Dear Mahmoud,

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to the American people. Here is your chance to respond.






MRB:

Dear President Ahmadinejad and Noble Iranians,

Thank you for your letter. I was truly struck by its sincerity and logic and controlled passion which, in these troubled times, is very welcome. There is, today, far too much loud, screaming rhetoric of hatred and wishing total death and destruction on one another. You seem to understand there is no purpose served by doing that.

I was even moved by your analysis of our failed policies in Iraq. Nothing new there really since all the information you use is readily available through our free press, and internet and electronic media and people talking and arguing freely on street corners and churches and schools. It's all out there. It's they way we do it here in America. Many of your points I have made myself right here in preceding entries to the 3HM. You have a good take on the high cost of this war and how it has affected us economically, militarily, reputationally around the world and spiritually here in the United States.

But my problem with your letter is this. No where did you offer any suggestions of what you and your country could do to help this situation. Your rhetoric, and forgive me for saying this, has been downright hostile, threatening, belligerent and war mongering; precisely the same things you criticize the United States for in your masterful letter. Though you didn't say so directly in this letter, your prior outrageous statements about wiping the nation of Israel off the face of the earth is no way for you to suggest that we sit around a table and discuss joint solutions to complex issues. Especially since everyone is expected to take your word that you want uranium for power plants, not bombs. How you expect to annihilate Israel without nuclear weapons is a disconnect for me, but it would make all of us a little easier if you'd let neutral parties in to inspect those places you claim are not being used to make weapons. As you point out this administration made one serious blunder when we thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you want to help us and yourself, let inspectors in. And most troubling is that you have said nothing about what your country is doing to prevent terrorists from training there with money and weapons you are supplying to them. Don't deny it, you know you are.

Please don't get me wrong. My Republican friends all think I am crazy for wanting you and Syria and the other sovereign nations of the mid-east and the United States to sit down and talk about peace and what is best for the future of Iraq. But what will you bring to the table? I'll argue on your behalf but you have to work with me.

Until then, I very much appreciate your heart-felt letter. I'm doing my small part here in the United States to achieve peace so everyone wins a little. All I ask is for you to hold your letter to a mirror and do the same.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

KJW:

Dear Mahmoud:

In 1953, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech entitled A Chance for Peace concerning our relationship with the Soviet Union. In that speech he said in part:

"No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice. No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations. Any nation's right to its own form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable. Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations."

If you and your country would live by these words, Iran and the United States, along with the rest of the world, could live with each other in peace.


EJS:

Dear Mahmoud,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter. I was noticing though, your language is quite different from speeches you have given at home. You have been quoted as saying that you want to, "wipe Israel off the map," and you can picture, "a world without America and Israel." These are not the words of someone who is seeking peace. Your actions have been suspect as well. First, there is the ongoing problem of your nuclear program. You have said that you seek only civilian nuclear technology, however the weapons-grade uranium and enrichment system you have set up says otherwise. Also, you have continued to fight a proxy war against Israel by using your forces in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the Lebanese population as human shields. These actions are abhorrent and not the way in which civilized countries operate. Until you are ready to change your rhetoric and your actions, Iran will become increasingly isolated and at odds with the international community. Diplomacy will eventually break down, and the people of Iran will be the ones to face the wrath brought on by your decisions. We respect the Iranian people and their sovereignty, and welcome you with open arms into the family of nations, but only after you abide by the same laws as all countries abide by.

Are Republicans happy or disappointed that Rep. Pelosi decided Rep. Hastings would not be Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence ?

Even before the election results were final, Republicans began voicing their outrage at the possibility that Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., might become Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now that Speaker-to-be, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has announced that Rep. Hastings will not get the nod, are Republicans truly happy or are they disappointed ?

MRB:

Contrary to some of my fellow Democrats I do not think that Speaker-elect Pelosi has lost anything in the first few weeks of her new authority. I spent most of my adult life in Baltimore, Maryland, where politics is not just something you read about in the papers. It is a full contact sport and it was in that tough as nails environment where Mrs. Pelosi cut her political teeth.

Appointing Rep. Hastings, after his outrages, to the Select Committee on Intelligence would have been an oxymoron. That decision was clearly a no-brainer. Did the Gone Old Party really think she'd do that after an election where they just lost because of one scandal after another, among other things? They must be very sad.

Also, I think it was very smart of her to choose Rep. Murtha but let the House vote decide on Rep. Hoyer (from Maryland remember) as second in command. By doing that she showed loyalty to someone who had helped her but who she probably knew, behind closed doors anyway, wouldn't be elected by his colleagues. He's far too controversial and scandal tainted. So she now wins both ways. She doesn't have to worry about Mr. Murtha any longer because she was loyal and can now publicly begin to make amends (if there ever were any to make anyway) with Steny Hoyer, a truly effective legislator and vote building Number Two man. I think it was a brilliant maneuver.

No, the Republicans will just have to keep waiting to be happy. Speaker-elect Pelosi, don't forget, was trained in Maryland where the state sport is jousting. Knowing that I can just see her sharpening her lance as we speak.


KJW:

Nancy Pelosi got off to a bad start by supporting Rep. John P. Murtha, D- Pa., for majority leader. Now she is dealing with another situation that can potentially undermine her ability to effectively lead a bipartisan House for the next two years. Since Pelosi apparently hates Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. who is the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, she has made clear her intention to appoint someone other than Ms. Harman as the Chairperson of the committee.

Apparently Pelosi's first choice for the position was Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla. However, it seems that after realizing that there would be substantial fallout from such an appointment, she has announced that Hastings will not be her choice as the Chairman. It is interesting to note that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who at the time had been in office for less than one year, voted to impeach then Federal Judge Hastings. How she could have come full circle to the point of considering him for such a position of leadership is incomprehensible. The fact is that Hastings carries enough baggage by himself to single handedly make a joke out of Pelosi's promise of "the most ethical Congress in history".

So are the Republicans disappointed that Pelosi did not choose Hastings? Absolutely. Despite the "can't we all just get along" speak between President Bush and the Democratic leaders, Republicans are no doubt hopeful that the next two years will be a disaster politically for the Democrats. Only the naive believe that bipartisanship will actually exist between now and the '08 election.

EJS:

Talk radio and Republicans in general have been crucifying Alcee Hastings since the Democrats won on November 7, and with good cause. Mr. Hastings is one of only six federal judges ever to have been impeached by the US Senate. Many have argued that he deserves a chance to chair the elite Intelligence committee because he was never convicted in a court of law. Mr. Hastings was convicted on nine articles of impeachment in the Senate, and unfortunately, didn't strip him of the right to hold federal office in the future, though they had the opportunity.

This and the election of Steny Hoyer over John Murtha bodes well for conservatives. It indicates that the fringe left isn't running the show, and moderates will lead. Let us not forget, it was not the so-called "progressives" who won on election day, it was moderate Democrats who benefited from conservatives dissatisfaction with the Republican party. These Blue Dog Democrats will more than likely caucus with Republicans on many issues, social and fiscal.

The Democrats find themselves in a position of responsibility, finally, and are still in the very early stages of proving to the American people that they are worthy and effective governors. The next two years is a kind of trial period for Democrats, in preparation for the big prize in 2008. If they get in there and go crazy left with investigations and corrupt liberals, they will be ostracized from power for another eight years. However, if they show themselves to be level-headed pragmatists who are committed to making America better, then perhaps Americans will give them more opportunities. I will give Nancy Pelosi credit for one thing; she is a very shrewd politician.

