As hated leaders are replaced by even more brutally oppressive regimes, the Arab Spring has become a sick joke
By John Bradley
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's deposed dictator, is reportedly still in a coma after being handed a life sentence earlier this month for complicity in the deaths of almost 1,000 protesters during last year's mass uprising against his tyrannical rule.
He is a man utterly lacking in charisma, who has only ever been interested in enriching his family and the corrupt tycoons who surrounded him. Few will shed any tears when he dies.
However, while Mubarak was no better known for his political acumen than for his benevolent rule, he has been proven right about one thing at least. A few days before he was forced to step down in February last year, he warned that sudden, dramatic change in the land of the pharaohs would lead only to anarchy, followed by a takeover by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood party and the imposition of strict Islamic law.
Gradual political reform, in other words, was preferable to revolutionary upheaval that had no agenda other than ousting the current leader.
That advice, at the time mocked as the self-serving twaddle it partly was, now seems strikingly prescient. Indeed, Mubarak could have been talking about the consequences of revolutionary chaos not just for Egypt, but the Arab region as a whole.
On Monday, Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, warned that the mayhem caused by the so-called Arab Spring has resulted in the creation of new Al Qaeda training camps throughout the Middle East, especially in Syria and Libya, where British jihadis are receiving training in terrorist tactics. They are intent, he added, on returning to Britain to launch attacks here.
The terrifying reality is indeed that Islamists of various factions are taking advantage of the febrile volatility in the regime to flex their muscles.
Egypt's new president has just been announced. He is Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. His victory ends a year of political transition in the country during which the Muslim Brotherhood have thrashed their liberal opponents in every election that's been held.
On Sunday, Morsi called for national unity. That will be a tall order. Like other so-called 'moderate' Islamist leaders throughout the region, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The truth is that the Muslim Brotherhood will now set about implementing their real agenda: imposing Sharia law and encouraging the growth of extreme Islam.
Still championed by over-excited, ill-informed pundits in the West, and kept alive on the ground by a gaggle of equally naive, out-of-touch and mostly English-speaking local activists, the bitter truth is that the so-called Arab Spring has proved a dismal failure on every level.
Nothing good has come of it at all, if judged by the classic Western values of liberty, freedom of expression and democratic accountability.
From Egypt to Tunisia, Yemen to Libya, shockingly high crime rates, economies in free-fall and decimated tourism industries are the terrifying new realities Arabs must now confront.
And in each of those countries, radical Islamists have moved quickly to fill the social and political vacuum. They have used a simple strategy: relying on gaining a majority from the minority who vote, and blatantly disregarding rules that ban foreign campaign donations from neighbouring states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, looking to extend their influence in the region.
Both these countries, although Western allies, also subscribe to Wahhabism -- the strictest and most austere interpretation of Islam that even bans contact between unrelated men and women. They also consider it their God-given duty to promote this 'pure' version of Islam whenever the opportunity arises, thus their attempts to exploit the Middle East's disarray.
THE ARAB SPRING SO FAR
TUNISIA
The ousting of staunchly secular Tunisian dictator Ben Ali in January 2011 marked the birth of the Arab Spring. The country's subsequent descent into religious extremism, lawlessness and economic ruin is a microcosm of what has happened throughout the region in all the countries caught up in the ongoing turmoil.
Elections last October brought to power Ennahda, the self-professed 'moderate' Islamist political party that is affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood and which was banned under Ben Ali. However, tens of thousands of more radical Salafi Muslims have been causing constant mayhem on the streets of Tunis and throughout the country, attacking liberal artists and filmmakers, firebombing shops that sell alcohol, and assaulting women who refuse to wear the veil.
In recent weeks, rumours have been rife in the country that the Salafis may be about to launch an armed insurrection. Their goal: creating a hardline Islamist state.
LIBYA
The National Transitional Council, which has ruled since last year's Nato-led uprising in Libya, governs in name only. Since the fall of Tripoli in August 2011, Libya has been in turmoil.
Officials openly admit billions of dollars have been smuggled out of the country by corrupt officials and businessmen, while the country's infrastructure is disintegrating.
Just this month, the British ambassador's vehicle was attacked by rocket-propelled grenades, and the U.S. Consulate was bombed. The latter attack was claimed by a local Islamist group, which said it was angered by assassinations of suspected Al Qaeda members in Pakistan.
