SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea claimed Tuesday that it has successfully weaponized more plutonium for atomic bombs, a day after warning Washington to agree quickly to direct talks or face the prospect of a growing North Korean nuclear arsenal.
The announcement underlined Pyongyang's impatience over securing one-on-one talks with Washington, as well as the difficulties in dealing with a regime that resorts to threats and provocations to get what it wants.
Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency said North Korea had finished reprocessing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods, which experts say would provide enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least one more nuclear bomb.
The claim may not mean much, since North Korea is believed to already have enough weaponized plutonium for half a dozen nuclear weapons. But the timing — a day after Pyongyang warned it would beef up its nuclear arsenal if the U.S. refused to agree on bilateral talks — shows the communist regime is flexing its atomic might to push Washington to act, analysts said.
"North Korea is trying to show off its nuclear might as a way to pressure the United States to agree to the talks," said Kim Yong-hyun, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University.
The U.S. Embassy in Seoul said it had no comment.
North Korea has long sought direct nuclear negotiations with the U.S., believing that it is the easiest, fastest and surefire way of ensuring the survival of the totalitarian regime and win economic concessions to rebuild its moribund economy.
On Monday, North Korea's Foreign Ministry warned that "if the U.S. is not ready to sit at a negotiating table with the (North), it will go its own way," an apparent threat to bolster its nuclear arsenal.
Pyongyang has claimed it needs atomic weapons to defend itself against the U.S., which fought against the North during the Korean War of the 1950s and has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea to protect the ally.
The U.S. says it has no intention of attacking the North.
But the North said Tuesday that it remains "compelled to take measures to bolster its deterrent for self-defense to cope with the increasing nuclear threat and military provocations of the hostile forces."
KCNA reported "noticeable successes" in weaponizing plutonium.
Washington has said it is willing to meet one-on-one with the North if the talks lead to the resumption of six-nation negotiations involving China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the U.S.
However, discussions between a North Korean envoy and a U.S. official last week did not yield an agreement to hold talks, both sides said.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Monday that Sung Kim, the chief U.S. nuclear negotiator, recently had useful discussions with Ri Gun, North Korea's No. 2 official for nuclear talks. He said the U.S. is still considering North Korea's offer.
North Korea agreed in 2007 to disable its main nuclear facility in Yongbyon — a step toward its ultimate dismantlement — in exchange for much-needed energy aid and political concessions. However, Pyongyang halted that process more than a year ago and later abandoned the pact amid international censure for a series of nuclear and missile tests.
North Korean officials restarted the nuclear facilities in April in retaliation for a U.N. rebuke of a rocket launch widely criticized as an illicit test of its long-range missile technology. The country also kicked out international nuclear monitors.
The North then conducted its second-ever nuclear test in May and later launched a series of banned ballistic missile tests, prompting the U.N. Security Council to toughen sanctions against the regime.
In September, North Korea said it was in the final stage of reprocessing spent fuel rods, and claimed it had succeeded in enriching uranium, a process that would give the regime a second way to build atomic bombs.
Tuesday's announcement was designed to hurry along negotiations, analysts said.
"North Korea is pressuring the United States to decide quickly whether it wants to resolve the standoff through bilateral talks or allow the (plutonium) to be used for atomic weapons," North Korea expert Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk University said.
Take just two minutes to view the video and see if Varolo is for you ! Only serious people need sign up. It's free to join and simple to make money at. Simply watch your ads and refer others to join. However, you must have a desire and drive to make Varolo work for you as you do anything else in life! FACT: The option to succeed with Varolo is yours, if you grab it.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Neurotic? It could lead to asthma
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – People who are neurotic -- they tend to worry a lot and to have emotional ups and downs -- seem to be at increased risk of developing asthma, a new study hints. Those who suffer through a divorce or other relationship conflict are also at risk for asthma, according to the study.
Animal studies have shown that chronic stress alters hormone levels, which can inflame airways making it difficult to breathe. Researchers believe that neurotic character traits may exert similar effects. If so, then helping neurotic people to calm down or "chill out" could, theoretically, reduce their risk of asthma.