What role should Iran and Syria play in a post war Iraq ?

With the Bush administration being pushed toward a regional resolution to the war in Iraq, the question becomes what role, if any, should Iran and Syria play in a post war Iraq ?



MRB:

I am not quite sure why, after six years of this administration, I keep scratching my head in puzzlement about why it refuses to sit down and discuss serious issues of global consequence with those nations whom we call our enemies. I suppose that talking is too hard and it must seem easier to let things escalate until we have to send troops in to make them see things our way.

That being said I know my comments here will seem just, well, too liberal. Not only do we have to talk to our enemies, in this case Syria and Iran, but it is absolutely mandatory that we do so. Why does something so important, so diplomatic, so crying out for true United States leadership, simply fall on deaf ears of this "stay the bloody, damned course" presidency. Not only do we need to have Syria and Iran involved, but other nations of the region as well. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey share boders with Iraq, some friendlier to us than others, but that is good. Iraq is the region's hub of the wheel and if the hub cracks then the entire wheel crumbles. The United States has gotten this part of the world into this and we have to responsibly and diplomatically ask all of these nations to help solve the future fate of Iraq. I have said before we are from different cultures, literally and figuatively. We, in the West, do not really know how to talk and negotiate with them effectively - obviously - and they must be asked and allowed to sit at OUR table and give us advice about how to solve this issue. Period.

That's not going to be easy for this administration to do, however. In an article in the New York Times ( November 27, 2006), David Sanger writes that the current draft of the 10 member, bi-partisan Iraq Study Group reflects co-chair James Baker III's "public criticism of the administration for its unwillingness to talk with nations like Iran and Syria." But, true to form, in the same article Mr. Sanger quotes Stephen J. Hadley, the president's national security adviser, as saying, "Talking isn't a strategy...The issue is how can we condtion the environment so that Iran and Syria will make a 180-degree turn, so that rather than undermining the Iraqi government, they will support it." What?

Staying the course. What am I missing here?

KJW:

While the Bush administration on one hand would like to encourage stronger relations between Iraq, Iran and Syria, on the other hand the administration is wary about Iran and Syria taking a more active diplomatic role.

State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, recently said, "while there have been positive statements from the Iranian government about wishing to play a positive role in Iraq, those statements haven't been backed up by actions."

He offered a similar assessment of Syria, saying the problem "is not what they say; the problem is what they do. ... What we would like to see the Syrians do is take actions to, among other things, prevent foreign fighters from coming across the border into Iraq."

At the same time, there have been indications that the Iraq Study Group is considering recommendations that could include a broader role in the region for Iran and Syria. The ISG is expected to issue its report soon. One possible recommendation of the ISG is believed to include a recommendation encouraging talks with Iran and Syria while shifting the U.S. military focus away from combat and toward training the Iraqi forces.

However, working with Iran and Syria would require America to enter into a de facto partnership with them. Understandably the Bush administration will be hesitant to enter into such a partnership even though it may have very few other viable options.

Iran tried to organize a summit between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iraqi President Talabani, and Syrian President Assad in a bid to assert its role as the top regional power broker. Iranian officials have said an invitation was extended to Assad, but Syria did not respond. Nevertheless, the Iraqi President traveled to Tehran in response to the invitation to meet with Ahmadinejad. Syria may likely be looking further down the road to potential talks with Washington.

In the past the United States has refused to negotiate with Iran and Syria to seek their support to bring stability to Iraq, accusing both Tehran and Damascus of aiding insurgent groups in Iraq.

Iran is believed to back Iraqi Shiite militias blamed in sectarian killings that have killed thousands this year. Iran has repeatedly denied the allegations. But President Bush is coming under increasing pressure to engage Iran and Syria in a dialogue. The New York Times reported recently that a draft report by the ISG recommends increased regional diplomacy, including holding talks with Iran and Syria.

Former President Jimmy Carter said he would agree with any call for direct U.S. talks with Iran and Syria over Iraq, adding: "This is one of the most counterproductive policies that I've ever known, ... not to talk to the people who disagree with you unless they agree in advance to everything you demand."

Despite the unease of the Bush administration, Iran, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Syria, will need to play a significant role in the stabilization of Iraq. Otherwise, any possible solution is not likely to be long term.

EJS:

The United States of America NEVER negotiates with terrorists. And that's exactly what we are dealing with in Iran and Syria. Iran funds Hezbollah, a know terrorist entity. The corporate offices of many Islamic terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., are located in Damascus. Until these countries reform their behavior, they cannot and should not be trusted. Their aims are exactly what we are fighting against; an authoritarian Islamic regime where Sharia law is the rule of the day.

Iran's leaders have stated very bluntly that their goal is to see "a world without Israel and America." Ahmadinejad has said he wishes to "wipe Israel off the map." This type of rhetoric is not exactly conducive to cordial relations. There is also the ongoing issue of Iran's nuclear program, which they refuse to suspend. There are no signs that Iran and Syria want to come to the negotiating table as an honest broker, but instead are still looking to fulfill their own agendas. Iran is trying to flex it's political influence in the Middle East, and is in a conflict with the US over this.

Pundits in this country, including former President Carter, have been calling for the US to abandon it's current policy toward Iran and Syria and engage them. Let us not forget that President Carter's blunders led to much of the current situation in the Middle East. His failure to support the Shah in the 70's led to the Iranian Revolution. President Carter is also the one who certified Hugo Chavez's fraudulent election in Venezuela. I don't believe he should be looked to as a source of expertise in this area. The US should not engage Syria or Iran until they change their behavior and rhetoric, including the VERIFIABLE suspension of the nuclear program and cutting off funding for all terror organizations. The last thing we need is a rebirth of the Persian empire that runs from Iran to Lebanon, which is the route we are heading down if we allow Iran to win the battle of influence in the Middle East.

What should US economic policy be toward Asia?

With President Bush wrapping up his latest Asian tour, should any changes be made to US economic policy in regard to Asia, or are Bush's free-trade policies the right course?



MRB:

The discussion here concerns the issue of "Asian" challenges to our free-trade policies. The topic is, of course, much bigger than that. It's ultimately about worldwide free trade and what it means to us and everyone else.

But our dear Mr. Bush is currently in Asia as part of his annual foray into the foreign territory -- and I'm not just talking geographical territory -- of representing us at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting. If, in fact, Mr. Bush is there because he really believes in the free trade agreements then it will be the first time in six years I've ever agreed with anything he's said or done. I'm just not convinced. These meetings appear so awkward for him, like he'd rather be somewhere else. The reason I feel he always looks so out of place is that he has been trained in the now jeapordized neo-con school of thinking that we can just bludgeon the world into doing what we want by "punishing" any country we find offensive or which hurts a particular idea we hold dear or, worse than any of these, that beats us at our own game. Perhaps he realizes this tactic just isn't working. Perhaps the man is conflicted about what his intentions ought to be and just doesn't know how to act. He wants free trade, maybe, as long as it's our trade that's free.

The U.S. can no longer encourage an attitude of us against them. We are all in this together. Pissing on our own little fire hydrant and clinging to our territory with all our might is just plain stupid. Are jobs disappearing because of globalization? I've seen no decent study that proves this. There is job shifting, yes. Out sourcing, yes. But are we the United States of the "good 'ol days" when we could think of ourselves as totally self-reliant? No. We couldn't shop at our precious Wal-Marts if that were so. Then perhaps our new strategy, instead of taking the ball home when we don't get our way, is to become the United States of the World and be courageous leaders enough to see that if all people become economically successful we are all successful. That would be true world domination and the Republicans could dance in the street.

