporate America wants you and me to forget that we are first citizens, and that America is first a nation.
Only 15 percent of eligible voters turned out to cast a ballot in this year's primary elections, according to an American University study. Never before have so few of us bothered to vote in primary elections. And it's no wonder. Our middle class is beginning to get the joke.
Most Americans understand that all the major decisions have already been made. It is now clear to all but those who will not see that both political parties and their corporate masters have placed our middle class in direct competition with the world's cheapest labor, leaving it only a tenuous and failing grip on the American Dream.
Until all of us who care about this great nation and the world's greatest democracy find the energy and commitment to insist on political choice and true representation in Washington, then the very idea of America will remain in peril.
Unfortunately, the choices we'll be permitted to make on November 7 will do little to mitigate that peril.
******************Editorial opens fire on RumsfeldMr Rumsfeld came to office pledging to transform the military
Four US military journals have called for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit, accusing him of losing control of the situation in Iraq.
An editorial published on Monday said Mr Rumsfeld has lost the respect of senior officers and ordinary troops.
President George W Bush has pledged to keep Mr Rumsfeld at the Pentagon until his term in office ends in 2009.
The White House has criticised the editorial, published ahead of mid-term elections across the US.
Spokesman Tony Snow described the editorial - published in the Army Times, Air Force Times, the Navy Times and the Marine Corps Times - as a "shabby piece of work".
BBC NEWS WEBSITE COVERAGE
Come back for full Senate, House and Governor results as they break, plus expert comment and analysis
The editorial said that the call for Mr Rumsfeld to quit was not timed to coincide with US mid-term elections.
Voters across the US go to the polls on Tuesday for congressional elections, with Mr Bush's Republican party battling to retain control of both houses of Congress.
Speaking out
In the editorial, Mr Rumsfeld is branded culpable for an apparent loss of faith in the administration at high levels of the military establishment.
His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised
Editorial on Donald Rumsfeld
"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's military leaders start to break publicly with defence secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."
The editorial writers said they were voicing the views of a silent section of senior military leaders whose "deep sense of honour" prevented them from going public with their criticisms.
They summed up the current situation in blunt language: "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large.
"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. Donald Rumsfeld must go."
The White House spokesman dismissed the assertion that the editorial was not timed to influence Tuesday's mid-term elections.
Mr Snow accused the editorial writers of "grandstanding", adding: "If they didn't want to influence the election, they could have published it Wednesday."
Neo-con row
Mr Snow also expressed surprise at comments by several so-called high-profile "neo-conservatives" published by Vanity Fair magazine late last week.
Richard Perle was a high-profile supporter of war in Iraq
Vanity Fair claimed that influential figures such as former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle were now "remorseful" over their pre-war enthusiasm.
Mr Perle, who served as chairman of the Defence Policy Board in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, told Vanity Fair that "maybe" the US could have pushed for change in Iraq without military intervention.
"At the end of the day you have to hold the president responsible," he said.
Other contributors included Mr Bush's former speechwriter, David Frum, and leading conservative academics.
Mr Snow said the reported comments put the interviewees "at war" with comments they had made to Mr Bush in previous years.
In responses to the Vanity Fair article, several of those interviewed said they felt their comments were taken out of context - and had not expected them to be published until after the elections.
******************Lieberman Vows to Remain Independent-Minded Despite GOP Support
Monday, November 06, 2006
·
·
MERIDEN, Conn. — Though Sen. Joe Lieberman expects to win a lot of Republican votes Tuesday, the Connecticut lawmaker said he won't feel especially beholden to the GOP if he is elected to a fourth term.
"I'll owe everybody and that's the point," Lieberman said Monday as he pressed for final votes at a senior center in Meriden.
Lieberman, whose Senate career was at risk just three months ago after he lost to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary, led Lamont by 12 percentage points in a statewide poll released Monday.
http://10.2.100.20:81/politics/youdecide2006/background.html?/epolls/fox/2006/senate/ct/connecticut_senate_race-21.html&CT&U.S.
• Check Your State, Check Your Race by clicking the BALANCE OF POWER dropdown menu above.
