Category: Regions

  • TurkishPAC announces that it is not supporting the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket

    TurkishPAC announces that it is not supporting the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket

    Written by President

    Saturday, 06 September 2008 14:16

    We have witnessed with great sorrow Senator Barack Obama’s selection of Senator Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate. Joe Biden has a clear bias against Turkey and Turkish people as proven by his actions in the past.

    As a U.S senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden has given support to all Armenian “genocide” claims since his work with Senator Bob Dole to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.J.Res.212) in 1990. He co-sponsored the 2003 resolution that commemorated the 15th anniversary of the USA genocide act that falsely cited Armenian “genocide” as an example of past genocides. Senator Biden was one of the senators who urged President Bush in April, 2006 to use the word genocide in his Armenian “Genocide” proclamations, and  was a joint sponsor of the Senate Armenian Genocide resolution proposals No. 329 in 2006 and No 106 in 2007. Senator Biden was the originator of the March 2007 Senate Resolution No. 65 that falsely claimed that the tragic murder of Armenian Turkish Journalist Hrant Dink was brought about because he had spoken out on alleged Armenian genocide.


    Senator Biden was also the architect of the
    U.S. arms embargo against Turkey after the 1974 Turkish intervention in Cyprus to protect Turkish Cypriots from the joint Greek Cypriot – Mainland Junta armed campaign of extermination. He has continuously insulted Turks. During a press conference on Cyprus in 2000, he stated that “Turks have such a thick skin that one can never adequately insult them.”

    Early during the Iraq war, when ethnic violence was intense, Senator Biden called for the partition of Iraq into three autonomous regions under a loose federation, which is diametrically opposite to the Turkish and USA Government’s positions. We also know that Senator Biden is cooperating with the Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a D.C. lobbying company hired by the Kurdish administration of Iraq.

    Equally, Senator Obama is a supporter of Armenian “genocide” claims, as evidenced by his own declarations, by presentations made by his ex-campaign adviser Samantha Powers on the ANCA website, and by his remarks made during Senate confirmation hearings in 2007 of U.S. Ambassador Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland.

    At the same time, we believe the Republican Presidential candidate Senator McCain is far more respectful of Turks and the Turkish Government. He has refused to endorse Armenian Genocide claims, and appreciates the strategic relationship between Turkey and the U.S.

    With all the evidence in hand, TurkishPAC does not believe that we will be able to change the anti-Turkish positions of Senators Obama and Biden.  If elected, their actions are expected to result in further deterioration of the already-fragile friendship and cooperation between Turkey and the U.S. Turkey is a very important U.S. ally whose importance has increased even more with  our presence in Iraq and the increasing Russian aggression in the Caucasus.

    TurkishPAC Board of Directors, therefore, has decided not to support the Obama-Biden ticket in the forthcoming U.S. presidential elections. We will, however, continue providing support to other local and national candidates from both parties that favor Turkish positions.

    TurkishPAC Board of Directors

    Promote Turkey in politics.
    Your help needed.
    www.turkishpac.org

    —–Original Message—–
    From: ATAA-US@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ATAA-US@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atilla Bektore
    Sent:
    Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:10 AM
    To: ATAA-US@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [ATAA-US] TDN Article

    Ekim 30, 2008 tarihli TDN’den bir alinti,

    Rejoice! Rejoice! Obama is coming!

    Thursday, October 30, 2008

    MUSTAFA AKYOL

    WASHINGTON – It has been a little more than an hour since I turned on the TV in my hotel room, but I have come across Barack Obama almost a dozen times. American channels are full of ads that are in favor of, or against, the Democratic presidential candidate. The ones that his party put out talk about his vision for America and how great it will be. The ads given by his rival, John McCain, counter by saying he is inexperienced and will get confused in the first crisis he faces.

    In other words, the whole focus is on Obama. Indeed, the election that Americans will hold next week will be basically a vote on Obama. Everybody has seen what the Republicans have done in the past eight years and ultimately few have liked it. Sen. McCain, despite all his effort to the contrary, cannot compel most people to think that he does not share the main premises of the Bush Administration. But Sen. Obama is obviously offering something new and raising new hopes. The only question is whether he is capable of turning them into reality.

    Change that I do believe in:

    There are five more days until the elections. As former Turkish president and political guru, Süleyman Demirel, once said, “Twenty-four hours is a very long period of time in politics.” So, nobody can tell right now who the next president of the United States will be. Yet the polls hint that Obama will have a clear, possibly landslide victory and if that turns out to be the case, most non-Americans in the world, including my humble self, will be happy.