So, of course, from my perspective we have no choice in a multi-faceted world but to do everything to encourage free trade with the entire world, not just Asia. Central and South America is a hot bed of problems at our very feet that must be addressed. I'm convinced most of that region's hostility surrounds economic matters, not just run amock political posturing. Do the neo-cons really believe that the free market system really works? Then do it and lead by example. I am not saying that the current package of agreements is fair. That is what the art of negotiation and compromise is there to do. Unfortunately the world is driven by greed whether it's Democrat, Republican, Socialist or Communist or whatever. But do we just keep developing angry plans of first strike tactics and punishments (economic and militarily) to rule the world by fear? We should be smarter than how we've been acting.

KJW:

Proponents of protectionism have been around for thousands of years. Plato thought that allowing foreign traders into the polis would corrupt the soul. Aristotle thought that exchanging products for money had a corrupting influence, and thought that the best state was one that was self-sufficient.

Perhaps the main reason why protectionism has failed to die is because special interests -- auto manufacturers, steel companies, the textile industry, and so forth - - have much to gain by enlisting the aid of government to protect them from foreign competition, whereas the large majority of the population, consisting of unorganized consumers, have little to lose by any particular protectionist legislation, and may not even know that the measure is costing them money in the form of higher prices.

While it is obvious that protectionism results in higher prices and benefits the few (producers) at the expense of the many (consumers), perhaps the strongest argument against protectionism is the moral argument. The illegitimate use of a state by economic interests for their own ends is based upon a preexisting illegitimate power of the state to enrich some persons at the expense of others.

One of the more curious aspects involved in trying to restrict imports is trying to determine exactly where the product in question is coming from. Is there a difference between a Chrysler made in Canada and a Honda made in Ohio? Which one, if either, should we be protected from?

Some protectionists argue that they need government protection because some foreign government is subsidizing some product. But if this were true (and it sometimes is true), then it would be cause for celebration, because it means that some foreign government is paying part of the cost for a product that American consumers are purchasing.

A variation of the subsidy argument is the dumping argument, the belief that foreign manufacturers are selling their products in the domestic market for less than cost. Yet, oddly enough, consumers never complain that prices are too low. It is the domestic manufacturers who complain, and ask for government assistance in preventing or reducing the competition that they face.

Another argument that has been put forth in favor of protectionism is that the failure to protect domestic industry from foreign competition will result in the loss of jobs. While this is sometimes true, perhaps more importantly, if inefficient industries are protected from more efficient competitors, then government is being used to subsidize inefficiency, which has a retarding effect on economic growth and the standard of living.

Another argument is the trade deficit argument. The trade deficit argument (as well as many of the other protectionist arguments) begins from the implied assumption that domestic producers are somehow entitled to the business of the country's populace, and that foreign producers who do business with the local population are somehow stealing from the domestic producers. Is such an assumption logical? I think not.

Another oft-heard argument is that America is deindustrializing, that its manufacturing jobs are being replaced with lower-paying service industry jobs. Yet the evidence shows that the number of jobs in manufacturing in the USA has remained about the same for the past few decades, and production has increased because of the adoption of more efficient methods.

A variation of the deindustrializing argument is the low-wage argument, which takes the position that industrialized countries need protection because they cannot compete with third-world countries that have much lower wage rates. But what these proponents ignore is the fact that industrialized countries can afford to pay higher wages because their labor force is more productive, partly because of higher capital investment. And even if foreigners can undersell a domestic company in some labor-intensive industries, consumers benefit because they can buy what they want for less money, which means they will have more to spend on other goods and services.

So which way does the President lead us? Beijing is under pressure from Washington to revalue its currency to make Chinese imports more expensive and US exports cheaper. China's neighbors in East Asia fear that such pressure will be the prelude to US protectionism that will not only hurt China but crimp their economic growth as well.

There is no reason why labor-intensive industries should be protected, as competition with low labor cost countries is a losing battle. Instead, it is important to have a flexible society so that resources can be redeployed more productively in more competitive sectors of the economy. History shows that the depression during the 1920s was more severe and longer than it could have been because trade barriers were raised. Trade barriers tend to penalize those embracing change and to block job creation, while subsidizing those who do not adjust.

EJS:

President Bush is over hob-nobbing with communists in Asia in order to avoid the funeral for the Republican Party here at home. And where are these economic policies getting us? Are these free trade agreements really in the best interest of the American people? Or are they designed to help global corporations increase already astronomical profits? And could these policies be actually contributing to an already unstable security situation in the region and here in the homeland?

Kim Jong-Il still survives today for one reason: China. The People's Republic supplies the little dictator's godforsaken country with 90% of its' energy (oil). If President Hu wanted to, he could simply turn off the spigot and we could all be witnesses to the implosion of Kim's pesky regime. But he won't. And why should he. China is winning the economic battle right now with the United States. The trade deficit is at an all-time high, they refuse to revalue their currency, and Americans have a never-ending lust for their cheaply made shoes, garments, and anything else under the sun that can be made for pennies on the dollar over there. Bush does nothing but continue to give them 'Most-Favored Nation' status and run around Indochina in a kimono. North Korea also acts as a distraction for China; as long as Kim has us hopping from one foot to the other, we are less focused on China's military buildup. I support imposing tariffs across the board on all Chinese goods to balance the trade deficit and force China to cut off North Korea. While this may hurt consumers here in the short-term, it is the best action to take in regards to our own security, and should also help reinvigorate our severely damaged manufacturing sector.

Mangos for nukes. This one still confounds me: President Bush traveling to India to sell "civilian" nuclear technology. At the same time, Bush is holding on to ally Pervez Musharraf by a thread, who has been fighting with the Indians forever over Kashmir. He is playing both sides in this conflict; hopefully it doesn't cost us one of our biggest allies in the War on Terror. It also sends a poor signal to countries like Iran and North Korea, who see a double-standard in place as far as our policy towards nuclear proliferation.

What about these free-trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.? How many millions of jobs was this deal supposed to create in Mexico? Now we have more illegals streaming across the border than ever before. TEN PERCENT OF MEXICO'S POPULATION RESIDES IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! Remittances from the United States accounts for Mexico's second leading source of income, after oil revenue. The trade agreements have also hurt the manufacturing sector, making it easier for manufacturers to outsource jobs to cheap foreign labor. Ford and GM are basically dead in the water, a sad commentary on the American manufacturing situation.

I hope if the Democrats do anything, they address the free-trade situation promptly. We need to adopt more of a "protectionist" policy economically or we face losing the economic war to the rapidly-expanding Asian market, and soon we could be a country of nothing but massage therapists and web designers (and illegal immigrants).

What do we do about Iran's impending nuclear capability ?

President Bush has mainly been talking about economic and diplomatic isolation, however, the administration is also leaving open the option of military action. The question is this: if the economic and diplomatic options do not succeed, should the U.S. (or Israel) launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities ?



MRB:

Before we do anything rash against Iran we have to exhaust every single negotiable point we have. Certainly nuclear weapons are a serious issue. But we have to make absolutely sure that Iran has them and, most importantly, intends to use them against Israel or any other country or population it deems unfit according to fundamentalist Islamic rule.

