How the 2008 Presidential Election process takes place - Primaries and Caucuses, Results

Many friends and family are confused as to exactly how candidates are selected for party nomination, and how they end up representing a major political party in the general election. Well, let me break it down for you in simple terms.

The process kicks off (for the two major political parties in the US) with candidates battling for their parties nomination by competing in each state's primary election or caucus. After a nominee is selected, they move on to the general election, where our President is chosen.

Let us start with dates for caucuses and primaries:

Here is a slick calender - that details state by state primaries and caucuses

Find another similar handy PDF here

Next, if you haven't registered to vote do so
Here it is. with the State by state voter registration guide.

Then, let us proceed to what you really came for, more info on the primary election and caucus process.

Here is info on the general election process.

The following are two places tracking the Caucus and Primaries results.
This is the best one from CNN. Just scroll down, and to the left is a map of the US where you can select the state.

Here is another place that tracks results of the primaries and caucuses. Nothing has been published here yet.

In addition, here is Iowa for a live example of recent caucuses.

Here is the Iowa Caucus explained, as it is a bit different than all the rest of the caucuses.

Here is a Q&A on caucuses.

Here is Iowa caucus results

Wyoming Results too can be found HERE

I hope this helps.

Iowa and New Hampshire 2008 Presidential Polls

Keep in mind when looking at these polls, they are merely based off of past voters being polled, hence, any newcomers will not be polled. So, say for example - you have switched parties and or had never voted before, or don't own a landline - their vote may have been missed - skewing results. Thus, a sample error of + or - %5 might not be truly accurate, some could argue it may be as high as %10-20. However, it is what it is and this is what we have:

Check out Iowa caucus results here.

Iowa's primary vote for both major parties will be on Jan 3.,2008.

New Hampshire results here


New Hampshire's primary vote for both major parties will be on Jan 8.,2008.

"Tancredo expected to drop out of presidential race"

See the story here.

Update: He did drop out, see that story here

Top 10 reasons why you shouldn't look to the Mainstream Media for your presidential candidate analysis

There are various reasons why you shouldn't look to the Mainstream Media (MSM) for your presidential candidate analysis - here are my top 10;

1. Their objectives are biased and not the same as your's and mine. Billionaires that own the television/radio companies have great influence over their coverage, and will force their choice on you and me, and smear or spin in a negative light -anyone they disagree with or that disagrees with them. And, this is their right.

2. Lesser known candidates will hardly have a chance to see the light of day, because nobody will advertise to small audiences. Major advertisers want major markets, not numerous different and immeasurable slices of audiences.

3. You become dependent on a few news sources, and rarely become engaged in discussion or critical thinking. If we have everyone else doing the analysis, how could we know that they are feeding us BS? Do you trust everything everyone says?

4. Quality journalism is scarce. Anymore, mainstream news is prepackaged, bottled, and shipped out over the airwaves, without any investigation - merely regurgitation and manipulation by each source.

5. They generalize and forcefully classify us into a few groups of their choosing. They make us conform to their needs.

6. Ignorance is not bliss for the rest of us. We must compensate for the damage the media does to the less knowledgeable folk by taking hours to explain the truth as we see it.

7. They focus on trivial, wedge issues, rather than the most important factors to our country’s prosperity and sovereignty.

8. They focus too much on polls that are based upon previous voters. Technology has changed, polling techniques have not. With less landlines and different demographics each election – polls are merely tiny indicators – not the bottom line they make them out to be.

9. They focus too much on personal lives, rather than what the candidate will do and how they stand on various issues. Of course, to a certain extent – personal lives could be relevant – if say, the candidate committed a crime – but most people don’t care what Mike Huckabee’s son did in boy scouts – I sure the hell don’t and I dislike the Huckster the same.

10. They focus on tiny abstract pieces, not the entire picture.


Thanks for taking the time to read this, and please offer your reasons and explain these views to your friends and family – so “We the People” can become more informed and truly make the difference that the MSM has failed at.

Select a Candidate Quiz

This quiz seemed to nail my choice, but take it with a grain of salt. Try it here


Here is another one, rather cool I must say.

Cool Ron Paul art

I have made it quite apparent I am voting for Ron Paul, however, I will not bad mouth any other candidate. Having said that, here is a cool pic from Ron's daughter (I hope).







Here is the source

2008 Fundraising, Ron Paul Q4 currently topping 18.25 Million

To put into perspective what Ron Paul's fundraisers did yesterday, take a look at the Q3 numbers and prior for all candidates running.