Lieberman is running as an independent and has enjoyed support from the GOP, including praise from the White House and fundraising help from prominent Republicans such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
(Story continues below)
But he said his comeback since the primary has convinced him that he needs to be a stronger independent voice.
"It's taken me as an independent-minded Democrat and really empowered me to be more independent," said Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee. "Parties are important, but they're not as important as the public interest."
Potential gains by Democrats mean the Senate could end up in a 50-50 split, or something close to it. Republicans, who have already helped Lieberman's campaign, would likely court him in hopes of persuading him to switch parties.
Lieberman has pledged to remain a Democrat.
"At every occasion I'm going to try my best to build bridges instead of walls between people in both parties," he said.
Lamont, a Greenwich businessman and political newcomer who has spent $16 million of his own money, including a $2 million loan, on the race, gave a final speech at a union office in Hartford on Monday. He echoed the theme of change that he has used throughout the campaign.
"I say we have a lot of people who have been in Washington D.C., too long," Lamont said. "It's time to bring some new people down there who are going to shake up the way we do business."
Lieberman's independent bid rankled many Democrats who questioned his party loyalty. He has admitted to some bruised feelings about Democratic colleagues such as fellow Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, who endorsed him in the primary but is now backing Lamont.
"Well, we're all grown-ups," Lieberman said. "And the Senate is ultimately 100 people going to work in the same place every day and your ability to get things done depends on how well you get along with the other workers, so it will be fine."
*******************Poll: Bush approval rating dips to 35 percent
POSTED: 3:55 p.m. EST, November 6, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's popularity has dipped to 35 percent, according to a new CNN poll, with 41 percent of likely voters saying their disapproval of his performance will affect their vote in Tuesday's elections for control of Congress.
Sixty-one percent of the 1,008 adult Americans who responded to the Opinion Research Corp. poll said they disapproved of the way Bush is handling his job as president, according to the survey. The poll was conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday.
This finding represents a two-point decline in Bush's approval rating compared with a CNN poll conducted a week earlier. The decline is within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The new approval rating is four points lower than a survey taken two weeks ago. (Results)
In the latest poll, 41 percent of likely voters said they would be sending a message about their disapproval of Bush when they vote Tuesday. Another 42 percent said their opinion of Bush is not a factor in their congressional voting, while 16 percent said they would be sending a vote of support for Bush when they cast ballots Tuesday.
Six hundred thirty-six likely voters took part in the survey.
The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points on the question of sending a message with votes.
Democrats need a 15-seat pickup in Tuesday's elections to regain control of the House of Representatives and a gain of six seats to reclaim the Senate.
*****************The Tipping Point Races
Ten very tight House and Senate contests could determine which party controls Congress next year
By PERRY BACON JR., MASSIMO CALABRESI AND KAREN TUMULTY
Posted Monday, Nov. 06, 2006Missouri: Jim Talent (R) v. Claire McCaskill (D)
After a bruising final spate of campaigning that included half a dozen debates, a major push by both parties to court women and rural voters, and ads by Michael J. Fox for McCaskill and a host of celebrities for Talent, the Missouri Senate race remains deadlocked. It has now become a test of the two parties Get Out The Vote operations, with the GOP pouring volunteers into neighborhoods and drawing on the party's vaunted voter list, while the Dems scramble to mobilize urban voters in St. Louis and Kansas City. Democrats have to hope that two ballot initiatives — one for increasing the minimum wage, and another supporting stem cell research — will make up for the admitted advantage Republicans hold in targeting likely voters. Virtually every poll for the last six months has put the race in a dead heat, and in 2002, Talent won by all of 21,000 votes, so the final push will likely be the determining factor.
Montana: Conrad Burns (R) v. Jon Tester (D)
Dogged by connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a series of campaign gaffes that included attacking some firefighters for doing "a poor job" containing a blaze in the state, Republican Conrad Burns is in danger of losing in Montana, where President Bush won by 20 points two years ago. Polls are virtually even in his race against Jon Tester, the Democrat who is president of the state senate there.