There is a delicate cat and mouse game going on here. We are assuming that Ahmadinejad does, in fact, have nuclear weapons. What if this is just bluster? What if our intelligence is again wrong? Do we go charging in to "liberate" yet another Arab country on a whim and undocumentable claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction? I hope not. President Ahmandinejad has to understand, even in his lunatic anger and rage and rantings, that any nuclear strike would be suicidal. I'm certain that every country which currently has nuclear capability would launch a strike so severe against Iran that there would be very little country or citizenry left.

Frank McManus, in the November 19, 2006, Los Angeles Times puts forward an argument that has crossed my mind a few times. ( http://www.latimes.com/search/la-tm-poker45nov05,0,3065105.story ) Entitled "Bluff" the article likens the Iranian stance, and most other chest puffery for that matter, as a game of Texas Hold 'Em poker. Even though we Americans invented poker as we know it today a very similar game has been played in Iran for at least 250 years before we were ever a country. Called As-Nas (My Beloved Ace) it is a bluffing game requiring as much skill in watching your opponent and his quirks as it does knowing percentage strategies. We have spent a lot of time wringing our Western hands about how the Middle-East just isn't like us. Our stategies have been to convince and coerce and entice them into being like us (read Iraq here if you like). Maybe we have to learn how to play their game. Maybe we need to learn how to be really good poker or As-Nas players. One other thing Mr. McManus points out is that only one country other than the U.S. has produced more than one World Series of Poker champion and that is Iran.

We always liken diplomacy to a chess game (a game which also orginated in the Mideast, by the way). But as McManus points out, with chess all your pieces are exposed and all your options are on view by your opponent and though there may be limitless moves available there is really only one good move that will win the game. In poker very often the strongest hand does NOT win the game.

Mr. McManus also quotes former Secretary of State Warren Christopher who warns that "Iranian negotiators deploy 'bazaar behavior' resembling that of a 'Middle Eastern marketplace, with outlandish demands, feints at abandoning the process and haggling over minor details up to the last minute.' Secreatary Christopher should know what he's talking about. He negotiated the release of the American hostages in 1979. Ever gone to buy a new car? Do you always feel you've been snookered no matter how good the deal is that you think you've struck? Same thing.

The point I'm trying to make is that the United States has not even begun, at least to my satisfaction, to learn to play the opponents' game -- and win. We continue arrogantly to demand they play our way, or else. With nuclear mass destruction at stake we can't afford to be bluffed into a catastrophic first strike. Or let them.

That misunderstood twitch of the left eye could be the end of the world as we know it.


KJW:

Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, speaking ahead of his recent meeting with President Bush, said regarding Iran's nuclear capacity, "I don't want to measure it in days or weeks, but it's quite close, and we have to join forces in order to stop it because this is a serious danger to many countries, amongst them Israel, and this is a moral obligation that we all have. And I think that we all understand it will not happen, it can't happen, we will not tolerate the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran."

If the U.S. or Israel decided to make a first strike there are multiple scenario's that could be considered. One first strike scenario would involve a quick and limited strike against nuclear-related facilities accompanied by a threat to resume bombing if Iran responded with terrorist attacks in Iraq or elsewhere.

Another first strike scenario would involve a more ambitious campaign of bombing and sending cruise missiles to level targets well beyond nuclear facilities, such as Iranian intelligence headquarters, the Revolutionary Guard and some in the government.

When Prime Minister Olmert was asked whether Israel would launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, all the Prime Minister would say was that he hoped it would never have to reach that stage. However, don't forget that Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons.

I must say that I am beginning to lean toward a first strike option. Although, neither first strike scenario described above sounds ideal, both sound better to me than taking no action and allowing Iran to join the nuclear club.

Nonetheless, I don't want us to make the same mistake we made in Iraq. That mistake is to start something before it has been fully thought through and an exit strategy (or post strike strategy in this case) has been developed and settled upon.

Despite having taken this position, I do believe that sitting across the table from your enemy is appropriate. Even the hero of every neo-con, Ronald Reagan, believed that to be true. However, sitting across the table from an enemy while they take steps to develop and likely use nuclear weapons against you or your allies is not the position we should place ourselves in. The bottom line is that the minute Iran has nuclear capability its unstable leader will be prepared to use them and we must do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen.

EJS:

It's 1939 all over again. Hopefully we don't have a Chamberlain coming back waving a piece of paper and saying, "He only wants a small piece of territory!" The policy of appeasement is a proven loser. Someone must confront this religious fanatic named Ahmadinejad, as he is the next Hitler, and if he gets the bomb he will use it. Ahmadinejad believes he is in office in order to foster armageddon and believes the way to do this is through a nuclear attack on Israel. He must be confronted, and unfortunately it doesn't appear anyone besides the US and Israel has the fortitude to do it. The United Nations is a broken organization, too rank with corruption to be effective in handling anything, even humanitarian efforts (see Oil for Food scandal).

Will the US and Israel do anything about it? George Bush seems to be the epitome of the term "lame-duck" now. He is out of political capital, and doesn't appear ready to do anything militarily. Israel is coming off their first loss in a conflict ever, in the embarrassing display against Hezbollah earlier this year. Israel has been taken over by the centrist Kadima party, who doesn't appear as apt to fight for Israel's right to exist. If Israel doesn't put the Likud party back in power with Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm, they are committing suicide as a nation.

The bottom line is this: Israel cannot afford to wait for the UN to act. They must pressure the US to help them in a first-strike on nuclear facilities within Iran. Mind you, Iran is VERY different from Iraq, and I am not advocating a full-scale ground invasion. But we must have a widespread bombing campaign to make sure we get all of the facilities and set them back far enough that it will take a few years off their progress. Much of Iran's nuclear program is kept in fortified underground bunkers, which may require nuclear-tipped bunker buster bombs. These tactical nukes are meant to be very focused in their fallout. This is a threat that must be taken seriously, and one that we will have to deal with sooner or later. Hopefully it is sooner rather than later.

Can Lady Liberty's message be the same in an age of Islamic extremists ?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Will the door remain open, or will American immigration policy change?


KJW: The times they are a changin'

In August 2006, Peter Costello, the Australian Treasurer, stated: "What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you . . . there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognize two laws. They recognize Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared."

In my prior entry I noted that British opinion polls indicate that in certain areas nearly have of the Muslim immigrants identified themselves as Muslim first and British second. This is perceived by some as part of the problem in Britain since these immigrants are not being assimilated.

Are Americans truly different in this regard? If you asked most Americans to rank in order of importance to them God and America, don't you think that most respondents would rank them in that order - 1. God, and, 2. America. Even though I believe that to be true there is a distinction that is important. I don't believe that most Americans would say that they are a Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or (insert your own religion) first and an American second. I believe Americans see religion as part of their life and not who they are. Now don't get me wrong, each of these groups would like to effect changes to our society, but I don't think that they are looking to fundamentally redesign our government.

We would be kidding ourselves if we did not acknowledge that fundamental change is a goal of Islamic extremists. While the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace loving persons who do not embrace violence as a means of spreading Islam, there does remain a growing segment of Islamic extremists who believe that the ends justify the means. The ends that they seek is for the world to be one big Islamic state.

So is Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, just saying what many are thinking? In this world of political correctness is an "America - love it or leave it" position acceptable? I grew up in the south in the 60's and 70's. I frequently saw "love it or leave it" bumper stickers on the back of pickup trucks driven by stereotypical rednecks. I am sure it arose in response to the Vietnam anti-war movement. To me it always meant never question the actions of the government. I always dismissed the people as being uneducated sheep who couldn't think for themselves.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I believe that it is our duty to stand up and say when we think our government is not doing things right. That was true during the Vietnam war and that is true now (if you doubt this to be the case check the results from last week's election).