Dr. Adrian Loerbroks from Heidelberg University, Germany and colleagues explored associations between neuroticism, stressful life events and asthma by surveying a sample of 5,114 men and women aged 40 to 65 years from Heidelberg and its surroundings.
Right from the start, they noticed a link between asthma and neuroticism in men, and between asthma and unemployment in both sexes. In women, having broken off a life relationship was associated with having asthma.
Among the 4,520 individuals reported to be free of asthma at the start of the study, 63 or about 2 percent, developed asthma during a median follow-up of more than 8 years, they report in the latest issue of the journal Allergy.
According to the investigators, individuals who were highly neurotic were three times more likely to develop asthma than those who were less neurotic, and breaking off a life partnership increased the risk of asthma development by more than twofold.
The link between high neuroticism and the development of asthma was present in women and men, whereas breaking off a life relationship increased asthma risk only in women.
Unemployment and death of a close person were not significantly associated with the development of asthma, the researchers note.
The researchers call for more study on personality traits, stress and asthma.
"The physiological mechanisms by which personality, stress, and emotions might influence the development or course of asthma," they note, "are still not well known."
Animal studies have shown that chronic stress alters hormone levels, which can inflame airways making it difficult to breathe. Researchers believe that neurotic character traits may exert similar effects. If so, then helping neurotic people to calm down or "chill out" could, theoretically, reduce their risk of asthma.
Dr. Adrian Loerbroks from Heidelberg University, Germany and colleagues explored associations between neuroticism, stressful life events and asthma by surveying a sample of 5,114 men and women aged 40 to 65 years from Heidelberg and its surroundings.
Right from the start, they noticed a link between asthma and neuroticism in men, and between asthma and unemployment in both sexes. In women, having broken off a life relationship was associated with having asthma.
Among the 4,520 individuals reported to be free of asthma at the start of the study, 63 or about 2 percent, developed asthma during a median follow-up of more than 8 years, they report in the latest issue of the journal Allergy.
According to the investigators, individuals who were highly neurotic were three times more likely to develop asthma than those who were less neurotic, and breaking off a life partnership increased the risk of asthma development by more than twofold.
The link between high neuroticism and the development of asthma was present in women and men, whereas breaking off a life relationship increased asthma risk only in women.
Unemployment and death of a close person were not significantly associated with the development of asthma, the researchers note.
The researchers call for more study on personality traits, stress and asthma.
"The physiological mechanisms by which personality, stress, and emotions might influence the development or course of asthma," they note, "are still not well known."
World's fastest man adopts world fastest feline
NAIROBI, Kenya – The world's fastest man adopted the animal kingdom's fastest sprinter Monday, as Usain Bolt welcomed a new baby cheetah named Lightning Bolt into his life.
The Jamaican sprinter's sponsorship of the 3-month-old male cheetah is part of an effort to boost Kenyan conservation efforts of its famous wildlife, whose survival is threatened by trophy hunting, climate change and human encroachment.
The world record-holder in the 100 and 200 meters paid $13,700 to formally adopt the cub. He will also pay $3,000 a year to care for Lighting Bolt, who will be raised at an animal orphanage in Nairobi.
The money will go to the Kenya Wildlife Service, and some will be used to protect Kenya's endangered species, KWS director Julius Kipngetich said.
Bolt was joined on the trip by Colin Jackson, a former 110-meter hurdles Olympic champion, and Jochen Zeitz, the chief executive of athletic gear manufacturer Puma. Zietz made the visit to launch his charity's campaign to preserve ecosystems.
Jackson adopted a 2-year-old eland, the largest of the antelope species.
Bolt, who was on a four-day visit to Kenya, said Friday he was looking forward to seeing Kenya's diverse wildlife, but was scared of meeting lions.
He nearly ran away when asked Monday to pet a fully grown cheetah named Sharon for a photo shoot with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Bolt had Zeitz stand in for him, until he saw that Sharon seemed harmless.
The world record holder appeared more comfortable later while handling his baby cheetah, which was the size of a fully grown domestic cat. He cradled the fuzzy-headed cub while feeding it bottled milk as cameramen snapped away.