To innoculate himself against attacks from Burns and national Republicans about the national Democratic Party's liberalism, Tester highlights his biography as a third-generation Montana family farmer with a flat-top haircut who lost three of his fingers in a meat grinder accident. He's also closely linking himself with Brian Schweitzer, the state's popular Democratic governor. Burns, meanwhile, is emphasizing his longtime efforts to bring back federal money to the state
New Jersey: Robert Menendez (D) v. Thomas Kean, Jr. (R)
The Senate race here has been close, even though the state's voters lean Democratic, strongly oppose President Bush and the war in Iraq and the incumbent is a Democrat himself. The Republican challenger has moved to the left on some key issues, even calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, but his success has mostly stemmed from having the right last name. Thomas Kean, Jr., is the son of Thomas Kean, who was governor of New Jersey for much of the 1980s, more recently the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and remains a revered figure by voters in both parties.
The race has become a bit of a proxy war, as Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez seeks to link Kean to President Bush and the Republican Congress, while Kean has relentlessly portrayed Menendez as part of a Democratic Party in the state that has been involved in numerous corruption scandals. Menendez, a longtime member of the House who was appointed to this Senate seat earlier this year after his predecessor Jon Corzine became New Jersey Governor, has also tried to cast the boyish looking Kean, who has been in New Jersey state legislature since 2001, as too inexperienced for the job. If Kean wins, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to win control of the Senate.
Tennessee: Harold Ford (D) v. Bob Corker (R)
In the contest to replace retiring Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, House Democrat Harold Ford has waged a surprisingly strong campaign against Bob Corker, the Republican candidate who used to be the mayor of Chattanooga. Ford was considered an underdog, both because a Democrat hasn't won a Senate race in the state since Al Gore in 1990 and the political baggage from his family, which is active in state politics but known for a spate of corruption scandals. His father, former congressman Harold Ford, Sr., was charged with federal bank fraud and acquitted in 1993 and his uncle, a former state senator, was indicted for bribery earlier this year.
Ford has emphasized his credentials as pro-gun, anti-tax, church-going politician to win in this conservative state, while Corker and the Republicans have sought to portray him as a rich, urbane liberal who wears fancy suits, stays in lavish hotels and has never held a real job other than being in Congress. Corker, who won an intensely-fought primary over two more conservative GOP rivals, has highlighted his success as a businessman in starting and developing a construction company that has earned him millions, much of which he pumped into his campaign.
A win by Ford would be historic, as he would be the first black senator elected in the South in more than a century. Racial politics became a subject in the race last month when Republicans ran an ad attacking Ford for his attendance at a Playboy Superbowl party that included a blond white woman saying "Harold, call me' — which some Democrats said was an attempt to play on concerns about interracial dating. Corker himself denounced the ad, but the campaign has only gotten nastier and more heated as election day has approached.
Virginia: George Allen (R) v. Jim Webb (D)
Back in June, when former Secretary of the Navy and Republican-turned- Democrat Jim Webb won his party's nomination to take on Virginia Senator George Allen, it seemed he had no chance to win. Webb, who had never run for office before and had almost no money, was taking on a popular, well-funded incumbent in Allen, who had already been elected as both governor and senator in the state. Allen was in fact starting to prepare for a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
But then Allen, at a campaign rally in August, referred to a South Asian supporter of Webb's as "macaca," a term considered by many to be a racial slur. That helped lead to accusations that Allen had used racial slurs to describe blacks in the 1970's and put his campaign in a downward spiral that eventually put the race into a dead heat. It's been a bizarre campaign: Allen learned in the midst of it that his mother was Jewish, while Webb has become dogged by accusations that's he's a sexist, brought on by a 1979 article in which he called the Naval Academy's co-ed dorms a "horny woman's dream." Democrats have suggested, without any evidence, that Allen may have been arrested for domestic violence in the 1970's, while Republicans have attacked Webb for sexual scenes in his novels. These character attacks and odd controversies have detracted from the biggest difference between the two candidates on the issues, namely that Webb has long opposed the Iraq War, which Allen voted for in the Senate.
Connecticut: Chris Shays (R) v. Dianne Farrell (D)
This is the second time these two have faced each other; G.O.P. incumbent Chris Shays defeated former Westport first selectwoman Dianne Farrell 52% to 48% in 2004. This time Shays, who has held this seat since 1987, has a major problem: Iraq. The moderate congressman has become closely associated with his support for the war, as he has visited Iraq more than a dozen times since the invasion.