Nevertheless, can our policies toward immigration and those already here legally afford not to change in light of the current state of the world? I think not. I believe that allowing immigration to America is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. However, to paraphrase Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, I believe that America is a country which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the people through Congress, not by religious leaders. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then America is not for you.

As Bob Dylan once wrote: "There's a battle outside, and it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows, and rattle your walls. For the times they are a-changin'."

We need to be ready for the change.

EJS:

It doesn't matter if you close the front door if the back door is torn off the hinges. This debate is meaningless unless the United States of America enforces it's sovereignty on the southern and northern borders. The bad news is, the only thing standing between us and full-fledged amnesty WAS the Republicans in the US House. Now with the Democrats taking over, we will have George Bush's amnesty program by March of next year, AND STILL NO WALL. Although the Secure Fence Act was passed, it only provides 700 miles of fence for 2000 miles of border. There is a little-known clause in the bill which says funds could also be used to create a "virtual wall" with sensors, cameras, drones, etc, INSTEAD of building an actual wall. So I will believe it when I see it. Since Reagan's amnesty program in 1986, the illegal immigrant population has increased from 4 million to 12-20 million. We are looking at another 50 million illegal immigrants without proper border enforcement. If a bathtub is overflowing, you have to turn off the spigot before you deal with the water already in the tub. Enforcement FIRST is the only intelligent solution to this problem. We shouldn't spend two cents on homeland security if we don't secure the border; it's a waste of money. Anyone can bring ANYTHING they want over either border right now. The possibilities are horrific to think about, but we cannot act like the threat isn't there. When we wake up one morning and we have lost the better part of one large American city, maybe then the politicians will get it, because the people will be ready to lynch them.

Is Europe lost already?

With a history of lax immigration policies and emphasis on tolerance, has Europe already been lost to radical Islam? Is the United States headed in the same direction?




KJW: Europe is not lost, yet.

The French riots last November, and the controversy and violence related to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, make clear that the ongoing struggle with radical Islamism is, if anything, more of a problem presently for Europe than it is for America.

The United States only has a Muslim population of less than 1 percent. For Europe, however, it is much different. In the Netherlands, 6 percent to 7 percent of the population, and as much as half the population of large cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are Muslim. In France, the percentage is around 10 percent.

Many of the organizers of recent terrorist incidents—including Mohammed Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader; the March 7 Madrid bombers; Mohammed Bouyeri, assassin of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh; and the July 7 London bombers—were radicalized not in the Middle East, but in Western Europe. Many were second-generation citizens who spoke their adopted country's language fluently.

There is no question that what has come to be called "Eurabia" constitutes a major problem for European democracies. One major factor is that European Muslim communities are mostly located in isolated ghettos, which have become fertile breeding grounds for the growth of a highly intolerant version of Islam. A number of British opinion polls over the past year have found that a substantial minority would like to see Islamic law instituted in heavily-Muslim areas of Britain and that nearly half identified themselves as Muslim first and British second.

European governments have only recently begun to respond to this problem. The Dutch speak of the van Gogh murder in November 2004 as their Sept. 11, and the political transformation since then has been astonishing. The government has cut off virtually all new immigration into the country and given the police Patriot Act-type powers to pursue potential terrorists.

Following the London bombings, the British government has initiated a significant campaign to crackdown on the Islamic extremists.

The question looms - is it too little, too late? Europeans should have started a discussion about how to integrate their Muslim minorities a generation ago, before the winds of radical Islamism had started to blow. The United States needs to pay attention to Europe's situation and not wait until the point of critical mass has been achieved at home. This generation of Americans need to address this situation within our borders so that someday we will not be referred to as "Amerabia".

It appears now that the European governments believe their only solution to this problem is to crackdown on the Islamist extremists. This may indeed be their only short term answer; however, history tells us that when crackdown is the only option, problems aren't solved and usually ends up getting worse. You know, maybe Europe is lost.

EJS:

Perhaps all is not lost, yet. Europe is on a collision course with Islam, and it is largely due to their own policies and political correctness. Immigration laws and the policy of inclusion above all else has allowed the enemy to crawl in the back door and sit at the dinner table. Now they are pounding on the table and want the same prosperity that Europeans enjoy. This policy of inclusion has been limited though. While European states have policies of acceptance, the people themselves still harbor their own prejudices. This has led to a kind of de facto segregation within Europe, where a ceiling in society does exist for immigrants. This has led to widespread frustration within the immigrant community, particularly among the younger second generation, which were born and raised in Europe. Their feeling of resentment combined with the rise of radical Islam has caused a perfect storm. This has proved to be a fertile ground for Al Qaeda and other radical groups to recruit from, with the internet playing a leading role in recruitment. By just planting the seed of radicalism, an actual Al Qaeda representative isn't required to show up and sign them up.

The Europeans strive to have religious tolerance at all costs as well. Islamists have been allowed to infiltrate the countries, then set up mosques and madrassas which teach a particularly ruthless strain of Islam called Wahhabism. This strain originates in Saudi Arabia, and the House of Saud sinks millions into propagating their beliefs across the world. The Europeans' problem arises because they are so incredibly politically correct, they fail to see when religion crosses the line and becomes a threat to national security and their basic way of life. Britain has finally started to crackdown on radical mosques, and recently a protester from the Mohammed cartoon incident was convicted of inciting violence when he led a protest calling for the beheading of anyone who dare to insult Islam.

France is probably the country most at risk. Approximately 10% of France's population consists of Muslim immigrants. The riots in the Paris suburbs in 2005 first brought the problem to light, and while the large-scale rioting has subsided, a low-grade "intifada" has persisted ever since. Over 2,500 French police have been injured fighting Muslim youths in the streets of Paris this year. Recently, attacks have grown more brazen, with packs of youths donning all black clothing and masks, ambushing police and city buses in coordinated attacks. The problem in France may be too far out of control already.

Here in the United States, we haven't gotten to the point where Europe currently is. Muslims don't have the numbers here yet. Also, government crackdown after 9/11 has not created a good climate for radicalism to thrive in. America's culture is much more focused on assimilation of immigrants, whereas in Europe, immigrants are encouraged to still practice their own cultures and ways of life. It is a MUST for our law enforcement agencies to closely monitor mosques and imams in this country who may be preaching hate and violence. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and endangering others, and we cannot allow that to happen in our backyard.

Which Presidential hopefuls are in the best position for 2008? Which ones are not ?

With the midterm elections behind us now, which candidates are best positioned for a Presidential run in 2008, and whose Presidential aspirations may have vanished?

MRB:

The horns and party hats of the Democrats' celebration are barely put away and the cap has been screwed on the bottle of Scotch the Republicans used to drown their sorrows and we are already predicting 2008. 2008? That sounds so close and there is so much to do. I am having a hard time thinking that far ahead right now. My feeling is that we need at least the proverbial 100 days to let the Democrats settle in, and by that I don't mean measuring for new drapery.

During this time a couple of things will happen. Not the least important of which will be the emergence of who the new leadership will comprise and how they get this early, crucial job done. It will also reveal who in the Republican party will emerge as the leaders most willing to help right the wrongs they perpetrated for the last 12 years. It's going to be an interesting morality play that unfolds. I hope it won't be a soap opera.

Unlike my colleagues here at 3HM I do not have a long speculative list of contenders at this point nor does it contain any surprises or hidden unknowns. The names are on everyone's mind right now.