When asked if he was afraid of cheetahs, Bolt said: "Yes, I was, but not anymore."
Lighting Bolt is among three cubs rescued by KWS officials after their mother abandoned them in a game park.
The Jamaican sprinter's sponsorship of the 3-month-old male cheetah is part of an effort to boost Kenyan conservation efforts of its famous wildlife, whose survival is threatened by trophy hunting, climate change and human encroachment.
The world record-holder in the 100 and 200 meters paid $13,700 to formally adopt the cub. He will also pay $3,000 a year to care for Lighting Bolt, who will be raised at an animal orphanage in Nairobi.
The money will go to the Kenya Wildlife Service, and some will be used to protect Kenya's endangered species, KWS director Julius Kipngetich said.
Bolt was joined on the trip by Colin Jackson, a former 110-meter hurdles Olympic champion, and Jochen Zeitz, the chief executive of athletic gear manufacturer Puma. Zietz made the visit to launch his charity's campaign to preserve ecosystems.
Jackson adopted a 2-year-old eland, the largest of the antelope species.
Bolt, who was on a four-day visit to Kenya, said Friday he was looking forward to seeing Kenya's diverse wildlife, but was scared of meeting lions.
He nearly ran away when asked Monday to pet a fully grown cheetah named Sharon for a photo shoot with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Bolt had Zeitz stand in for him, until he saw that Sharon seemed harmless.
The world record holder appeared more comfortable later while handling his baby cheetah, which was the size of a fully grown domestic cat. He cradled the fuzzy-headed cub while feeding it bottled milk as cameramen snapped away.
When asked if he was afraid of cheetahs, Bolt said: "Yes, I was, but not anymore."
Lighting Bolt is among three cubs rescued by KWS officials after their mother abandoned them in a game park.
ap Obama: Hiring last to come as economy rebounds
"We just are not where we need to be yet," Obama said as he met with a panel of economic advisers. "We've got a long way to go."
Unemployment hit a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September. The next monthly reports come out Friday and could show it topping 10 percent.
Still, the economy is growing again. Reports out Monday show improvement in manufacturing, construction and contracts to buy homes.
Obama said that building a sustainable economy and getting people back to work remain his "administration's overriding focus." Obama helped push through a $787 billion economic stimulus package earlier this year, and he says the administration, Congress and the private sector must take more bold steps to help.
Obama spoke as he met with his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The session was open to reporters and streamed live on the White House Web site.
Obama added that the U.S. must break out of a "debilitating gridlock on trade policy," by ending the false choice between a wide-open, freewheeling import policy or fearful, protectionist approach to trade. He called for a more balanced policy of letting the world know America will compete and trade fairly.
Unemployment hit a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September. The next monthly reports come out Friday and could show it topping 10 percent.
Still, the economy is growing again. Reports out Monday show improvement in manufacturing, construction and contracts to buy homes.
Obama said that building a sustainable economy and getting people back to work remain his "administration's overriding focus." Obama helped push through a $787 billion economic stimulus package earlier this year, and he says the administration, Congress and the private sector must take more bold steps to help.
Obama spoke as he met with his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The session was open to reporters and streamed live on the White House Web site.
Obama added that the U.S. must break out of a "debilitating gridlock on trade policy," by ending the false choice between a wide-open, freewheeling import policy or fearful, protectionist approach to trade. He called for a more balanced policy of letting the world know America will compete and trade fairly.
Health Care Alternatives
WASHINGTON — Small businesses would have an easier time banding together to offer insurance to employees. Consumers could cross state lines to buy coverage. There'd be no big government expansion.
Those are among the ideas that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to push later this week, as lawmakers expect to begin debating how to overhaul the nation's health care system.
One longtime favorite Republican proposal apparently will be absent: The Republican plan will contain no tax incentives for consumers who buy insurance individually, said House Minority Leader John Boehner , R- Ohio .
"Cost," he said, was the reason for the omission.
Chances are that little or none of the Republican plan will become law, since the House has 177 Republicans and 256 Democrats and Democrats control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats.
The Republican strategy has two missions: Illustrate what the party stands for, and try to demonize and defeat Democratic initiatives.