Farrell opposed the war from the beginning, and Shays' position has become increasingly unpopular in this blue state. In August, Shays became one of the few Republicans to call for a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, while Farrell has called for creating benchmarks that determine when troops return home. Farrell's challenge is to convince voters to dump a well-liked congressman because they disagree with him on Iraq and want Democrats to control Congress as a check on President Bush.
North Carolina: Charles Taylor (R) v. Heath Shuler (D)
Democrats have for the last decade struggled to win in the South, but they think Heath Shuler may be the candidate to start a new tradition in this western North Carolina district. Shuler not only was a football star, both in North Carolina in high school and then at the University of Tennessee, but he's also anti-abortion and frequently talks about his hunting, which has helped him appeal to conservative and rural voters in this area. Taylor, an eight-term incumbent, says he would be much more influential for the district than Shuler, because he sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which determines where much of the federal budget is spent. And he never fails to argue that Shuler doesn't have enough experience for the job.
New Mexico: Heather Wilson (R) v. Patricia Madrid (D)
A battle between two tough public servants, this race has followed the party playbooks to the letter. Wilson, a centrist Rhodes scholar and former National Security Council member, has run a non-stop stream of ads calling her opponent weak on law enforcement and national security and a liberal who will raise taxes. Madrid, New Mexico's attorney general and a former district judge, has relentlessly tied Wilson to President George W. Bush in ads and campaign events, finishing off the season with a TV spot with the tagline, "Heather Wilson and George Bush: Desperate to hide the Truth." The district, which includes Albuquerque, has always been closely divided. An election-eve poll found Madrid surging to a four-point lead, though still within the margin of error. Wilson released her own poll showing herself up by two points. Both showed 6% of voters still making up their minds just a week before the election
Ohio: Deborah Pryce (R) v. Mary Jo Kilroy (D)
No race better demonstrates the difficulties that Republicans are up against this year than the re-election battle of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House leadership. Pryce has not faced a serious challenge since her first election in 1992, despite the fact that her Columbus, Ohio, district has otherwise trended more Democrat. But as election day has approached this year, the moderate Republican has been considered the underdog against liberal Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy.
Though Kilroy is a stronger opponent than Pryce has faced in the past, the incumbent's difficulties come largely as the result of a lagging state economy, a G.O.P. scandal in the statehouse and opposition to the Iraq war. As if all that weren't enough, in a local magazine interview published just a month before the Mark Foley scandal broke in Washington, Pryce named the Florida Congressman as one of her closest friends in the House. Kilroy seized upon that connection in an ad she placed on Christian radio stations, in which the announcer intoned: "Deborah Pryce's friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages."
Kilroy has largely hammered on national Democratic themes. Her mantra: "We need a change in Washington. We need a new direction." Pryce has portrayed herself as a moderate counterweight to the rest of the GOP House leadership, and to the Republican Party nationally. She also has stressed the amount of federal money that she has been able to bring back to her district by virtue of her seniority and her leadership position. Both sides agree that this race will ultimately be a test of which candidate has the better turnout operation.
Pennsylvania: Jim Gerlach (R) v. Lois Murphy (D)
The suburbs outside of Philadelphia have become one of the key battlegrounds of 2006, with three close House races, and the contest between Democrat Lois Murphy and incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach is perhaps the tightest of them all. Gerlach eked out a victory in 2004 against Murphy, collecting 51% of the vote. To hold his seat, he is trying to focus the race on local issues like the federal money for local roads he's brought home, and at the same time trying to link Murphy with Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco lawmaker likely to become Speaker of the House if Democrats win control. Gerlach says Pelosi and the Democrats would raise taxes and oppose measures like the Patriot Act that he says keep the country safe. Murphy, like Democrats across the country, is trying to unseat the incumbent by highlighting his support of President Bush, particularly on the Iraq War. Gerlach has tried hard to show how often he disagrees with Bush, such as his support for expanding embryonic stem cell research.