Ron Paul raking in that loot, over 6 Million in one day sets new record

Many are convinced that Ron Paul will not gain the Republican nomination under any circumstances, regardless his apparent abilities to outraise all candidates - either side. Only time will tell, but what he is doing is impressive to say the least.

Ron Paul hauls in over 6 Million bucks in one day, on pace to out raise all candidates for 4th QTR fundraising.

Straw Poll Results, Latest Fundraising Status

Here it is for Democrats


And for Republicans


Don't forget to check out the latest fundraising status for both parties HERE

We'll see soon enough if these things mean much.

National Polling Reports

Here are the most recent polls from The Polling Report

Republicans

Democrats

The General Election

2008 Non Partisan Candidate Comparisons

On WAR in Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East (Foreign Policy):
McCain "Supports Bush's surge, in fact, calls for more additional troops than Bush recommends. Has been quoted as saying he is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. "The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops." Read more here.


Obama,as a state senator, he spoke out against Iraq war, before the war started. Has long favored a "phased withdrawal." "Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission." -Barack Obama, Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007. Read more here.

On Civil liberties:
McCain voted for the PATRIOT act and it's revisions. "He generally opposes the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Obama voted against and later for bills to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. "Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe." --February 16, 2006 Source. Obama supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2005-2006. "Senator Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strength chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness." -Campaign site

Social Security:
McCain would allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in private accounts which they manage themselves. McCain's campaign site did not have a subject devoted to social security.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005. "We… have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever. Social Security is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country… Coming together to meet this challenge won't be easy… It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washington and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President." — Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007. Read more here.


Stem cell research:
Both candidates support federally funded stem cell research.

Same-sex marriage:
McCain has mixed responses from favoring to opposing same sex marriage, seemingly in favor of legal agreements but not marriage or unions. Obama favors civil unions, but opposes same sex marriage.

Free Trade:
McCain in favor, Obama mixed voting record.


Abortion:
MCain mostly pro-life, except in some circumstances. Obama is pro-choice.


Capital punishment:
McCain supports the death penalty, Obama does as well - but questions the legal system.


Medical Marijuana:
McCain opposes legalization, Obama in favor if proved useful in treatment.

Gun control:
McCain is mixed with wanting moderate gun control. "John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime." Find more about McCain's stance here. Obama wants strict gun control.



Health care:
McCain opposes universal health care, rather he calls for reform, Obama supports it.


Immigration:
McCain and Obama support amnesty/permanent legalization for illegal aliens and temporary legalization for illegal aiens as guestworkers Source

Education:
MCCain Supports vouchers, Obama opposes them.



Here is basic questionnaire to help you pick if you haven't already, from 2decide.com, rather basic, but it gets the job done.

HERE is a really cool questionnaire where you can select a candidate and whatever issue you want to see their views on.

Frickin Politickin - Universal Health Coverage, Socialized medicine.. etc - Sicko from Michael Moore

I watched "Sicko" the other night from Michael Moore.

Let me start off with this - I think I am very open minded, but conservative at the same time. I am registered (R)etard? Hell what does conservative or liberal mean anymore? I completely against the current administration and their tactics.

Having said that, let me get down to it; Michael Moore makes some fascinating points about the state of healthcare in the United States, however one sided it may be. There is no question in my mind, that money would be better spent on healthcare than for this war.

However, that does not mean I agree at all with this concept of socialized medicine.

There are some fascinating points that support both sides, let me quickly summarize them in one sentence: The goverment can take your money and redistribute it to pay for "Healthcare for everyone" or they can let you keep your money to pay for it yourself.

Sure it looks all fine and dandy when Mr. Moore boats on over to Cuba and the sickly American hero's from 9/11 get the care they couldn't afford here. The premise of the movie is that all of these other "less fortunate, less rich" countries can pay for universal healthcare, so why can't we? It is a good question, and tugs at your heart to spare poor people the opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise. To me, it doesn't matter if the government manages it or we do, the system is messed up- and we will pay for it one way or another.

The real problem with America's healthcare system (or lack there of)is not with weather or not the government should get involved in our personal lives and pocketbooks once again to manage something for us we could on our own, rather with HMO's.

That is not to say that poor people don't need help, but to say you can take someone's money and give it to someone else is stealing. I am not rich by any means, and I have a few kids to care for myself. But I will never be a proponent of redistributing wealth, it is stealing. The fact is, if the governemnt quit it's nanny state tactics, people may learn to take care of themselves and their fellow neighbors. The majority of help for poor already comes from Private organizations and charities, I believe this would better help those poor folks and innocent children.