    I have many Republican friends and I understand and respect their reservations toward a Democratic candidate. They have issues, such as abortion or gay marriage, which have made them committed Republicans. But what is at stake right now in the world is arguably more important than all of these issues. For decades, the United States has been the leader of the free and democratic world, and the world still needs that source of trust and inspiration. The alternative powers are China and Russia, which are both bastions of autocracy. Yet since the beginning of the Iraq War, the United States has increasingly been perceived as an arrogant and aggressive force. The American dream of “freedom for all” was smashed by images of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, water boarding and rendition. In just five years “America the beautiful” has turned into America the ugly.

    In fact, President Bush had the sense to get things right, “If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us,” he said as early as 2000. “If we are a humble nation, but strong, they will welcome us.” But, for a variety of complicated reasons, things did not go that way.

    Now, Obama offers a chance to change all this. It is no accident that he has overwhelming support in the four corners of the world. People want to see a new America and only a new face with a new message can make them believe that this is possible.

    Of course, Obama might come to power and fail to realize his promises. But he is definitely worth trying. As Colin Powell has wisely pointed out, his presidency will be an asset not just to restore America‘s prestige in the word, but also to overcome the new McCarthyism, the Islamophobic hate campaign that a handful of misinformed Americans are trying to sell to their fellow citizens.

    In the minds of Turks:

    In Turkey, many people who are informed about U.S. politics sympathize with Obama for similar reasons. Some pundits, such as veteran journalist and opinion maker, Cengiz Çandar, endorsed him months ago. But the McCain campaign has sympathizers as well and most of those people are, with all due respect, either wicked or close-minded.

    The wicked are those who have been craving to stir a military or judicial coup in Turkey. When they decided to sell their anti-democratic crusade to the world, the only allies they found were the new McCarthyists in the United States just mentioned. They have been able to convince some, but not all, neoconservatives about the “hidden Islamist agenda” of the governing Justice and Development Party and thus gather some metaphorical firepower from some Washington pundits for their war in Ankara. For those secular-fascist Turks, the Republicans, because of the narrow Islamophobic camp among them, are the strategic choice.

    The close-minded fans of McCain on the other hand, are simply concerned about Turkey’s classic foreign policy issues; will the American president use the term “Armenian Genocide” while referring to the events of 1915 and will he support Iraqi Kurds in their aspirations for greater autonomy? In both these issues, these Turks think McCain and his Republicans will be closer to Turkey‘s position as they better understand the “strategic importance” of Turkey.

    But in fact, whoever comes to power in Washington will get the same briefing from their bureaucrats about Turkey‘s importance when these issues come to the fore. It is also not realistic to think that the two candidates will be too different from each other vis-a-vis Turkey. They may well however be different in the way they handle international crises, such as the issue with Iran‘s nuclear program and Turkey has seen enough evidence to conclude that a fundamental change is needed in U.S. foreign policy about such matters.

    That is why it is time to cross fingers for Obama. I do hope he wins this election and brings a fresh start that the world sorely needs.

    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

  • Tehran — with Moscow’s Backing — Seeks to Expand its Role in the Caucasus

    Tehran — with Moscow’s Backing — Seeks to Expand its Role in the Caucasus

    Paul Goble

    Vienna, November 3 – The big winner at the summit among the presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan yesterday may be a country was not there: Iran, whose return to an active role in the Caucasus, something the US opposes and the Minsk Group was organized to prevent, now appears to enjoy the active support of both Moscow and Yerevan.
    Yesterday, following their meeting in Moscow, Presidents Dmitry Medvedev, Serzh Sarksyan, and Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration on their commitment to continuing to pursue “a peaceful regulation” of the Karabakh conflict by means of talks, including within the framework of the Minsk Group (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/news/id/1232473.html).
    While Russian commentators celebrated this document not only as a major contribution to the peace in the Caucasus and a confirmation of Russia’s newly expanded role there, in fact, neither that declaration nor the meetings of the foreign ministers on Friday or their joint session with the Minsk Group on Saturday broke much if any new ground.
    But a statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday suggests that the diplomatic landscape in the Caucasus may be changing quickly, albeit in ways that may not lead to any resolution of the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or between Georgia and the Russian Federation.
    Lavrov said that Iran had expressed an interest in creating a security zone in the Caucasus, a step that would appear to challenge both the Minsk Group which was created to exclude Iran from having a role in the region and Turkey which has proposed creating a Platform of Security and Stability in the Caucasus (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/news/id/1232455.html).
    The Russian foreign minister said that he had spoken with Iranian officials about their desire to be included “in discussions” about the Caucasus, a move that appears to be the product of both Moscow’s own desire to promote a north-south axis through the Caucasus and two developments earlier this fall.
    On the one hand, Yerevan indicated that it was not prepared to talk about Turkey’s proposal for security unless Iran was involved (kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/news/id/1229327.html). And on the other, Tehran offered itself as an intermediary for possible talks between Moscow and Tbilisi (kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/news/id/1089720.html).
    The Russian foreign minister said that Moscow has still not received any concrete proposals from Tehran in this regard, but earlier last week, the Iranian news agency IRNA quoted an Iranian deputy foreign minister to the effect that Tehran is currently “completing” work on them.
    It is, of course, entirely possible that Iran’s proposals, even if they do find support in Moscow and Yerevan, will go no further than Turkey’s have in resolving some of the neuralgic disputes of the South Caucasus. But just like the Moscow meeting itself, Iran’s new involvement represents a kind of tectonic shift there.
    Since the end of the Soviet Union, the United States has taken the lead in trying to keep Iran from having any role in the region. That is of course why Washington promoted the creation of the Minsk Group, a product of the only international organization in which all the regional players were members except Iran.
    But that group has not succeeded in squaring the circle on Karabakh, a dispute in which the positions of the two sides are not really any closer than they were a decade or more ago. And consequently, those immediately involved have become increasingly frustrated and are willing to explore different venues and negotiating partners.
    Such frustrations have given an opening to Iran. And as Lavrov’s remarks in Moscow on Friday indicate, Tehran is ready and willing to get involved, a development that the Russian government gives every indication of welcoming whatever its Minsk Group and American “partners” may think.