Parliamentary elections slated for this month have been postponed until July 7, with officials citing 'logistical and technical' reasons for the delay. Not that most people in this most tribal of Arab countries, as elsewhere in the region, are likely to care.
EGYPT
Since Mubarak was ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly shown it is willing -- indeed eager -- to reach compromises with the elite group of generals overseeing the messy transition to democracy.
That co-operation will continue now that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi is president.
The Muslim Brotherhood will leave policy decisions concerning the defence budget and foreign relations to the generals. Instead, it will concentrate on radicalising Egyptian society through parliament -- with devastating consequences for the liberal elite and religious minorities.
SYRIA
Exaggerated reports of the imminent overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad's authoritarian regime have been a staple of the Western media for more than a year.
However, the initially peaceful street demonstrations have been hijacked by armed gangs of radical Islamists, whose members are drawn from both inside and outside the country. For the time being, the majority of the Syrian people are therefore sticking with the devil they know.
Still, with the Syrian regime's crackdown on all dissent as ruthless as ever, the country could quickly descend into bloody civil war.
In Morocco, Kuwait and Algeria -- the only Arab countries that have held parliamentary elections during the past year -- affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood have swept to power.
Now the Muslim Brotherhood itself has also triumphed in both Egypt's parliamentary and presidential elections. Meanwhile, Syria's initially popular and peaceful uprising is in the midst of being hijacked by a band of fanatical international jihadists also intent on imposing Sharia law.
These more extremist Syrian insurgents, who employ classic terrorist tactics such as suicide bombings and kidnappings, are being funded by the most repressive, undemocratic Islamist theocracy in the region: Saudi Arabia.
Ironically, because of the grip of its leaders, the repressive Saudi kingdom itself has witnessed no major uprising, apart from sporadic demonstrations among its repressed Shia minority.
Meanwhile, in Libya -- despite Britain and France's intervention -- Islamist militias now rule the streets. The country is at serious risk of being torn apart along tribal and regional lines.
Just last week, more than 100 people were killed in clashes between rival tribes in Libya's south, and a band of armed Islamists occupied the capital's airport in protest at the arrest of one of their members. The Libyan transitional government exists only in name.
In neighbouring Tunisia, the birthplace of this Arabian nightmare, thousands of zealots last week rioted throughout the country -- the latest violent agitations against artworks deemed insulting to Islam. What was once the most socially liberal and progressive Arab country has, like Egypt, in a year become yet another backwater for extreme Islam.
Tunisia, too, is now governed by a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot called Ennahda. Its electoral success, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is widely reported to have been achieved in part by substantial funding from the states of the Persian Gulf -- Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Thus we are witnessing a ruthlessly successful counter-revolution led by these two countries. For both nations, secularism and democracy are anathema, as they are using their immense wealth to successfully install their extremist Islamist proxies.
The terrifying reality is that we are seeing once secular, tolerant cultures being dragged back to the Middle Ages -- and with the implicit blessing of the West. Indeed, Saudi Arabia's continued status as a vital Western ally holds up a mirror to the rank hypocrisy of the pro-democracy rhetoric we hear from the likes of Barack Obama and David Cameron.
How extraordinary it was to hear last week, for example, Western leaders' gushing praise on the occasion of the death of Saudi interior minister Prince Naif. This was a man who, for decades, was at the helm of a vast army of internal security forces that had a repugnant record for crushing all political dissent.
The truth is from the outset of the Arab Spring, realpolitik dictated the Western powers' determination to contain Iran and ultimately trumped any concerns about human rights and democracy. Sunni Saudi Arabia is Shia-dominated Iran's arch-enemy. Saudi Arabia is Britain's biggest trading partner and a reliable source of affordable oil.
Yet, despite all this, liberals in the West continue to call for more uprisings in the Arab world, more bravery from the protesters, more upheavals, more violence and chaos -- all in the name of a democracy in which most Arabs have no interest in partaking, and which is being shamelessly manipulated by outside powers.
John R Bradley is the author of After the Arab Spring: How Islamists Hijacked The Middle East Revolts
#7
Read, "Why Nations Fail." These countries fall into the failed nations slot. They will not make the fundamental changes required to succeed. They will just have to do their Insh'allah thing till they get tired of falling on their faces. No use throwing good money after bad. It is up to them and not us to encourage positive change.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/02/2012 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This is why we should not give them ANY aid or money or support. I'd even say that we should blockade and interdict the movement of ALL resources in and out of these countries until they dissolve and are ready to join the Human race.