Some analysts questioned whether the effort would work.
"It's hard to see how Americans worried about the cost of insurance or who goes without coverage would see this as a viable alternative to the Democratic plan. I guess its appeal is to the middle class, who may see it as a way of bargaining down costs," said Steven Smith , the director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis .
House Democrats have proposed a 1,990-page bill that includes a government-run insurance plan, or "public option," that would compete with private insurers. Savings in Medicare and a tax on the wealthy largely would pay for the legislation, which has been estimated to cost a net $894 billion over 10 years. The tax surcharge would apply to adjusted gross incomes of more than $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for joint filers.
Debate on that plan could begin late this week, with final votes late this week or early next week. The Republican plan would be offered as an alternative.
House Republicans plan a series of efforts, including a 12-hour online town hall meeting beginning Thursday afternoon, to call attention to what they see as problems with the Democrats' plan.
Their message: "This would be a government takeover of health care in this country," House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana said.
In the Senate , Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev. , has proposed a public option that would permit states to "opt out" of the plan. He's encountered serious resistance from party centrists, and no Senate debate is expected this week.
Many of the Republican ideas are expected to surface in the Senate , where the rules make it easier to amend legislation.
In the House, Republican leaders began mounting an offensive last week built around four key principles, as Boehner outlined Monday:
— Giving states more flexibility to "create their own innovative reforms."
Republicans wouldn't bar insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, as Democratic legislation would, but they'd provide financial incentives for the private marketplace to create high-risk pools.
House Republican leaders fear that putting sicker consumers in with lesser risks could make coverage more expensive for the better risks. By encouraging high-risk pools, people with long medical histories would still be able to get coverage.
— Revamping medical malpractice laws to make it harder to bring what Boehner called "junk lawsuits." Republicans have long sought changes in medical malpractice laws, but Democrats traditionally have blocked them and show no inclination to bend this time.
— Permitting families and businesses to buy health insurance across state lines.
— Making it easier for employers, individuals and small businesses to set up risk pools.
Under one scenario, a small business that operates in different states could draw customers — and thus pool risks — from all states where it conducts business. Currently, such pools are subject to the rules and regulations of each state, which critics see as burdensome.
The Republican effort faces huge hurdles. There isn't yet a firm estimate of how much the entire plan would cost, nor is there a Congressional Budget Office estimate of how many people the Republican provisions would cover.
ON THE WEB
Those are among the ideas that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to push later this week, as lawmakers expect to begin debating how to overhaul the nation's health care system.
One longtime favorite Republican proposal apparently will be absent: The Republican plan will contain no tax incentives for consumers who buy insurance individually, said House Minority Leader John Boehner , R- Ohio .
"Cost," he said, was the reason for the omission.
Chances are that little or none of the Republican plan will become law, since the House has 177 Republicans and 256 Democrats and Democrats control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats.
The Republican strategy has two missions: Illustrate what the party stands for, and try to demonize and defeat Democratic initiatives.
Some analysts questioned whether the effort would work.
"It's hard to see how Americans worried about the cost of insurance or who goes without coverage would see this as a viable alternative to the Democratic plan. I guess its appeal is to the middle class, who may see it as a way of bargaining down costs," said Steven Smith , the director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis .
House Democrats have proposed a 1,990-page bill that includes a government-run insurance plan, or "public option," that would compete with private insurers. Savings in Medicare and a tax on the wealthy largely would pay for the legislation, which has been estimated to cost a net $894 billion over 10 years. The tax surcharge would apply to adjusted gross incomes of more than $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for joint filers.
Debate on that plan could begin late this week, with final votes late this week or early next week. The Republican plan would be offered as an alternative.
House Republicans plan a series of efforts, including a 12-hour online town hall meeting beginning Thursday afternoon, to call attention to what they see as problems with the Democrats' plan.
Their message: "This would be a government takeover of health care in this country," House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana said.
In the Senate , Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev. , has proposed a public option that would permit states to "opt out" of the plan. He's encountered serious resistance from party centrists, and no Senate debate is expected this week.
