Post 7: GOP Looking for Help

I read in the LA times that there are GOP leaders that were reestablishing a campaign to help the Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. The help that they are looking for is in California. According to the article that I read, if California changes the way it processes its Electoral College votes, Republicans might have a chance of obtaining it.

“The proposed initiative would change California's method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.”

This search for help in the 2008 though has met many obstacles as the leaders of this campaign fell short of money a few months back. Now, there are many Democratic Party leaders that are accusing Republican Party donators of funding the change in order to specifically benefit Rudy Giuliani. So now there are those that are bashing this strategy and simply accusing the GOP of fraud.

“"Republicans seem to be pursuing a strategy where they will lose at the polls and, along the way, define the GOP as the party of electoral fraudster," said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide who was organizing the opposition.

It will be very interesting to see if the change is made and to see if the GOP actually benefits from California in the 2008 election. Clearly, there are those in the GOP that are worried about loosing the 2008 election and are willing to go to any measures in order to help the party’s chances in the election. I really do think that if the Republicans can get the signatures to pass their proposal, then it is fair. This is an election year and it is fair game to help out your party in any way possible. It is ridiculous to accuse leaders of the GOP of fraud just because they found a way to benefit their party.

Post 6: Turkish Troops in North Iraq

I have been following the news lately in regards to whether or not Turkey would decide to head into Northern Iraq. In order to really understand the significance of their entrance into Iraq, I need to note some background information. Basically, for a long time now, Iraqi Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq have been killing Turks along the border of Iraq. On October 7, these same rebels in Northern Iraq killed 13 Turkish soldiers. This basically is one of the deadliest attacks that the Kurds have committed and the Turks are really fed up.

This lack of tolerance for the Kurds is quite clear with Turkish lawmakers voting for the entrance with 507 to 19 in favor of entering Iraq.

I personally am having trouble with deciding with whether or not this is a “good” thing. On one hand I believe that the Turks have every right to enter Northern Iraq and stop those who have killed their country men. If I was to put myself in their shoes, I would very well want to enter Iraq and defend my country and avenge those who had been killed. They have every right to be irritated at this point. Many have been killed by the Kurds and by entering Iraq; they have a good chance of putting the killing to a halt.

On the other hand, Turkey entering Iraq could cause other issues which end up hurting the majority. According to the articles that I have read, Turkey entering Iraq destabilizes a region that military leaders have counted on as a stabilized region that can be used when situations get rough. By entering Iraq, the Turks are hurting the overall goal of winning and putting this war to an end by bringing up more conflict in regions that are generally stabilized.

So, I really am curious as to what all of you think. Do you think that the Turks are fully right in entering Iraq in order to send a message to the world that they will not be intimidated and pushed around? Do you believe that they are just causing more trouble and not helping at all? I am really torn between this issue and my opinion probably lies somewhere in between.

(Making up from being absent) Post 5: Putin and Ahmadinejad

I learned while reading the Los Angeles Times that the Russian President, Vladimir Putin has been openly showing support for the Iranian nuclear program.
According to Putin, "'Russia is the only country that has assisted Iran in implementing its peaceful nuclear program. We believe all countries have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program" (LA Times).
I find this move by Putin odd, yet not surprising since only a few days ago during a meeting with U.S. officials, Putin dismissed plans for a missile defense system. So, my point is that I really think that this is a bad move for Putin. He has already made anti-U.S. public statements in the past and by now befriending Iran, American relations can only worsen. Apparently though, Putin really doesn't care what we think.
According to Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, "'In case you haven't noticed, Russia doesn't have a lot of friends. Putin is looking for friends and strategic alliances where he can find them'" (LA Times).
The United States and Paris have strongly shown their beliefs to be that Iran should not be developing a nuclear program for the possible threat of Ahmadinejad using the program for weapons. I really just wanted to bring to attention the fact that now Iran is getting support from a country like Russia. As mentioned, Putin really has been doing his best lately to not get along with the United States. This is simply a bad decision for him to make and our relations with Russia will only worsen from this. It is upsetting to see relations worsen between countries like Iran and Russia that are willing to develop new nuclear facilities against the will of other nations like France and the United States. I believe this quote from the LA Times really sums up this issue.

“There’s a lot of symbolism involved because Putin is the only high-level leader from a significant country who is personally engaged on the nuclear issue.”

Post 4: Larry Craig Not Leaving?

Post 4

I was watching the news today and learned that Senator Craig has decided not to resign from the Senate. This whole issue is just getting more and more complicated. The Republican Idaho Senator first said that after everything that has happened, that he would resign and then the state governor decides who will take his place (from my understanding, the governor is the one that chooses a replacement). Now, he is continuing with his case that he thought that if he pleaded guilty that the whole issue would have gone away. He also has made statements that he only pleaded guilty because the charges against him were not read aloud in court. These excuses that he continues to make are ridiculous and it is wrong for him to continue to drag on this issue. Plus, I personally find these kind of statements that make his argument more illegitimate because they just sound so ridiculous. The right thing to do would be to relieve the Republican Party of his embarrassment and simply resign. I also heard on the news that he wishes to go back on the ethics committee that he was a part of in order to reestablish his innocence. By even attempting to continue to serve in the Senate, the man is dragging on this issue. The act that he was committed of and that he pleaded guilty to is disgusting and this would all go away if he just resigns. Again, why should he decide to stay around? Members of Congress on both sides have told him to resign. One reason why he might feel obligated to try and stick around is because there are those who have no problem with him staying around. More recently Craig had tried to appeal his old charges where he pleaded guilty. This plead was denied and Craig has stated that he is very disappointed with the results. No matter what the outcome is (whether he gets his original plea appealed or not) Craig is going to be looked at, very differently and he will not have nearly as much influence as he used to. I personally think an issue like this would be gone if Craig would just resign and let the media focus on topics that are more important.