#9
Darth, I'll see that. Have not yet hit where I was thinking. No gas, Suez is still open, so forth.
And to be as fairly criticle as I can, and not to say the US should or could do anything here, it does not really help when this administration claims credit for this with the Cairo speech, then bumbles a dictator replacement, backdoor negotiates a hostage situation, travels outside of a UN warrent with what may look like a NATO/Europe attack upon a unprepared ally Ghadaffi yet a fickless approach to Assad. Not sure what is going on behind the scenes but in public is looks like a total cluster of a US policy, to the point the True Believes should be getting a third bucket of pissed off at Obama or turning in their creds.
Our "present" Prez and the bill's sponsors argued that Obamacare fell under the Commerce Clause.
Our honorable Stupreme Court has redefined it to be a "tax".
Given this radical shift in the foundation of all arguments in favor of the bill, and the fact that no Congressperson would be stupid enough to vote for a tax in a recession, except for Pelousi (and perhaps Maxine), we obviously need to put the bill back in front of Congress to be voted on again.
#2
And this is exactly what the Supreme Court found, the same thing the Justice Department was saying in 2010:
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying the statutory label does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns as an addition to income tax liability.
It doesn't matter what you CALL it, it matters how it actually operates. You an call a sheep a goat but it is still a sheep.
#4
It's up to the people to decide if Congress votes on it again. And that's the way it should be in a democracy. It's also why I am, and the founders were also, not a big fan of democracy.
Repeal relies on the Senate as well as the House, however, and the Senate currently only has 47 Republicans. It might be possible to get 4 Dem votes in the Senate but if not we should focus on taking back the Senate as well as defending the House in November.
Actually, we should be doing that even if somehow Obamacare is repealed before November. There's a lot more work to be done ...
#6
I thought in law, taxes, and D&D words have a very particular meaning.
Had the same thought gorb, by changing the wording of the law, it would have to be re-submitted, same as if it was passed by one half of congress to the other.
And that is what they should start calling it, a confirmation vote, pointing out waivers should now have to apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status.
#7
The White House is fighting the "tax" label hard now. They and Justice Roberts know something. "Tax" definition presents a possible nail in the coffin. The rest of America needs to fiqure out exactly what this legislative/procedural/legality nail is.
#8
...we obviously need to put the bill back in front of Congress to be voted on again.
John Kyl noted Saturday morning on Larry Kudlow's radio show that this is precisely what they're going to do. The House will hold a new vote on Obamacare with the mandate explicitly defined as a tax. The Senate won't be able to defeat a Democratic filibuster to force a similar up or down vote but they'll offer Obamacare as an amendment or the like & force a vote that way.
#9
The House Pubs can vote on the repeal of ObamaCare. They can also ask that the word "tax" be inserted into ObamaCare in place of "penalty." There is some value in publicizing the tax issue in that House Democrats are running for re-election. They will have to try to explain all the ObamaCare tax issue(s) in their home district. New taxes are never a popular issue in elections. Harry Reid will again block a vote in the Senate (What a worthless pogue). He is probably afraid the Pubs might peel off some of the Dems who are up for re-election and he is not about to let that happen. It will be interesting to see what happens in the House vote, that is, how many House Dems go along with the Pubs.
#10
If in the next 100 years or so that true conservatives are ever in power they should use this decision to require every adult to buy a gun and take required training provided by the NRA. Or pay a fine equal to the price of the gun and training or 1% of their income. After all owning a gun is a right and not everyone can afford one.
#11
If in the next 100 years or so that true conservatives are ever in power they should use this decision to require every adult to buy a gun and take required training provided by the NRA.
[Dawn] OVER a year after it was formed, the commission set up to investigate the the late Osama bin Laden ... who is now sometimes referred to as Mister Bones... raid has yet to deliver its findings. In that time it has spoken with dozens of civilian and military officials and members of Bin Laden's family. At a December presser the head of the body said it would complete its work soon, and as far back as January a member of the commission had told this newspaper that almost all interviews and investigation had been completed, that the writing process was under way, and that it should take about a month to complete it. Since then, several new deadlines have come and gone, including in May and June of this year.