********************
The Votes That Really CountFrom property rights to abortion, a look at the key issues being decided in referendums and initiatives on Nov. 7
By MADISON GRAY
Posted Monday, Nov. 06, 2006For all the money, advertising time and media attention that Congressional races generate, few of their outcomes will directly impact people's lives nearly as much as ballot measures will. In addition to electing representatives to go to Washington, voters across the country will also have their say on more than 200 ballot initiatives, proposals and referendums. The topics range from the mundane, like a legislative referendum on fishing and hunting in Georgia, to divisive national issues like the referendum to reject an anti-abortion law passed earlier this year in South Dakota.
Following are a few of the ballot issues that will be eagerly watched around the nation.
PROPERTY RIGHTS:
According to the National Council of State Legislatures, property rights will be the most debated issue being decided this election season, having garnered the attention of voters in 12 states, several of them dealing specifically with regulatory taking, eminent domain and in some cases both. The issue grew large after the landmark Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London, in which the High Court found that government can take private property and give it to a development interest so long as the community can enjoy some economic benefit. The 2005 decision has since found a host of critics, who eventually built a strong enough coalition supporting owners" rights to bring it to the state initiative arena.
"The Kelo decision awoke a sleeping tiger," says Leonard Gilroy, a senior policy analyst with the Reason Foundation, a public policy research nonprofit. "People realized their property rights weren"t fixed. When you look at what"s happened to property rights over the last 100 years there has been a fundamental erosion of property rights. That happens all the time, and the problem is that landowners are not compensated for those impacts."
States Voting: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Lousiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington.
GAY MARRIAGE:
Close behind, and perhaps more emotionally charged, is the same-sex marriage debate. Eight states will decide on how to define marriage, whether to prohibit similar legal status, and in Colorado, create domestic partnerships. Kansas and Texas decided last year that marriage could only take place between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, Alabama passed a legislative referendum that prohibited the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or even recognizing same-sex licenses issued in other states. In 2004, a total of 13 states passed same-sex marriage bans, and the ballot measures themselves were credited with helping to boost Republican turnout in a presidential election year.
Although there were more states making this choice in 2004, the New Jersey Supreme Court"s October ruling that the state must give gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples has brought more attention to the upcoming votes. But some say it won"t make a difference in the minds of voters who are convinced one way or the other.
"I'm not sure [the New Jersey ] decision will have much impact in changing the voting," says Pamela Johnston Conover, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But she warns that how voters do choose, based on the language on the ballots, could have a far-reaching effect effect on legal rights for same-sex couples. "Most of the ballots have components that go beyond the marriage issue. If passed, they have the potential to have a more wide-sweeping impact on gay and lesbian couples than the ballot initiatives that only look at same-sex marriage."
States Voting: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin.
SMOKING:
Continuing an ongoing series of appearances in the political and legal arena, tobacco will again be on the minds and ballots of voters in seven states. Choices will range from statewide smoking bans to cigarette and tobacco taxes and even decisions on how to use the money won in the 1998 multi-state tobacco settlement, which are expected to amount to $246 billion over a 25-year period.
Arizona, Ohio and Nevada have the more interesting smoking ban initiatives because voters will have to choose between competing proposals. Some are sponsored by organizations representing hotels, casinos and restaurants because they are less restrictive and accommodate gamblers who do smoke. Others are represented by health care interests. But to date, only Florida and Washington have approved statewide smoking bans. California rejected the measure in both 1978 and 1994.
Meanwhile, Florida and Idaho will be deciding on what to do with the tobacco settlement revenues. The former will choose whether or not to dedicate 15 percent of the money to a tobacco education and prevention fund. The latter would choose if the state should create a new endowment fund that would receive 80% of the settlement money and support schools and higher education and give the remaining 20% to the Idaho Millennium Fund, which will finance tobacco prevention and treatment programs.
Lastly, following the path of 15 other states, voters in four states will decide on increasing taxes on tobacco products to help benefit health care programs. If history is any guide, the proposals will pass easily. No proposed tobacco tax increase has failed to pass in any state since 1994.
States Voting: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota.
MINIMUM WAGE:
Six states will choose whether to create increases above the federal minimally required wage of $5.15 per hour. Each of the ballot proposals provide for an increase based on annual inflation.