  • Syria After the U.S. Helicopter Raid

    Syria After the U.S. Helicopter Raid

    By YONAH ALEXANDER

    There is an old Arabic proverb stating that “he who gets fat, will get thin, and he who goes up in the air will come down.” The simple meaning is that nothing is static in the affairs of life and each epoch has its beginning and end.

     

    Can this perception be applied to politics and the current challenge of state sponsored terrorism to the international community? The short answer is definitely yes. Consider the case of Syria.

     

    It seems an unthinkable contradiction to even raise the issue that Syrian President Bashar Assad might cooperate with the United States in combating terrorism following the massive demonstrations in Damascus protesting against a U.S. helicopter raid in Sukariyah village that killed top al-Qaida leader Abu Ghadiyah and members of his cell, and after Syria’s closing of the U.S. cultural center and American school in the capital in protest, and Damascus’s demand of a formal U.S. apology for “terrorist aggression.”

     

    Moreover, Washington’s “account” with Syria relates not only to securing the border with Iraq from infiltration of foreign terrorists but also to Damascus’ support of Hezbollah and Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and in the West Bank.

     

    Thus, it is extremely unlikely the next U.S. administration will reverse its disposition vis-à-vis Syria and consider removing it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

     

    The new president, however, must bear in mind the validity of former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston’s dictum that “there are no permanent friends or enemies but only permanent interests.”

     

    That is, there are several identifying factors which indicate that Syria is possibly reconsidering using terrorism as a tool. The first is the existence of legal measures to combat terrorism.

     

    Syria, for instance, is party to the Arab League and the Islamic Conference Organization conventions on the suppression of terrorism and on combating international terrorism.

     

    Furthermore, Syria is a signatory to global treaties dealing with aviation security matters and “prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons.”

     

    Also, Syria’s penal code complies with various international anti-terrorism efforts such as combating money laundering, confiscating and freezing of funds related to terrorism, and suppressing the recruitment of members of terrorist groups.

     

    Clearly, these steps and other judicial measures indicate a positive trend to be considered in any assessment of Syria’s policies concerning terrorism.

     

    What is of particular significance is the progress made by the recent rounds of indirect talks between Damascus and Jerusalem through Turkey’s “good offices,” and supported by other states such as France.

     

    Obviously, Assad’s apparent strategic intention to undertake a comprehensive peace settlement with Israel will, in accordance with long-standing Syrian policy, focus first and foremost on the return of the occupied Golan Heights captured in the 1967 War.

     

    Other crucial issues must also be resolved, including early warning attack systems, mutual zones of disengagements, water conflicts, and the scope of normalizing relations between the antagonists.

     

    It is clear that further progress on this diplomatic track will depend on political developments in Israel related to the forthcoming elections planned for February 2009 and the formation of a new government in Jerusalem.

     

    In sum, despite the unfolding crisis in U.S.-Syrian relations concerning the “rat lines” in Iraq and other terrorism-related issues, it behooves all concerned parties to recognize that substantial, peacemaking efforts must be developed for long-term stability and prosperity in the Middle East and beyond.

    Yonah Alexander is the Director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., USA. Research for this article was provided by Michelle Zewin, Julie Tegho, Daniel Curzon, and Kendall McKay.

  • No Karabakh Deal Announced After Moscow Summit

    No Karabakh Deal Announced After Moscow Summit

     

     

     

     

     

    By Aza Babayan in Moscow and Tigran Avetisian

    The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan pledged to step up the prolonged search for a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but did not announce any concrete agreements after weekend talks hosted by their Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev.