There was reason for hope when the commission was formed. Unlike the parliamentary resolution calling for it, it was tasked with establishing not just why and how the raid took place, but also with looking into Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad ... A pleasant city located only 30 convenient miles from Islamabad. The city is noted for its nice weather and good schools. It is the site of Pakistain's military academy, which was within comfortable walking distance of the residence of the late Osama bin Laden.... . Instead, the long delay is simply creating the impression that this critical national incident, like so many other controversial political events and security failures in Pakistain's history, might also remain shrouded in secrecy. The longer the report is delayed, the more tempting it will be to believe that making public the facts of the matter would be too uncomfortable for those in the civilian or military establishments. But there is also a perception among those following the commission's work that its report will likely not fix concrete responsibility or name specific individuals, especially when it comes to the security establishment. That would be a disservice to Pakistain -- and would make this body as redundant as others that have recently failed to take a stand, such as the Saleem Shahzad commission -- and make it even more unclear why there has been such a delay in releasing the findings.
May 2, 2011 was arguably Pakistain's most embarrassing and shocking military failure after the loss of East Pakistain, which brings to mind the Hamoodur Rehman commission's findings. That report was kept under wraps for nearly 30 years before it was declassified after a leak. Many other events in Pakistain's history that deserve to have been unearthed remain opaque years and decades later. Given the pace of developments in this country, it is all too easy to keep important discoveries private while the nation gets caught up in the latest political drama or security failure. With the stakes in the May 2 case being as high as they are, there is reason for concern that the same is happening with the findings of the Abbottabad commission.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
...whether the blow that left him dead
cut off his body, or his head.
[Dawn] UNLIKE the Afghan Taliban, the international community does not appear keen to engage the Pak Taliban in talks.
The emphasis in western and regional capitals is on reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban and that obviously forms part of the NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions... exit strategy from Afghanistan.
Although there is little reason so far to be optimistic about the future of engaging with the Afghan Taliban, at least weighing the different options is under way. One may be excused for concluding that the western and regional capitals consider the burden of sorting out the Pak Taliban to be Islamabad's alone.
The security, strategic, political and ideological implications of the post-NATO scenario in the region and the future of the Pak Taliban is not getting the deserved attention in Islamabad's policy circles. No rationale for this attitude is available, except for the ambiguous threat perception about the Pak Taliban, especially amid false notions of their reconcilability and the externalisation of the threat.
In that context, there is a need to identify the potential of the Pak Taliban and their strength, which may help remove any ambiguities in threat perception. The Pak Taliban's main strength lies in their ideological bond with Al Qaeda and their connection with the Islamisation discourse in Pakistain. They gain political and moral legitimacy by associating themselves with the Afghan Taliban. Their tribal and ethnic ties provide social space and acceptance among a segment of society.
At their core, the Pak Taliban espouse Deobandi sectarian teachings. This commonality allows them to function under a single umbrella, even though their political interpretation of Deobandi principles is at times not monolithic. As a group, they maintain a dogmatic stance by espousing an interpretation that is intolerant of all other Moslem sects.
This ought to isolate the Taliban from the majority of Paks who adhere to the Barelvi tradition. In reality, this was only
partially the case when the insurgency began as the Pak Taliban craftily created a narrative around their movement that found sympathy across the sectarian divide. They strove to portray their struggle as one aiming at driving out foreign 'occupation' forces from Afghanistan in the short run, and all 'infidel' forces from Moslem lands in the long run.
By doing so, they not only tied in with transnational jihadi groups in a material sense but also presented themselves as ideologically similar. More tangibly, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain (TTP) leadership, especially its first head Baitullah Mehsud, also tried to portray the outfit as an operation under Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... 's Afghan Taliban. Every cut-thoat faction that wished to join the TTP had to take an oath of commitment to the enforcement of the Sharia and of allegiance to Mullah Omar. By doing so, Baitullah hoped to gain more legitimacy and further portray his struggle as Afghanistan-focused.
Baitullah knew that existing as an overt anti-Pakistain group aiming to target the Pak state would quickly generate a consensus against his activities, and therefore he used the TTP's ideological, ethnic and sociopolitical ties with the Afghan Taliban to stress a natural cohesion between their operations and goals. This strategy was also instrumental in attracting other sectarian groups, such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi ... a 'more violent' offshoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistain. LeJ's purpose in life is to murder anyone who's not of utmost religious purity, starting with Shiites but including Brelvis, Ahmadis, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Rosicrucians, and just about anyone else you can think of. They are currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of al-Qaeda ... (LJ), and splinter groups of Kashmire-oriented outfits to work closely with the TTP.