Many of the Republican ideas are expected to surface in the Senate , where the rules make it easier to amend legislation.
In the House, Republican leaders began mounting an offensive last week built around four key principles, as Boehner outlined Monday:
— Giving states more flexibility to "create their own innovative reforms."
Republicans wouldn't bar insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, as Democratic legislation would, but they'd provide financial incentives for the private marketplace to create high-risk pools.
House Republican leaders fear that putting sicker consumers in with lesser risks could make coverage more expensive for the better risks. By encouraging high-risk pools, people with long medical histories would still be able to get coverage.
— Revamping medical malpractice laws to make it harder to bring what Boehner called "junk lawsuits." Republicans have long sought changes in medical malpractice laws, but Democrats traditionally have blocked them and show no inclination to bend this time.
— Permitting families and businesses to buy health insurance across state lines.
— Making it easier for employers, individuals and small businesses to set up risk pools.
Under one scenario, a small business that operates in different states could draw customers — and thus pool risks — from all states where it conducts business. Currently, such pools are subject to the rules and regulations of each state, which critics see as burdensome.
The Republican effort faces huge hurdles. There isn't yet a firm estimate of how much the entire plan would cost, nor is there a Congressional Budget Office estimate of how many people the Republican provisions would cover.
ON THE WEB
GOP victory wont help the party..
WASHINGTON – For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won't erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.
It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — abandoning the party.
So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.
The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.
In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans — the war within their base.
Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.
One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.
Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama's standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.
Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together. George W. Bush, the president many Republicans came to see as an election-day albatross, is gone, but the party troubles born under him linger.
Republican leaders in Washington certainly are mindful of the challenges.
"It's going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests," House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there's "a political rebellion" taking place in the country.
Others are more blunt.
"Right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message," conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. "The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama."
A debate is waging over whether that's enough — or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America — and ended up taking control of Congress.
Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues — which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times — and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.
Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and — in a slap at the GOP — endorsing Democrat Bill Owens.
The White House is suggesting that those developments show that hard-liners are taking over the GOP and the trend will affect the 2010 elections. Predicted presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday: "This is a model for what you'll see throughout the country."
Indeed, there are similar tensions in Senate primaries in Florida, California and elsewhere, where conservatives are challenging establishment-backed candidates.
Adding to the party's woes: No one — or rather everyone — is speaking for the GOP.
Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush's departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.
The 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, has all but disappeared from the Republican power structure. His running mate, Palin, refuses to disappear — much to the delight of tabloids and to the chagrin of elder party statesmen. And one of the most unpopular politicians in recent times, former Vice President Dick Cheney, keeps popping up to attack Obama — a reminder of the country's and the party's problems under Bush.
What's more, the GOP's ranks are thinning: Only 32 percent of respondents called themselves Republicans in a recent AP-GfK survey compared with 43 percent who called themselves Democrats.
Also, the party's power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else — including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.
And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats' favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation's fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry — so-called "green jobs" — is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.
Still, Republicans sense opportunity — at least in the short term.
The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.
Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren't reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama's expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn't sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.
All that raises this question: Can the GOP take advantage of such conditions — or are the problems the party faces too great? Stay tuned to 2010 for the answer.
It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — abandoning the party.
So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.
The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.
In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans — the war within their base.
Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.
One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.
Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama's standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.
Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together. George W. Bush, the president many Republicans came to see as an election-day albatross, is gone, but the party troubles born under him linger.
Republican leaders in Washington certainly are mindful of the challenges.
"It's going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests," House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there's "a political rebellion" taking place in the country.
Others are more blunt.
"Right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message," conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. "The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama."
A debate is waging over whether that's enough — or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America — and ended up taking control of Congress.
Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues — which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times — and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.
Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and — in a slap at the GOP — endorsing Democrat Bill Owens.
The White House is suggesting that those developments show that hard-liners are taking over the GOP and the trend will affect the 2010 elections. Predicted presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday: "This is a model for what you'll see throughout the country."
Indeed, there are similar tensions in Senate primaries in Florida, California and elsewhere, where conservatives are challenging establishment-backed candidates.
