It’s not likely, but a huge embarrassment to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama could be shaping up in the 23rd Congressional District of New York.
Doug Hoffman, the Conservative party candidate, conceded the race on election night when he was told that, with 93 percent of the vote counted, he was 5,300 votes behind and had barely carried his stronghold of Oswego County.
In fact he carried Oswego by 1,748 votes and, thanks to the recanvass, is now only 3,000 votes behind the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. On election night, he was behind Owens by 300 votes in Jefferson County. He now leads there by over 400.
So it boils down to the absentee ballots that are yet to be counted. There were about 10,000 absentee ballots sent out. If half of them were returned — not an uncommon percentage — Hoffman would have to win over 80 percent of them to overturn Owens’s victory. Very unlikely, but not impossible.
If that were to happen, the political apparatchiks in the White House, who have been trying desperately to change the subject by saying that this election was the true test of national politics, not the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, would have egg all over their faces. Worse, Nancy Pelosi would look like she played dirty by swearing in Bill Owns when there was no certificate of election from New York State. Each house is ”the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members,” but it is unusual not to wait for certification of the election by state election authorities. Pelosi didn’t in this case (or in the undisputed special House race in California), because she was desperate to have the two votes for the PelosiCare bill.
I haven’t the faintest idea if the vote of an improperly seated congressman counts (and it wouldn’t reverse the outcome in any case), but if Bill Owens was indeed improperly seated, it will be truly delicious.
I can believe that Pyongyang is proliferating. But I simply do not believe that they are actually ending their nuclear program. That I believe, and I hope I am incorrect, is wishful thinking on the part of Washington. Finally, if they are proliferating, how is the material getting, say, to Syria? By sea? Or by air? Over which countries? Stopping where?
Doesn’t make much sense to take out Syria’s would be nuclear program, but leave the Iranians their Manhattan Project.
Same goes with our policy towards Saddam and Iraq. Doesn’t make much sense to take him down, but leave the Iranian regime very much standing.
This was part of the point I was driving home on a thread the other day.
We’re in the midst of strategic incoherence.
If you are concerned about terror sponsors getting their hands on nukes, then go after the Iranians.
If you are worried about the consequences of muslim states having nukes, as you should be, then demand that Pakistan fork over A. Q. Khan and their nuclear arsenal.
BE CONSISTENT in your foreign policy, and insist upon such consistency in client states such as Israel.
Be serious, be straightforward, and if necessary, be utterly ruthless.
But strip them of those bombs they have, and whatever WMD they may have as well.
There will be no chance at victory absent such consistency.
Dan’s comments are typical of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd.
Since we didn’t invade every single state supporter of international terrorism, then we shouldn’t have invaded any one.
Forget about why it might make more strategic sense to stop Syria when they are younger in their own nuclear efforts than Iran; forget about why Iraq made sense as opposed to invading Pakistan or N. Korea.
If we don’t invade Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and sundry other states all at once, then we are inconsistent in our foreign policy.
Likewise, we need to bomb all of the same entities simultaneously or we just need to allow them to proceed unheeded.
Brilliant.
When Baby Assad is gone, you’ll miss him.
Ray G.
It’s as Benjamin Netanyahu said: If we allow the Iranians to complete their nuclear project, we’ll not just lose Iraq, we’ll lose Lebanon, we’ll lose Jordan, we’ll lose Egypt, we’ll lose Kuwait, we’ll lose Saudi Arabia, at the very least, we’ll be driven from the region. He concluded, if the Iranians get the bomb, the Persian Gulf will become just that, a “Persian” Gulf.
Iran is the FOREMOST sponsor of muslim mayhem.
Syria would never have found the nerve for so bold a play against the Israelis, let alone against the United States and the West, were it not for their being backstopped by the Iranians. The Syrians have made a very cold calculation. They’ve bet it all on the Iranians being the winner when all is said and done.
And I think they made the right choice.
If Bush intended to do anything serious about the Iranians, other than whine and cajole at the UN that is, he wouldn’t have bothered irritating the hell out of the Russians by deploying surface to air missile batteries in Southeastern Europe.
EVERYTHING is linked to the Iranians.
Gordon
I beleive he US has detailed plans now to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities: it may take a few weeks but no more.
I suspect this will happen during the Bush term.
Given this, it is difficult to comprehend the Iranians. One can only assume they are MAD.
Bob
Dan,
What part of your post do you think President Bush and our government are not aware of?
The Democrats actually harbor the quixotic notion that we can slowly but surely divorce ourselves from Israel, and then leave the region altogether, figuratively and literally. They believe the consequences – whatever they may be – will not adversely affect us.
So we know why the Democrats are not concerned.
But why do you suppose that President Bush has not attacked Iran? Pakistan? Et al? And please, no conspiracy theories. . . take those to the left wing blogosphere where they are appreciated.
bob h and fellow posters, for better or worse, Iran is where great-power rivalry will play itself out. Syria and Iraq are just the opening acts.
Syria may indeed be an opening act, but it makes since for Israel to destroy the newly form Syrian sites since the Iranian sites are supposed to be heavily fortified. It also makes since to stop Syria because Syria is actively and openly rearming Hizbullah, which is a current issue for Israel.
While it’s likely “Iran is the FOREMOST sponsor of muslim mayhem,” our so-called friend, Saudi Arabia, home base for the majority of 9-11 murderers and financials backers of all sorts of subversive worldwide mayhem, must certainly come in second to the Iranians for fomenting Islamism and anti-western hatred (though they do it with a smiley face pasted on, greasing the palms of Western lobbyists and apologists. Wait. Same thing.).
If we bomb Iran, as is looking increasingly likely, to what degree are we then creating a power vacuum for the SAUDIS to fill, repeating once again our dreadful tendency to look only one move ahead, laying the groundwork for own next, worse crisis?
When and how will this cycle end?
It looks like more and more of us, or more and more of THEM, are going to have to die, it’s scary to say.
It’s going to get very ugly.
Meantime, one noble effort is a true commitment to terror-free oil. Let’s at least kick them in their economic shins while we’re mulling more decisive moves.
RR