The Pak Taliban not only had a well-defined ideological base, the geo-strategic milieu also worked in their favour.
While the Pak Taliban may not enjoy moral or political support from neighbouring states, they have strong connections with non-state actors in those territories, which allow them to thrive despite opposition from the Pak state.
The TTP has connections with smugglers and mafias in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistain, and have support from international terrorist networks, including Al Qaeda. Coupled with the Pak state's belief that the conflict in Afghanistan is upsetting the regional power balance in favour of its adversaries, and that the war is entertaining covert wars of international and regional spy agencies and players, it has distracted the counterinsurgency focus.
Another strategic advantage for the Taliban has been its dynamic leadership; evident especially in the case of killed leaders such as Nek Muhammad, Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud, as well as the current TTP head Hakeemullah Mehsud, who emerged as a 'charismatic strategist'. Hakeemullah also quickly realised the benefit in associating himself with global terrorism rings, and used it as a means to enhance his own and his outfit's stature.
Hakeemullah's appearance in 2009 in a video with a Jordanian jacket wallah, who later killed several CIA agents in the Afghan province of Khost ...which coincidentally borders North Wazoo and Kurram Agency... , put his name on the list of high-value cut-thoat targets for the US. This endorsed his stature as a worthy successor to Baitullah. Similarly, TTP's fingerprints on the failed Time Square bombing by Pak-born Faisal Shehzad in May 2010 elevated the TTP's stature as a group that could directly threaten America on its own soil.
The challenge for the Pak state is complex, with dire implications for the country's internal security. Al Qaeda, the TTP and cut-thoat groups in Punjab, Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It may be the largest city in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... and elsewhere have developed a nexus. Splinter groups of banned Death Eaters organizations or emerging groups have been involved in the recent wave of terror in mainland Pakistain.
These groups, tagged as the 'Punjabi Taliban', are the product of a narrative of destruction fostered within the country over the past three decades. Their agendas revolve around Islamisation and sectarianism. Their operational capabilities have been enhanced by Al Qaeda providing them training and logistics, and by the Pak Taliban offering safe sanctuaries.
Breaking these links between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and mainland cut-thoat groups is not an easy task, especially when the state continues to lack the vision to build a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, and the capacity for effective implementation.
Even if all of these things materialise, the central, and the most difficult, task for the state in the post-Taliban insurgency scenario will be to overhaul and rehabilitate tribal society, as well as restructure the administrative, political and economic systems in the areas where the Taliban claim to provide an alternative to the state.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
I'm probably not alone in wanting to help take back the Senate and repeal Obamacare. And I'm probably not alone in not knowing which Senate races to invest my limited time and money in.
So I'm wondering if together we could crowdsource a list of the most important races where our donations of time or money might make the difference between living with this monstrosity and rolling it back.
There are 33 Senate seats up for election this year (see list below): 21 currently held by Democrats, 11 by Republicans and 2 by Independents who lean center/left and hard/left respectively. That leaves 30 Democrats and 37 Republicans in place for the next 2-4 years.
It takes 51 Senators to repeal a tax bill and 67 to repeal other legislation. Let's assume that the SCOTUS decision means the Dems agree to treat Obamacare as a tax. Let's also assume that we might not be able to get any Dem votes for repeal. (In practice, the former may be overly optimistic and the latter overly pessimistic.)
At a minimum, then, conservatives who wish to repeal Obamacare most likely must defeat 4 Democrats, plus defeat additional Democrats in the event that one or more Republican seats are lost.
So, Rantburgers, taking into account those who are not running for re-election or who were defeated in their primaries,
a) Which Republican seats in the Senate are in danger of being lost this year?
b) Which Democrat and Independent seats are most vulnerable to being captured by the Republican candidate?
c) Where should we be focusing our money, volunteer efforts and outreach to influence friends and family?
Here are the current Senators whose seats are competed this year:
#1
"TO EVERY MAN there comes in his lifetime that special moment when he is physically tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing, unique to him and fitted to his talent; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.
Those words spoken by Winston Churchill over 70 years ago are very appropriate today.