As I see it today and today only, the Democrats will nominate a twosome from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Personally I think Mrs. Clinton is the weakest candidate primarily because she is Mrs. Clinton. Apart from her own divisivness, I don't think the country could deal with Mr. Clinton as First Gentleman. The inevitable question of who was running the country would arise. Is Bill getting a backdoor entre to another four years? That's too problematic. Edwards / Obama would be a better combination with North, South, Black, White represented. For the time being that is as deep as my list gets for the Democrats. Oh, yes. One more thing. If John Kerry just sits this one out and takes up thumb twiddling as a hobby we'd appreciate it.

Right now McCain seems to be the Republican front runner because he is moderate, willing to compromise, has the public presence to carry him, and seems to be capable of believably taking the high road in disagreements. The others I see right now as contenders are Mitt Romney, Rudy Guilliani, and perhaps Bill Frist. The combinations with these four in either president or vice-president chairs are endless. It's odd about Guilliani, but for all the time he was mayor of New York, I never thought of him as a Republican, just as a good mayor. That can only help him. They each represent different parts of the country but do have a unified conservative point of view for now.

That's as close as I can get right now. I'm sure we'll address this once again in 100 days. Stay tuned.


KJW:

REPUBLICAN PARTY:

Top Ten Contenders:

1. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) - Clear front runner. Probably his nomination to lose.
2. Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts) - At this point looks to be McCain's biggest challenger. Governors have a way better track record being elected President than do Senators.
3. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) - Another possible contender for the nomination. His ability to carry South could be the key.
4. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R-New York) - Has benefit of national name recognition; however, ability to carry South is questionable. As someone originally from the South I can tell you that a person from New York faces an uphill battle in Dixie.
5. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) - Another Southern Governor. Lacks the name recognition at this time.
6. Governor George Pataki (R-New York) - Has benefit of having been Governor, but also faces same issues that Giuliani faces in South.
7. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) - Longshot. Another one who lacks name recognition.
8. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) - Another longshot.
9. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) - Incredible name recognition. Could possibly get nomination in right circumstances but is definitely not electable. Polarizes public like Hillary Clinton.
10. Secretary of State Condoleezza "Condi" Rice (R-California) - Definitely not electable. Does not have the charisma necessary to succeed in a campaign.

DEAD ON ARRIVALS:

1. Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) - Chances of election as President are over.
2. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) - Another D.O.A. hopeful.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY:

Top Ten Contenders:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) - Clear front runner. Her nomination to lose. In my opinion she is not electable. She polarizes public opinion tremendously. People love her or hate her.
2. Former Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina) - Tremendously appealing candidate. If Hillary stumbles he is positioned to pounce.
3. Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) - Another appealing candidate. Needs more exposure nationally.
4. Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) - The clear rising star in the party. However, I don't believe that he is electable. Definitely will be on nominee's Vice Presidential short list.
5. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) - Benefit of being Governor, as well as prior experience on national level.
6. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) - Longshot.
7. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) - Another longshot.
8. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) - Another long longshot.
9. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) - If country is in mood to move to extreme left he is the candidate. Not going to happen. Not electable.
10.Former General Wes Clark (D-Arkansas) - Extreme longshot. Probably has no chance.

DEAD ON ARRIVALS:

1. Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) - His chance has come and gone. Has done nothing to help his chances in last two years. His comments about military in the last week of the 2006 election hurts his chances.
2. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tennessee) - Ummm, no.

EJS:

Political junkies on both sides of the spectrum shift their collective focus now to potential 2008 candidates. We always hear complaints about presidential campaigning starting too early, but the truth is, it's been going on since the LAST presidential election. We have seen candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain moving gradually to the center over the last couple of years. Another sad but true fact of American politics: you HAVE to have money to do well. And this race will be no exception. The commonly accepted number is $100 million. That is more than likely what a candidate will need to be considered legitimate. Hillary has a clear advantage in this category, as the Clinton campaign machine is tried and true. With her husband being a living political legend, Hillary should have no problem in the finance department. Any potential Democratic candidate needs to have at least $60 million in the bank one year from now if they expect to challenge her for the nomination. So that works out to about one million dollars a week, not an easy task. So, financially, we can eliminate quite a few potential candidates.

On the Democratic side, I believe the best possible candidate they could put up would be John Edwards. With the South being the new heart of the Republican party, it is a must that any Democrat be able to win a few of those states. Edwards follows in the Clinton mold: a southern Democrat who poses himself as a populist and champion of the working class. Not to mention the family and the looks. John Edwards is the total package and he strikes fear in my heart as a conservative. Hopefully the Democrats aren't smart enough to realize this.

John Kerry still has some funds left from his 2004 run. Unfortunately, he still has the reputation from 2004 as well: a tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberal. His comments before the 2006 election did not help any. He should save everyone's time and money and just serve out the rest of his life term in Taxachussetts.

Ditto for Algore. The hypocrisy he has demonstrated with his push on global warming would provide lots of material for the opposition. His comments deriding the United States on foreign soil probably won't help either.

Barack Obama is an interesting case. As I stated before, he's probably not electable now, but will more than likely run in the primary and will be looking to be #2 on someone's ticket. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Wesley Clark, etc. are just fillers during the primary and have no legitimate chance.

On the Republican side, it is John McCain's turn. He has paid more than his fair share of dues in the Senate. While being in the Senate usually acts as a hindrance for any candidate due to the long voting record available for attack, McCain's role as a maverick will help him, as it is hard to pigeon-hole him with a label. He has been on both sides of multiple issues. Seen as a bipartisan and moderate, he is probably the strongest candidate the Republicans can put up.

George Allen's collapse in Virginia has opened the door for another conservative alternative to McCain to step forward. That alternative comes to us in the form of Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Word on the street is that he will announce the formation of an exploratory committee within the next couple of months. Widely unknown just a year ago, he has been getting more and more pub lately. Hopefully his being a Latter-Day Saint won't hurt him. An early win in neighboring New Hampshire could spell the end for John McCain.

You thought social conservatives crucified John McCain in South Carolina in 2000? Wait until they get their hands on Rudy Giuliani. He may have done great in New York after 9/11, but that won't be enough to carry him to the nomination. Too liberal socially to make it through the process. Ditto for George Pataki.

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest Republicans out there still, but his personal baggage makes any possible candidacy virtually impossible. Way too much material for the opposition to seize on. Look for him to be in the cabinet of any Republican elected.

Sam Brownback of Kansas is a solid conservative, but probably too unknown, and has the baggage of being in the Senate. Ditto for Bill Frist, who has no personality.

My prediction: John McCain wins the Presidency in 2008 over Hillary Clinton in another extremely close and divisive election.

2006 Election Post Mortem

The real question today is not just who won which race, but what the election results mean for each one of us and the issues we care about, such as the war and the economy.



MRB:

I am sitting here still stunned from what happened yesterday. I had thought the Democrats would pick up the 15 needed to take the House once again. I was hoping that we'd end up with a close split in the Senate. I did not expect the over whelming victory we had. I am all smiles and have been calling and emailing friends around the country patting one another on the back. Wow. Twelve years of eating at the kids table and now we get to sit with the adults.

The question is, after the smoke from the celebratory fireworks blows away, what really happened and, maybe more importantly, how did it happen?

What happened is that a clear message was firmly delivered; not a mixed, irritating message the Republicans could sneak around again, but one that can't be ignored. All the biggest wins, and the ones most people paid attention to, were a referendum on our failed national policies. Not just about Iraq and its obvious issues but also a more subtle message that the citizens -- not just Democrats by the way -- that we are upset by hypocrisy, scandal, taking our hard earned status as the world's greatest power and abusing it by holding much of the world in contempt for having intelligence, upset at the out of control spending, upset that economic upswings only help those in the wealthy club, upset at a lack of compassion for our own countrymen.