Let me re-focus, get back to the root of the American heathcare debacle. Allow me to give you an analogy on HMO's, the real problem with our healthcare system; In the past few years there has been a boom of "recruiters" in the job market. Instead of people going out and doing their own research and finding jobs, they have began to rely on recruiters. The information, for the most part, that recruiters use is already free and accessible to the general public. However, the general public is too damn lazy to look for themselves, and so they pay a fee to the recruiter, in the form of a referral fee paid by the hiring company. Yep, people are so damn lazy they have other peopl now "manage" their job search. Well, this is exactly what an HMO is, a flippin middleman, that adds little value but takes a bunch of money. They are profit driven companies that are doing some sort of service that we don't need. It used to be, when our grandparents we're growing up, there was no such things as an HMO, and yep - you guessed it - healthcare was much less costly. Why is it so much more costly? Well there are few things besides the "administartion costs" that cause this. Namely, requirements on doctors to perform unnecessary test to prevent lawsuit. Not to mention, there is no shopping for service at all. Patients go to any doctor, not knowing what they charge and the HMO simply absorbs this cost and passes it on to us. We, the general public, have become entirely too complacent with allowing other people to manage our lives.

When will "We the people" decide to step up and take care of oursleves, our families, and the poor. I surely don't need the government to take my money to give to charity, I can damn well do that on mine own. Not to mention, I can give to whom I think is the best organization, and decide - not the Federal governemnt - that works and lives hundreds and miles away what is the best way to spend my charitable monies for my community.When people start taking responsiblity for themselves, and stop the government from running everything, we will be much better off.

/End rant

Ron Paul petition to mass media reaches 1467 signatures, mass media has already gotten the message

Sign it here if you havn't

2008 Rat Race for President

I realize I have not posted in a while, I am busy getting a business started in my spare time now - here is the link post again so you can quickly find info about all of the candidates for President. Good luck and don't forget, just because I don't have the time to keep this blog up to date - continue your search, Baby Jake is counting on you.

Republicans

Democrats

Third party and independent nominees, 2008 presidential candidates

My Ron Paul petition of Real People about to top 500 signatures

Who'da thunk it? I am happy to announce my petition is about to top the 500 signature mark in just about a weeks time. Thanks to all other sites promoting this petition. Once we reach 10,000 signatures we need to send this to all of the national media channels. Let's take our word and have it heard!

2008 candidate comparison, Presidential Race

On WAR in Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East (Foreign Policy):
McCain "Supports Bush's surge, in fact, calls for more additional troops than Bush recommends. Has been quoted as saying he is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. "The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops." Read more here.


Obama,as a state senator, he spoke out against Iraq war, before the war started. Has long favored a "phased withdrawal." "Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission." -Barack Obama, Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007. Read more here.

On Civil liberties:
McCain voted for the PATRIOT act and it's revisions. "He generally opposes the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Obama voted against and later for bills to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. "Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe." --February 16, 2006 Source. Obama supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2005-2006. "Senator Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strength chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness." -Campaign site

Social Security:
McCain would allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in private accounts which they manage themselves. McCain's campaign site did not have a subject devoted to social security.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005. "We… have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever. Social Security is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country… Coming together to meet this challenge won't be easy… It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washington and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President." — Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007. Read more here.


Stem cell research:
Both candidates support federally funded stem cell research.

Same-sex marriage:
McCain has mixed responses from favoring to opposing same sex marriage, seemingly in favor of legal agreements but not marriage or unions. Obama favors civil unions, but opposes same sex marriage.

Free Trade:
McCain in favor, Obama mixed voting record.


Abortion:
MCain mostly pro-life, except in some circumstances. Obama is pro-choice.


Capital punishment:
McCain supports the death penalty, Obama does as well - but questions the legal system.


Medical Marijuana:
McCain opposes legalization, Obama in favor if proved useful in treatment.

Gun control:
McCain is mixed with wanting moderate gun control. "John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime." Find more about McCain's stance here. Obama wants strict gun control.



Health care:
McCain opposes universal health care, rather he calls for reform, Obama supports it.


Immigration:
McCain and Obama support amnesty/permanent legalization for illegal aliens and temporary legalization for illegal aiens as guestworkers Source

Education:
MCCain Supports vouchers, Obama opposes them.



Here is basic questionnaire to help you pick if you haven't already, from 2decide.com, rather basic, but it gets the job done.

HERE is a really cool questionnaire where you can select a candidate and whatever issue you want to see their views on.

Cool YouTube video's from James Kotecki on 2008 presidential candidates

interviews with 2008 presidential candidates - Ron Paul,John Edwards, Mike Huckabee,Mike Gravel, Kucinich.

The logic of suicide terrorism - The American Conservative

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism


Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world’s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration’s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.