Adding to the party's woes: No one — or rather everyone — is speaking for the GOP.
Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush's departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.
The 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, has all but disappeared from the Republican power structure. His running mate, Palin, refuses to disappear — much to the delight of tabloids and to the chagrin of elder party statesmen. And one of the most unpopular politicians in recent times, former Vice President Dick Cheney, keeps popping up to attack Obama — a reminder of the country's and the party's problems under Bush.
What's more, the GOP's ranks are thinning: Only 32 percent of respondents called themselves Republicans in a recent AP-GfK survey compared with 43 percent who called themselves Democrats.
Also, the party's power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else — including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.
And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats' favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation's fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry — so-called "green jobs" — is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.
Still, Republicans sense opportunity — at least in the short term.
The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.
Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren't reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama's expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn't sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.
All that raises this question: Can the GOP take advantage of such conditions — or are the problems the party faces too great? Stay tuned to 2010 for the answer.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Recession - wasnt theirs to give away!
Some people, like the news and the economic specialist out there say the recession is over. That it ended sometime over the summer.
Of coarse all the people i have seen publicly speak on this matter, can not attest to loosing their jobs due to the economic crises. Nor could they say how it has effected them in any way.
Funny because i still know several families personally and from first hand experience that we are far from being out of any recession.
There are plenty, (about 11 million families) out of work. We who work for every red cent are still struggling to pay our bills. We are all trying desperately to hold onto what we have worked so hard for for so long.
We, the American people who choose to fight tooth and nail not to give up, barely making poverty line wages, do not qualify for Food Stamps, Medicaid or even Chips.
So where does the madness end. Are we truly giving away money to other countries, people who hate us? Is it possible that while we are trying to sooth other countries, and people from despising us, that we have neglected our home front issues and forsaking our own people?
People who are hungry, tired, broke, and just plain scared. How do we take back our governmaent and make our government once again work for the people?
Do we tell the congress, no more raises for you people who sit in office. No more making decissions for us.
We want raises, and we want health care. And we want every last dime of our money you gave to those over stuffed banks and car companies back now.
We will not pay for their mistakes, we will not let our kids pay for your over reaction to their mistakes.
It did not help any of the companies that you gave our money too.
So get it back and apologize to America now for your illogical thinking congress.
The banks are still in a disastrous state. The car companies are still going under.
The gas prices still suck. Unemployment rates are still unacceptable,to high! People are still drowning!!
The ONLY people who profited from all the Bailout money are all the fat sloppin big wig pigs who begged for our money!
So, to try to ease the burden, follow me i will follow you! !
Of coarse all the people i have seen publicly speak on this matter, can not attest to loosing their jobs due to the economic crises. Nor could they say how it has effected them in any way.
Funny because i still know several families personally and from first hand experience that we are far from being out of any recession.
There are plenty, (about 11 million families) out of work. We who work for every red cent are still struggling to pay our bills. We are all trying desperately to hold onto what we have worked so hard for for so long.
We, the American people who choose to fight tooth and nail not to give up, barely making poverty line wages, do not qualify for Food Stamps, Medicaid or even Chips.
So where does the madness end. Are we truly giving away money to other countries, people who hate us? Is it possible that while we are trying to sooth other countries, and people from despising us, that we have neglected our home front issues and forsaking our own people?
People who are hungry, tired, broke, and just plain scared. How do we take back our governmaent and make our government once again work for the people?
Do we tell the congress, no more raises for you people who sit in office. No more making decissions for us.
We want raises, and we want health care. And we want every last dime of our money you gave to those over stuffed banks and car companies back now.
We will not pay for their mistakes, we will not let our kids pay for your over reaction to their mistakes.
It did not help any of the companies that you gave our money too.
So get it back and apologize to America now for your illogical thinking congress.
The banks are still in a disastrous state. The car companies are still going under.
The gas prices still suck. Unemployment rates are still unacceptable,to high! People are still drowning!!
The ONLY people who profited from all the Bailout money are all the fat sloppin big wig pigs who begged for our money!
So, to try to ease the burden, follow me i will follow you! !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)