How it happened is even more clear. Actually the Democrats probably didn't have to do half of the work they did to win. All we really had to do was watch the GOP implode over the last six months. They kept making the case for us. Control of both houses and the executive gave them a false sense of invulnerablity. They made themselves a laughing stock with their shenanigans which was bad enough but when it involved tragic decisions concerning the lives of our young men and women fighting in Iraq who are bearing the brunt of their arrogance, that's contemptible.

This has given the Democrats what they wanted and there is enough hunger that they just may be able to pull the next two years off beautifully. They have a lame duck President running so scared he let his best buddy Rumsfeld fall on the sword today. The top issue has to be Iraq. No one really believes we can just pull out. That's a worse cop out than what we have been living with for three years. But there must be a New Direction, to quote our running theme, and that can be found. I don't feel we had any reason to reveal any possible plans during this election period and play into Karl Rove's hands. But now in the next three months there has to be a serious plan in place. Period. And no Republicanesque excuses that it can't be done. Do it.

But is this a complete 180 degree turn to a liberal philosophy? No. I don't think so. EJS and I were talking today and we agree that if you look at the local races, state legislatures, individual referendums and propositions, people are still overall moderately conservative. They want our government to reflect who they are; attempting to lead lives of positive morality, of fiscal restraint, and of accountability for one's actions. I urge both Democrats and Republicans to look very closely there for the answers. That's not too much to ask is it?

KJW:

Republicans had hoped to make this years election about local issues. However, according to exit polls, national issues were more important in determining their votes by a nearly 2-1 margin. And most of the national issues cited by voters as important reflect the negative mood of the American public this election.

Despite the opportunity that presented itself to them this year, Democrats have historically squandered chances to make inroads into the Republican control of Congress. This year for some reason that didn't happen. So what did the Democrats do right this time?

They didn't let the Republicans frame the issues. As I said above, the Republicans wanted this election to stay local. Conversely, the Democrats wanted this election to be a referendum on President Bush and the Iraq war. The Democrats succeeded in making it into a referendum.

Politics is often about perception. Perception is influenced by the sound bite. Sound bites such as "Stay the Course", "Cut and Run", and "Tax and Spend".

This time the Democrats didn't crumble but instead turned the tables on the Republicans with these sound bites. The Democrats came after the President strong on the Stay the Course theme. It worked so well that the President disavowed "Stay the Course" and even went so far as to say that it was never the administrations' policy.

Democrats also for the most part stopped calling for an immediate withdrawal in Iraq and simply took the position that we needed to take a "New Direction" with regard to Iraq. This strategy unquestionably worked. The interesting part of this strategy is that the Democrats used it effectively without ever defining the "New Direction".

The traditional Republican attack on Democrats has been that he / she is just another "tax and spend" liberal. For whatever reason you didn't hear that too often during this election. One reason may be that the current Republican administration / Congress has spent like their worst Liberal nightmare.

The first casualty of the election appears to have been Donald Rumsfeld. This morning Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. He is being replaced by Robert Gates, the former Director of the CIA. Gates is currently a member of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan group that will soon be making recommendations with regard to a new strategy for the handling of the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld's resignation may be a sign that President Bush is truly interested in working with the Democrats. The President's action in replacing his Defense Secretary may be helpful with regard to avoiding gridlock for the next two years, but it is nevertheless too little too late to avoid the change of power that happened in this election. Now to '08 . . .

EJS:

Taps is playing today for the Republican Party. As we sit back and lick our wounds, we must not wallow in the defeat, but learn from the mistakes and get back to representing positions and issues consistent with the conservative base that put Republicans in office in the first place; the same base that failed to save their necks yesterday. This morning we learned that Secretary Rumsfeld has decided to resign. I don't understand why Bush didn't do this six months ago; maybe if he would have made some concessions such as this before the election, it wouldn't have been as bad as it was yesterday. Chalk it up as another in a litany of GOP mistakes.

Now it is time to have an old-fashioned sitdown and house cleaning for the GOP. It is glaringly apparent that the leadership within the party is subpar, or completely nonexistent. The GOP House contingent now has the duty of selecting a minority leader. Denny Hastert and John Boehner cannot be the future face of the Republican party. We need a leader who inspires the party and constituency. One name who I have heard thrown about is Mike Pence, Republican from Indiana. Ken Mehlman, the GOP chairman, is probably also finished. Karl Rove's credibility has taken a hit with this loss. The President needs to stop listening to political advisers such as Rove and Karen Hughes, and listen more to the people and the generals on the ground in Iraq. Overall, the GOP needs to clean house and get back to the people and values that put them there. If they are able to do this, and once the people see how inept the Democrats are during the next two years, the GOP should be able to regain control in 2008.

Exercise your right to vote !

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Time to predict the outcome of the November 2006 election

Each of us will now set forth our respective predictions of the final overall outcome of tomorrow's election. We will also predict the specific winners in critical Senate races which may very tilt the scales one way or the other




MRB:

Senate:

Arizona: Jim Pederson (D) Jon Kyl (R)

This is my wish and hope vote. My gut tells me that Kyl will win but in the long run a change is necessary. Kyl is too much a Bushman. Pederson by 2 points.

Conn.: Ned Lamont (D) Alan Schlesinger(R) Joseph Lieberman (I)

Lieberman hurt himself earlier with his pro-war stance, but I feel he has recovered and if I get my wish that the Senate splits 50-49-1 he'll side with his former Dems in most matters. Lieberman by 5 points.

Maryland : Ben Cardin(D) Michael Steele (R)

I spent most of my adult life, 25 years worth anyway, in Maryland and lived almost all of it in Ben Cardin's district. I liked him and felt he was competent and forceful for his districts needs. He has weaknesses against Steele. He's not as dynamic for one thing. But Maryland has been such a traditional Democrat state I think when voters pull the lever it'll swing Dem. Cardin by 3 points.

Missouri: Claire McCaskill(D) Jim Talent(R)

This one pains me because I was born in Missouri where I cut my Democratic teeth on stories of Harry Truman and have watched it become more and more stubborn and cranky over the last 50 years. They seem intent on Republicanizing themselves and my sinking feeling is that they will. Talent by 3 points.

Montana: Jon Tester(D) Conrad Burns (R)

I have not followed this race but am hoping for Democratic momentum to carry it. Tester by 2 points.

New Jersey : Bob Menendez(D) Tom Kean, Jr.(R)

Menendez has done a very good job and has monority support. Kean probably would have taken this if he wasn't affiliated with the party of scandals right now and he is also a Bushman at heart. Menendez by 5 points.

Ohio: Sherrod Brown(D) Mike DeWine(R)

This should be a no contest victory for Brown. Brown by 4 points.

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey(D) Rick Santorum(R)

Pennsylavania, a state where I have spent much time, should be ashamed for letting a man like Santorum represent it for this long. He's an embarrassment to the entire Senate. Casey by 4 points.

Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse(D) Lincoln Chafee(R)

Another race which I haven't followed closely and have to rely on the good sense of Rhode Island Dems for guidance. Whitehouse, a man named for the job, by 3 points.

Tennessee: Harold Ford(D) Bob Corker (R)

I have two friends in Tennessee who I called about this . They think it's too close to call so, again, this is my wish vote. Ford by 2 points.