The ballots will allow for raises of hourly wages ranging from $6.15 to $6.85, except in Nevada, where voters can choose to hold it at $5.15 per hour, provided the employer offers health benefits. Advocates of minimum wage increases believe that the vote could well set the precedent for a new federal increase next year, though opponents continue to insist that raising the wage will hurt businesses, and as a result, slow job growth.
"Part of what is driving the initiative is that the minimum wage is at its lowest real value in over 50 years," says Liana Fox, economic analyst with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that focuses on economic issues. "Due to federal inaction, we"re seeing the lowest buying power in a long time."
Fox says more than 1.5 million workers would benefit from a minimum wage increase, as well as 652,000 children, with a cost increase for businesses at less than 1%. She explains that if the initiatives passed in all six states, 70% of the U.S. workforce would live in states that require a minimum wage above the federal level. Thus, it's no surprise that candidates from both parties have aligned themselves with the issue.
"You hear candidates talking about it because its such a long-overdue issue," says Fox.
States Voting: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio.
ABORTION:
Abortion has shown up on only three state ballots in this year, but one of them is particularly high profile. In South Dakota citizens will vote to repeal a law passed in February that bans all abortions, except in cases where the mother"s life is threatened (legislators voted against amendments that provided exemptions for women who became pregnant through rape or incest). If voters choose to keep the law, challenges to its constitutionality are expected, quite possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. That is exactly what the law's backers, who want it to serve as a test case to try and overturn Roe v. Wade now that the court has two new conservative justices, had in mind when they drafted it.
Two other states are also considering abortion measures, but only to decide on requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed.
States Voting: South Dakota, California, Oregon.
MARIJUANA:
Marijuana has found a way to roll itself up in the ballot vote again. This time Nevada and Colorado will decide if an ounce of pot should be legal for personal use for people 21 and older, similar to laws in some European countries. South Dakota will consider legalizing it for medical use.
In fact, the issue has spread statewide across Colorado after an initiative in Denver was successful. If the proposal carries in any of the three states, it would push the question of across-the-board legalization to the national forefront. However, many opponents maintain that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder substances that, if pot is legalized, would easily find its way into the hands of minors.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
Finally, in what could be a major decision in a vicious fight that swept through California and Washington State in the late '90s driven by African American businessman Ward Connerly, Michigan will decide if it wants to amend the state constitution to eliminate affirmative action in public institutions for educational, employment and contracting purposes.
Behind the initiative is Jennifer Gratz, who in 1997 sued the University of Michigan for discrimination after being denied admission as an undergraduate. The case went to the Supreme Court, which found in her favor, but said that affirmative action could be be applied in education as long as schools didn't use a strict points-based quota policy. She is now executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, the group that began the push for the referendum in 2003. Connerly has reportedly contributed $450,000 of the $2 million it has raised.
However, a host of organizations and individuals, from the League of Women Voters to Michigan State University basketball coach Tom Izzo, have banded together to fight the initiative. The battle could be brutal because opponents have already vowed to try to block its implementation, if the proposal is approved by voters through the court system.
"Organizations and individuals are using initiatives like this to accomplish policy change," says Jeannie Bowser, policy analyst with the National Council of State Legislatures. She noted, "If it passes, it may be an indication of a change in public attitudes."
States Voting: Michigan.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1555331-5,00.html*******************
Blair opposed to Saddam's execution
By BETH GARDINER
LONDON (AP) - Tony Blair said Monday he opposes the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, making a reluctant admission that on this issue, the British prime minister stands by colleagues in the European Union and not with his American allies.
But EU opposition to the sentence seems to be more a reaffirmation of principles than a serious challenge that could affect the imposition of the sentence.
Reporters at Blair's monthly news conference had to press him hard to elicit an acknowledgment that his long-standing opposition to capital punishment also applied to the deposed dictator. Every time he mentioned his disapproval of the punishment, he added a lengthy condemnation of Saddam's brutality, and he made it clear he did not intend any protest of the sentence.
"There are other and bigger issues to talk about," he said. "The trial of Saddam gives us a chance to see again what the past in Iraq was, the brutality, the tyranny, the hundreds of thousands of people he killed, the wars in which there were a million casualties."