The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of Iraq to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?

RP: Osama bin Laden’s speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.

In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States—that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.

TAC: The fact that we had troops stationed on the Arabian Peninsula was not a very live issue in American debate at all. How many Saudis and other people in the Gulf were conscious of it?

RP: We would like to think that if we could keep a low profile with our troops that it would be okay to station them in foreign countries. The truth is, we did keep a fairly low profile. We did try to keep them away from Saudi society in general, but the key issue with American troops is their actual combat power. Tens of thousands of American combat troops, married with air power, is a tremendously powerful tool.

Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.

TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?

RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

TAC: So your assessment is that there are more suicide terrorists or potential suicide terrorists today than there were in March 2003?

RP: I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.

There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.

TAC: Do we know who is committing suicide terrorism in Iraq? Are they primarily Iraqis or walk-ins from other countries in the region?

RP: Our best information at the moment is that the Iraqi suicide terrorists are coming from two groups—Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis—the two populations most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of large American combat troops on the Arabian Peninsula. This is perfectly consistent with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.

TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.

TAC: What would constitute a victory in the War on Terror or at least an improvement in the American situation?

RP: For us, victory means not sacrificing any of our vital interests while also not having Americans vulnerable to suicide-terrorist attacks. In the case of the Persian Gulf, that means we should pursue a strategy that secures our interest in oil but does not encourage the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, the United States secured its interest in oil without stationing a single combat soldier on the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, we formed an alliance with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which we can now do again. We relied on numerous aircraft carriers off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula, and naval air power now is more effective not less. We also built numerous military bases so that we could move large numbers of ground forces to the region quickly if a crisis emerged.

That strategy, called “offshore balancing,” worked splendidly against Saddam Hussein in 1990 and is again our best strategy to secure our interest in oil while preventing the rise of more suicide terrorists.

TAC: Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders also talked about the “Crusaders-Zionist alliance,” and I wonder if that, even if we weren’t in Iraq, would not foster suicide terrorism. Even if the policy had helped bring about a Palestinian state, I don’t think that would appease the more hardcore opponents of Israel.

RP: I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn’t occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils.

When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn’t be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.

TAC: Has the next generation of anti-American suicide terrorists already been created? Is it too late to wind this down, even assuming your analysis is correct and we could de-occupy Iraq?

RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.

In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn’t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv.

This is also the pattern of the second Intifada with the Palestinians. As Israel is at least promising to withdraw from Palestinian-controlled territory (in addition to some other factors), there has been a decline of that ferocious suicide-terrorist campaign. This is just more evidence that withdrawal of military forces really does diminish the ability of the terrorist leaders to recruit more suicide terrorists.

That doesn’t mean that the existing suicide terrorists will not want to keep going. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him. That is what needs to come to an end for Americans to be safe from suicide terrorism.

TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?

RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.

TAC: Has the IRA used suicide terrorism?

RP: The IRA did not. There were IRA members willing to commit suicide—the famous hunger strike was in 1981. What is missing in the IRA case is not the willingness to commit suicide, to kill themselves, but the lack of a suicide-terrorist attack where they try to kill others.

If you look at the pattern of violence in the IRA, almost all of the killing is front-loaded to the 1970s and then trails off rather dramatically as you get through the mid-1980s through the 1990s. There is a good reason for that, which is that the British government, starting in the mid-1980s, began to make numerous concessions to the IRA on the basis of its ordinary violence. In fact, there were secret negotiations in the 1980s, which then led to public negotiations, which then led to the Good Friday Accords. If you look at the pattern of the IRA, this is a case where they actually got virtually everything that they wanted through ordinary violence.

The purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die. It is the kill, to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society in order to compel that target society to put pressure on its government to change policy. If the government is already changing policy, then the whole point of suicide terrorism, at least the way it has been used for the last 25 years, doesn’t come up.

TAC: Are you aware of any different strategic decision made by al-Qaeda to change from attacking American troops or ships stationed at or near the Gulf to attacking American civilians in the United States?

RP: I wish I could say yes because that would then make the people reading this a lot more comfortable.

The fact is not only in the case of al-Qaeda, but in suicide-terrorist campaigns in general, we don’t see much evidence that suicide-terrorist groups adhere to a norm of attacking military targets in some circumstances and civilians in others.

In fact, we often see that suicide-terrorist groups routinely attack both civilian and military targets, and often the military targets are off-duty policemen who are unsuspecting. They are not really prepared for battle.

The reasons for the target selection of suicide terrorists appear to be much more based on operational rather than normative criteria. They appear to be looking for the targets where they can maximize the number of casualties.

