From: John Cuccia 

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:29:29 -0000, "Phil Payne"
 wrote:

>At the moment it seems to be running about .308%
>
>Well, the House decision was pretty conclusive.

Imagine the reaction of Democratic Party  functionaries a couple a years
ago if you'd told them that they were going to pick up "only"
five Senate seats in 2006.

I think the Senate gains, combined with the sweep in the House, six new
governorships, and numerous statehouses are a loud and clear message to the
President and his party.

He claims to have heard it, but he claims lots of stuff that he doesn't
really mean.  At any rate, the nomination of Gates means that W is probably
going to change course and work with the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group,
whose recommendations will look something like this.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061113&s=lizza111306
Publicly, Baker has already tipped his hand about what he thinks the proper
course is. He has ruled out Democratic Senator Joe Biden's plan for three
autonomous regions, arguing that it would exacerbate divisions and move the
country closer to all-out civil war; he has also come out against an
immediate withdrawal of troops. At the same time, he has repeatedly
criticized the "stay the course" option associated with Bush.
What's left are probably two options more associated with the center-left
foreign policy establishment. The first is a modified version of the
withdrawal plan proposed by the Center for American Progress's Lawrence
Korb, which the Baker Commission refers to as "Redeploy and
Contain." Troops would be moved into neighboring countries, where they
would only be used for quick strikes against terrorists in Iraq, and the
administration would concentrate on international diplomacy, including
talks with Iran and Syria, to solve Iraq's political problems. The other
option leaked is "Stability First," a cousin of the plan proposed
by Kenneth Pollack at the Brookings Institution. It would focus the lion's
share of U.S. troops on stabilizing Baghdad and turning it into a model for
the rest of Iraq, a move that would, the thinking goes, start to change
perceptions about the occupation and smooth the path toward national
reconciliation and an oil-sharing agreement.


>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:r7a4l2130bbnv7k60uaujv2ad1k4ubafoe{at}4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:08:15 -0000, "Phil Payne"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >We just need Virginia to spit-roast the bastards.
>> >
>> >8,000 votes ahead, apparently.
>>
>> Half of one percent of the total vote is around 12k, so Allen will
>> likely challenge the results.  It will be a month before we know who
>> won:
>>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2006/story?id=2637812&page=1
>> There are no automatic recounts in Virginia, but state law allows a
>> candidate who finishes half a percentage point or less behind to
>> request one. The trailing candidate can also seek a recount if the
>> margin is greater than half a point but less than one percentage
>> point.
>>
>> However, if a recount is requested, Jean Jensen, secretary of the
>> state Board of Elections in Virginia, told ABC News that it would not
>> start until Nov. 28 because of the state's elaborate set of rules and
>> laws governing the vote certification and recount processes. The
>> losing candidate cannot ask for a recount before that date.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5