Nonetheless, Blair's stance puts him at odds with U.S. President George W. Bush, who praised the death sentence Sunday as "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."
Blair's view was widely shared by European leaders, many of whom noted their opposition to capital punishment but welcomed Saddam's trial and conviction, as did the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand.
The EU's 25 governments are strongly opposed to the death penalty and have often appealed to foreign governments on behalf of Europeans facing execution abroad. Any country hoping to join the bloc must abolish capital punishment. When Turkey eliminated the death penalty in 2002, it was seen as a big victory for Europe's ability to influence potential members.
European leaders said the heinousness of Saddam's crimes did not change their view that state-sponsored killing was wrong. Several warned that putting the former leader to death could worsen sectarian tensions and lead to more bloodshed in Iraq.
"A country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence and especially not a state-orchestrated execution," said Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. "Saddam Hussein is a criminal and should not be allowed to become a martyr."
Italian Premier Romano Prodi said the guilty verdict mirrored the world community's judgment about Saddam, but emphasized Rome's opposition to capital punishment.
"Italy is against the death penalty and so even in such a dramatic case as Saddam Hussein, we still think that the death penalty must not be put into action," he said after meeting Blair in London.
Pope Benedict's top cardinal said in a radio address that killing the former Iraqi leader was against Christian teaching.
"God gave us life and only God can take it away," Renato Cardinal Martino said on Vatican Radio, adding that had Saddam been put in the hands of an international court, he would not have faced the death penalty.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while it was "right and important" that Saddam had faced trial, her country opposes his execution.
"It is clear that there is fundamental skepticism and rejection of the death penalty," Merkel said.
As the foremost European supporter of the Iraq war, though, Blair is in a tougher spot since it is awkward for him to criticize the death of a leader he went to war to topple.
Blair appeared visibly rattled when pressed on the question, responding several times with the general statement that Britain opposed capital punishment. Only under persistent grilling did he eventually say: "We are against the death penalty, whether it's Saddam or anybody else."
He said the fact the trial had occurred was an encouraging indication that Iraq was on a democratic path.
"What I think is important about this is to recognize that this trial of Saddam has been handled by the Iraqis themselves, and they will take the decision about it," he said. "It does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of that regime, the numbers of people that died, hundreds of thousands of them. . . . That doesn't alter our position on the death penalty at all, but it simply does give us a reminder of that."
*****************
Iran calls for execution of SaddamUpdated Tue. Nov. 7 2006 9:28 AM ET
Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran called on Iraq on Tuesday to carry out its death sentence on Saddam Hussein, saying the former dictator who waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s was a criminal who deserved to die.
"We hope the fair, correct and legal verdict against this criminal ... is enforced," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told a news conference.
On Sunday, an Iraqi court in Baghdad sentenced Saddam and two other senior members of his regime to death by hanging for crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 people in the northern town of Dujail. The victims were detained and tortured after a 1982 attempt to assassinate Saddam as he visited the town.
An Iraqi appeal court is expected to rule on the guilty verdict and death sentence by the middle of January.
"He is a criminal dictator. No doubt about it," Elham said of Saddam. "We hope no pressure will be applied not to carry out this verdict."
In Vienna on Tuesday, the United Nations' special investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, said he disagreed with the death sentence and that Saddam's trial had not been well conducted.
"Even a person like Saddam Hussein should not be sentenced to death," said Nowak, who acknowledged that Saddam's regime had killed and tortured many political opponents and members of minorities.
The EU has welcomed the verdict but also said Saddam should not be put to death.
The Iranian spokesman said his government hoped Saddam would continue to be tried for other alleged crimes against humanity, including his invading Iran in 1980, starting a war that killed more than a million Iranians and Iraqis.
The suffering and losses in the war, which ended in 1988, are well remembered in Iran.
Elham rejected the suggestion that the execution of Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, would escalate the violence between Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities.
"It is very clear that such a suggestion is mischief-making. Saddam has both Shiite and Sunni blood on his hands. His very existence is anti-human," he said.
Just after Saddam was sentenced on Sunday, Iranian state television interrupted its programs to announce: "A court in Iraq sentenced Saddam, the fallen dictator, to death."