In the case of the West Bank, for instance, there is a pattern where Hamas and Islamic Jihad use ordinary guerrilla attacks, not suicide attacks, mainly to attack settlers. They use suicide attacks to penetrate into Israel proper. Over 75 percent of all the suicide attacks in the second Intifada were against Israel proper and only 25 percent on the West Bank itself.

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.

Why can't conservatives and liberals see eye to eye?

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along."

Latest Bin Laden tape is a fake?

Many think the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake. and they say they have proof. Check this out here.

Big money's sway in US 2008 race

The United States will hold its first billion dollar presidential election next year, heightening concerns about the influence of money in American politics.


Candidates in the 2008 race are seeking donations large and small

In spite of attempts to reform finance laws and limit contributions, the 2008 race for the White House is already the costliest campaign in history.

Election watchdogs say that fundraisers are finding a way around the restrictions to collect unprecedented sums of money.

Corporations are banned from making any donations and individuals can only give up to $2,300 to each candidate in any election.

But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that tracks money in US politics, influential industries are still contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to their preferred candidates, by means of so-called "bundlers".

These are typically well-connected business people or lobbyists who can tap into their extensive networks to collect and package individual donations on behalf of candidates.

"We see in our records a bundle of, say, 20 or 30 contributions coming on the same day to the same person, all from individuals who work at the same firm," says the centre's executive director Sheila Krumholz.

"We have evidence that there is certainly, in some instances, a feeling that the donors themselves feel pressured, or in their words, extorted - that they have to pay to play."

Legal activity

Bundling is a legal activity and candidates do not have to name their bundlers.

This campaign should be about ideas and personalities and leadership, but at this point it's just a struggle to raise money

Mary Boyle, Common Cause

Mary Boyle, communications director for Common Cause, a good-government reform group, explains how "bundlers" have become the new political power brokers.

"When you have the head of an oil company who's helping raise $200,000 for you, it's likely that person is going to have some access and influence to you that other members of the public don't get - and that's where you see the influence in policy," she says.

Common Cause is one of many groups campaigning to make all US elections publicly funded to end dependency on private contributions.

Candidates already have the option to accept public funding but many choose not to do so because they don't think it gives them enough money.

It is currently capped at about $20m - far less than the $27m raised by Hillary Clinton, for example, in the second quarter of this year.

Ms Boyle says the system needs to be overhauled to put all candidates on a level playing field and allow them to focus more on policy.

"This campaign should be about ideas and personalities and leadership, but at this point it's just a struggle to raise money," she says.

"A number of reforms have to be made and we're hoping that it happens by 2012, the next presidential election. It's too late for anything for next year."

Online donations

The internet has made it easier for ordinary members of the public to make small personal donations.


Barack Obama has attracted large numbers of small donations

Most give less than a couple of hundred dollars, but it is a trend that appears to be helping the Democrats more than the Republicans, who traditionally rely on fewer but more affluent donors and industries.

Ms Krumholz says the Democrats' Barack Obama has raised more money online than any other candidate.

"This is unheard of. It's unprecedented in any previous cycle, and even in this cycle where the internet is playing an important role in all the campaigns, Barack Obama stands out," she says.

He has set a new fundraising record for a Democratic candidate, collecting $32.5m in the second quarter of this year.

And because about half his donors have not hit the legal limit of $2,300, there is still plenty of time for them to contribute more if they want to.

This has given Mr Obama the financial credibility needed to become a serious contender.

Power of money

By contrast, one of the early Republican front-runners, John McCain, may be effectively out of the race or forced to choose to accept capped public funding because he has not raised as much as expected.


John McCain's fundraising has not gone as well as he hoped

It is a chicken-and-egg situation, says Professor Clyde Wilcox, a government expert at Georgetown University who studies voter psychology.

"Someone like McCain looks so far behind that there seems little reason to give because he doesn't have much chance of winning at this point. And as a candidate fades in the polls, money fades also," he says.

But the winning candidate is not necessarily the one who starts out with the most money - although by the end of the race they will probably be the best funded.

"There have been a lot of candidates with relatively small amounts of cash who do pretty well in the nomination process," says Mr Wilcox.

"If the candidate has no money, they can't get the message out. But if they have enough money to be heard then they can attract both votes and donors."

Americans have become increasingly cynical about the power of money in politics. But they are also more likely to make a financial contribution themselves when they are most dissatisfied.

That could help explain the rapidly growing number of small donors - one of the biggest trends of this presidential election.

With approval ratings for President George W Bush and Congress at an all-time low, many voters may be already expressing their views by writing a cheque.

Transcript of the Fox News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate

Find the transcripts HERE