Virginia: Jim Webb (D) George Allen(R)

Could Allen have made any more blunders throughout this campaign. Again, this is a state I have spent almost as much time in as Maryland and realize it's a tough Republican enclave. But really, how much embarrassment is a state willing to tolerate? Webb by 3 points.

If I get my way and I am right on only 50% of these predictions (if my math is right) then I will be able to see the balanced Senate I'd like to see where discussions are designed to convince the swing votes. This way we will get real dialogue and bi-partisan decision making taking place. That is a real power the President will just not be capable of dealing with.

House:

It's in the House where politics becomes very local and from what I've observed where some of the most viscious battles are being waged. The one here in Arizona in the 5th District, where I live, between incumbent J.D. Hayworth (R) and challenger Harry Mitchell (D) is typical. The dirty tricks team of the Republicans that we all thought died with Nixon and Co. is alive and well. Robo-calling to irritate the Democrats? Really. It, like many other battles, will be a fight to the finish. But the Dems will pick up 15 seats at least acrossed the board.

KJW:

Senate:

Arizona: Jim Pederson (D) Jon Kyl (R)

Although Jim Pederson seems to have made some movement lately, Jon Kyl will nevertheless win this race by 8 points or more. As an Arizona resident I am voting in this race. As recently as the day before this election I had thought that I would vote for Jon Kyl for reasons related to the benefit to our state if John McCain is elected President. After reviewing my rationale, EJS told me that when I got into the voting booth I would end up voting for Pederson. The fact is that he is right. Although there are lots of factors that might benefit Arizona if Jon Kyl remains our Senator, I realize that there is no way I can bring myself to vote for him. Even though his candidacy is destined to fail, I will be voting for Jim Pederson.

Conn.: Ned Lamont (D) Alan Schlesinger(R) Joseph Lieberman (I)

Joseph Lieberman will win this race going away and will declare himself to be a Democrat once again. Lieberman by 10+ points.

Maryland : Ben Cardin(D) Michael Steele (R)

Ben Cardin will win this race by 3 points.

Missouri: Claire McCaskill(D) Jim Talent(R)

This will be one of the closest races of the election. I have gone back and forth on this one. In close races I tend to anticipate the incumbent will ultimately prevail. This race will be an exception. McCaskill by 3 points.

Montana: Jon Tester(D) Conrad Burns (R)

This is the other race which is almost too close to call. Burns was given up for dead at one point but has made this a race again. I think he will fall just short. Tester by 3 points.

New Jersey : Bob Menendez(D) Tom Kean, Jr.(R)

Menendez by 8 points.

Ohio: Sherrod Brown(D) Mike DeWine(R)

I believe that Mike DeWine should already be packing his office. Brown by 8 points.

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey(D) Rick Santorum(R)

Another candidate that if I owned a Washington area moving company I would drop off a flyer today. Casey by 9 points.

Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse(D) Lincoln Chafee(R)

This race shows that soon there will be no room for moderates / centrists in the Republican party. Chafee is the most liberal Republican to serve and will soon be writing his memoirs. Whitehouse wins by 5 points.

Tennessee: Harold Ford(D) Bob Corker (R)

If I were a resident of Tennessee I would vote for Harold Ford. Unfortunately, for Ford neither myself, nor enough people who think like me live in Tennessee. Corker by 9 points.

Virginia: Jim Webb (D) George Allen(R)

Six months ago noone would have imagined that this seat would be in play. Not only has this race become in play but Senator Allen's Presidential aspirations have vanished. Senator Allen wins by 3 points.

FINAL SENATE RESULTS: (R) 50 (D) 49 (I) 1 *

* Joseph Lieberman will thereafter reaffirm his alignment with the Democratic party.

FINAL - FINAL SENATE RESULTS: (R) 50 (D) 50 **

** Vice President, Richard Cheney, becomes THE DECIDER, breaking all tie votes.

House: The historic trend has been that when one house of Congress changes hands both houses change hands. This year will be an exception. As you will note I have the Republicans and Democrats ending up 50 / 50 in the Senate. Such a tie would involve the Vice President casting any required tiebreaking votes. The Republicans will not be so lucky in the House.

FINAL HOUSE RESULTS: (R) 215 - (D) 219 - (I) 1

EJS:

Senate:

Arizona: Jim Pederson (D) Jon Kyl (R)

The polls have shown Pederson closing the gap in the last couple of weeks. Close race, but the advantage Republicans enjoy in Arizona will be seen here. Jon Kyl is a good senator and will win this race by five to ten points.

Conn.: Ned Lamont (D) Alan Schlesinger(R) Joseph Lieberman (I)

Lieberman must have been snickering in a corner somewhere last week when Democrats were running from the John Kerry fallout. Lieberman wins this one going away, and it will be interesting to see his interaction with fellow Dems after this.

Maryland : Ben Cardin(D) Michael Steele (R)

Here is my sleeper. Steele definelty has the momentum in this race, and has exposed Cardin in recent days as not being up-to-date on Maryland issues, specifically the planned extension of the Metro system there. Also, notable black Democrats from Prince George's County endorsed him last week. This is big, as Steele is only counting on about 12% of the black vote. Anything over this is gravy and will insure his victory. I look for Steele to pull the upset by one to three points.

Missouri: Claire McCaskill(D) Jim Talent(R)

The Republican GOTV machine will be evident in this result. The party has put tons of money into this state to insure the rural voters get out. McCaskill and the Democrats are no where near as organized and the polls are reflecting only the urban population centers now. Look for Talent to defeat Claire "Clone Em" McCaskill by less than five points.

Montana: Jon Tester(D) Conrad Burns (R)

Montana is solid red and Burns has the momentum here. The GOP ground game wins this one as well. Burns barely retains his seat despite the Abramoff allegations.

New Jersey : Bob Menendez(D) Tom Kean, Jr.(R)

Even though Menendez is one of the most corrupt candidates in the race, he will win in blue New Jersey. Must be a Sopranos thing or something there. Kean is a RINO anyways. Menendez by 5 to 10 points.

Ohio: Sherrod Brown(D) Mike DeWine(R)

DeWine is done. The implosion of the GOP in Ohio is complete. Sherrod wins big.

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey(D) Rick Santorum(R)

Santorum will bite the dust, but it will be closer than people think. His support of the war and closeness to the Bush administration has doomed him here though, as Pennsylvania is turning bluer and bluer. Casey by less than five points.

Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse(D) Lincoln Chafee(R)

If you're going to have a liberal, lets have a REAL liberal, not one trying to disguise himself with an R next to his name. Good riddance Chafee. Whitehouse by 10 points.

Tennessee: Harold Ford(D) Bob Corker (R)

This has been the most vicious race this year. Bob Corker has run a ruthless campaign against Harold Ford, Jr, and has done a wonderful job of painting him as a Kennedy/Kerry liberal. This won't fly in down-home Tennessee. Corker wins this race by 5 to 10 points.

Virginia: Jim Webb (D) George Allen(R)

George Allen has tried at every turn to lose this race. He has stumbled and bumbled his way to Election Day finally. He will barely retain his seat, but this disastorous race has dashed his 2008 Presidential aspirations, and boosted those of Mitt Romney as the conservative alternative to McCain. Allen by less than five points.

House:

The House is where the GOP is going to pay the price for the Bush administrations' performance over the past two years. They get the blame for Iraq, the deficit, etc. Democrats pick up 15 to 25 seats and take control of the House. Nancy Pelosi is the next Speaker of the House. Hopefully this only lasts two years.