If the appeal court upholds the death sentence, The Associated Press has learned that Iraq's three-man presidential council will sign papers for Saddam's execution. The hanging must be carried out within 30 days of the appeal court's decision.
********************
George Bush's Republicans stand to be sandbagged in this week's elections -- how did it go so wrong for the 'war president'?
By PETER WORTHINGTON
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- If the roof falls in on the Republican Party (read George Bush) in Tuesday's midterm Congressional elections, it will be because of the Iraq war.
It's not going to war to depose Saddam Hussein that has hurt Republicans, but how President Bush has waged it -- not the war part, but the peace part.
Forget weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. There was ample reason to depose Saddam Hussein -- biochemical weapons used to kill thousands of Kurds; invading neighbouring countries; slaughtering the Marsh Arabs; over 300,000 in mass graves; torture involving things like meat hooks and people shredders -- all of which the UN tolerated, if not condoned.
There may be people who think the Republicans will survive Tuesday's vote to control both the Senate and the House, but I haven't met any on this trip through the northeastern U.S. to Washington -- especially in Washington, which always seems more comfortable with liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans.
Assuming Republicans are sandbagged in Tuesday's vote, how did things go so wrong, so quickly?
I'd argue two aspects stand out -- first, expecting the military to introduce democracy to a Middle Eastern country seems folly.
It's often pointed out that the essential role of soldiers is to kill people and break things. The Yanks, Brits and Aussies who comprised the core of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, were arguably more restrained (and effective) than any invading army in history.
Had the Americans left it at that and quit Iraq after capturing Saddam, there wouldn't have been the present fiasco of democracy. The dynamics of Iraq would have changed and even a different dictator wouldn't have been as tyrannically genocidal as Saddam.
NEIGHBOURS WARY
More important, Iraq's neighbours, Syria and Iran, would have been more wary and respectful of Bush and less likely to provoke him into doing to them what was done to Saddam. North Korea's ruling nutbar, Kim Jong Il, might also have been more reluctant to tweak the American eagle. But that falls in the category of "What if..."
A second factor that has hurt Bush (and undermined, if not destroyed, his legacy as an effective president) is his penchant for surrounding himself with think-alikes, especially during his second term.
There seem few dissenting, or conflicting voices in his entourage. The last thing a decisive leader needs is to be surrounded by echoes who tell him only what he wants to hear. In the Bush administration there's little leavening influence of the sort Colin Powell brought as Secretary of State.
Yet the economy is going pretty well, gasoline prices are easing, and there have been no damaging attacks on Americans at home since 9/11 -- a disaster that in no way was attributable to Bush, but reflects horribly on the previous administration.
BRIAR PATCH
It's difficult to understand how Bush got America into the briar patch that is Iraq, when he had precedents of WWII, Korea and Vietnam to guide him. After WWII, the Allies (i.e., Americans) used existing German infrastructures to maintain order and discourage chaos. In Japan, Gen. Douglas MacArthur became de facto emperor and stability reigned. Bush showed no inclination to adapt WWII's lessons to post-Saddam Iraq.
The Korean war ended in stalemate (after 40,000 American deaths and 1.5 million allied casualties) but 50 years later, with still no formal treaty, it's indisputable that America won the peace, and saved the Pacific rim from communism. Bush seems unaware that a war can be won by restraints.
America lost the Vietnam war because it refused to win by invading Hanoi. Instead, it sacrificed its Vietnamese allies, and vowed never again to repeat that mistake. While Iraq is not Vietnam, America seeks to win "hearts and minds," which is impossible with jihadists who are easier to kill than to defeat.
None of this implies that Bush's vision, or his appreciation of the future, is wrong. I'd argue that extreme Islamists are the great threat of our times, and Bush more than any other politician realizes this. He sees the threat, but doesn't know what to do, and is not as adept as others are at rationalizing or deceiving himself.
History will be the final judge.
America was fortunate Bush was president after 9/11, when resolve and leadership were essential. But that moment seems to have faded in the American psyche.
While his goal is valid, Bush is not articulate enough to persuade the nation that his is the right direction, especially as casualties in Iraq continue to rise.
Tuesday's vote is likely to confirm this new reality.