#3
Vote for as many Republicans as are offered and pray they are honest men and women who will do their best. Not given to frequent scriptural quotes, but in desperate times like these I sometimes revert. Paul says it very well in the small book of Tessalonisense, "keep away from every brother who is idle"....
A brilliant young woman, gifted author, and I believe now former senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations by the name of Amity Shlaes puts it so very well in the book "The Forgotten Man". The essence of her 460 pages is basically the "New Deal" was a colossal failure. Unfortunately it has taken some 80 years for us to accomplish discovery.
I am strongly encouraged by young thinkers like Shales, Rubio, Jindal, West, Bachmann, Rice, and others. There is hope.
#4
I agree. However, I want to do more than just vote - I want to help influence others to vote our way too.
I have limited funds and time to donate. Which races would be the best ones to invest that limited time and money in? Which R candidate/senator is most in need of shoring up, which D is most vulnerable to a well funded, energetic campaign to replace him/her?
My hope is that you all will have insights beyond the basic campaign commentators to help focus my investment. I'm also hoping you all will decide to, and where to, invest yourselves.
#5
If you want to repeal obamacare it might be better to focus on those who will vote against it rather than merely voting republican and hoping they will vote against.
#9
It's a good question, lotp, because the senate is going to be extremely important in the next few years. Sorry I don't have any good answers. Feinstein in California is a shoo in. Hopefully some Rantburgers can identify vulnerable Democrats in other states.
#11
A link to consider for possible donations and work, click here by Hugh Hewitt. [ED note -- this is a list put together by Hugh Hewitt, whom I happen to think is the best radio interviewer out there. Plus, he does interviews with folks running for Representative and finds those that really need help]
You might want to check out his 12 picks for a starting place.
#12
Plus, they should do articles of impeachment for Roberts.
Amen! But you know the gutless worm won't do it. For so long now there's been no consequence of any kind for bad behavior. Time to hold all these people to their oath's with severe punishment for violations.
Flaying and salting sounds good.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
07/02/2012 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#13
+1 for Hewitt's list. He's done the legwork for us and donations of time or money to the candidates on his list will likely be as impactful of the outcome of the actual election as anything else we could do.
#15
I realy don't think you need to donate to Deb Fischer. She has a big lead over Kerry who has been labeled correctly as a east coast progressive which doesn't do well in Nebraska.
#16
Here is the poll data for Josh Mandel (vs. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)), courtesy of Real Clear Politics. I really hope he wins (nice Jewish boy, volunteered as a fighting Marine after getting his law degree, doing a good job as Ohio treasurer, from what I hear, and to top it off, his family are prominent in democratic Jewish circles up Cleveland way -- I have my waspish moments, I am ashamed to admit), but it remains to be seen. Ohio is strongly union-Democrat up north, as it is strongly Republican down here in the southwest.
#17
I'm wondering if together we could crowdsource a list of the most important races where our donations of time or money might make the difference between living with this monstrosity and rolling it back.
I took a look at Realclearpolitics and hear is my take:
In General - RCP's numbers are too liberal. They give polls of adults the same weight as polls of likely voters. If you ignore all polls except those of likely voters and average then you'll get pretty good results.
NV: Heller ahead by 5% R HOLD
NM: True toss up. Wilson could use your help.
....Small state. A little money could mean alot.
MT: Rehberg ahead by 6% R PICK UP
....Small state. A little money could mean alot.
ND: True toss up. Berg could use your help.
NE: Fischer ahead by 15% R PICK UP
MO: Steelman ahead by 12% R PICK UP
WI: Thompson ahead by 9% R PICK UP
IN: True toss up. Mourdock could use your help.
OH: True toss up. Mandel is R Candidate.
FL: True toss up. Very volitile. Mack R Candidate
VA: True toss up. Allen is R Candidate.
MA: True toss up. Brown is R Candidate.
So there you have it. 4 likely pick ups, 7 toss ups, 1 likely loss in Maine (to an independent).
I hope this is usefull.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/02/2012 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Yum. I do love seeing other people think out loud. Thank you, Al. :-)
#20
By the way, anyone can help out by making phone calls from home on behalf of candidates. If you have generous long distance coverage you can call across your state or for another state's candidate; otherwise you can call locally. Just a thought ....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Simple:
[Dawn] OVER a year after it was formed, the commission set up to investigate the 
[Dawn] UNLIKE the Afghan Taliban, the international community does not appear keen to engage the Pak Taliban in talks.