    Serzh Sarkisian and Ilham Aliev met in a tête-à-tête format and were later joined by Medvedev at the Meiendorf Castle outside Moscow on Sunday amid fresh international hopes for a breakthrough in Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks mediated by Russia, the United States and France

    “The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed to continue work, including during further contacts on the highest level, on agreeing a political resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and ordered their foreign ministers to intensify further steps in the negotiating process in coordination with the co-chairs of the OSCE’s Minsk Group,” the three leaders said in a joint declaration read out by Medvedev.

    The declaration stressed the importance of continued efforts by the group’s American, French and Russian co-chairs to work out the basic principles of a Karabakh settlement acceptable to the conflicting parties. But it only vaguely alluded to a framework peace accord that was formally put forward by the co-chairs in November 2007.

    Armenia and Azerbaijani are understood to have agreed to most of the key points of the proposed settlement. The mediators hoped before the Moscow talks that the two sides will overcome their remaining differences before the end of this year.

    The mediating troika, including U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, held separate talks with Aliev and Sarkisian at Meiendorf later on Sunday. No details of those talks were made public and the mediators issued no joint statements afterwards.

    Speaking to RFE/RL just before those talks, Yuri Merzlyakov, the Minsk Group’s Russian co-chair, described the trilateral declaration as a “historic” document that will speed up the peace process. He noted that Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders have jointly put pen to paper for the first time since the signing in May 1994 of a Russian-mediated truce that stopped the war in Karabakh.

    The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry appeared to downplay the document’s significance, though. “One should not look for anything new in the signing of the document,” a ministry spokesman, Khazar Ibrahim, told journalists in Baku on Monday, according to the Trend news agency. “Negotiations are still going on and their significance is reflected by the declaration. The groundwork needs to be laid for the transition to the next phase of the negotiations.”

    A senior official in Yerevan seemed in a more buoyant mood. Eduard Sharmazanov, a spokesman for the governing Republican Party of Armenia, pointed to the declaration’s emphasis on a “political settlement” of the Karabakh conflict. “This runs counter to bellicose statements that were made by Azerbaijani officials,” he told RFE/RL.

    Sharmazanov also pointed out that the declaration makes clear that the Minsk Group will remain the main mediating body in Karabakh talks. He said this disproved opposition allegations that Sarkisian is ready to let Armenia’s arch-rival Turkey take on a mediating role in the peace process.

    Armenia’s main opposition alliance, meanwhile, declined to comment on the Moscow talks on Monday. Levon Zurabian, a senior member of the Armenian National Congress, told RFE/RL that the top leader of the alliance, Levon Ter-Petrosian, will issue a special statement on Tuesday.

  • Moscow Declaration – A Victory For Armenia

    Moscow Declaration – A Victory For Armenia

    Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (right) with his counterparts from Armenia, Serzh Sarkisian (center), and Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev.

    November 03, 2008
    By Liz Fuller

     

    The Declaration On Regulating the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict signed by the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia following their talks in Moscow on November 2 can be regarded as a victory for Armenia in three key respects.

    First, the three presidents reaffirmed their shared commitment to seeking a political solution to the conflict “on the basis of the norms and principles of international law and of the decisions and documents adopted within that framework,” and with the stated objective of “creating a more healthy situation in the South Caucasus.”

    In other words, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who has previously warned on numerous occasions that if mediation by the Minsk Group, created by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE), fails to yield a solution to the conflict, Azerbaijan will have no option but to resort to the use of military force to bring Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of the central government, has formally pledged not to begin a new war.

    Second, the declaration stresses the importance of the ongoing mediation effort by the OSCE Minsk Group, and specifically of the so-called Madrid Principles, the basic blueprint for resolving the conflict.

    In other words, the declaration effectively precludes any effort by Turkey to promote an alternative peace proposal that might be more in line with Azerbaijan’s vision of the optimal solution than are the Madrid Principles. Visiting Yerevan two months ago, Turkish President Abdullah Gul affirmed Turkey’s readiness to “assist” in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

    And third, the three presidents agreed that the search for a peaceful solution should be accompanied by “legally binding international guarantees of all its aspects and stages.”

    From Yerevan’s viewpoint, the primary weakness of the so-called Madrid Principles is that they require Armenia to relinquish its most important bargaining chip and withdraw from the seven districts of Azerbaijan bordering on Nagorno-Karabakh that it currently controls before any decision has been made on the future status of the unrecognized republic vis-a-vis the central Azerbaijani government in Baku. That issue is to be decided by means of a referendum that may not take place until years after the Armenian withdrawal.

    ‘Confidence-Building Measures’

    Many Armenians are therefore concerned that, having regained control of the seven districts, the Azerbaijani government might then block the holding of the planned referendum.

    The Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun threatened on October 31 to quit the coalition government if President Serzh Sarkisian betrays “national interests” by agreeing to cede the occupied territories. One day earlier, on October 30, a group of prominent Armenian intellectuals and public figures announced the launch of a new movement, named Unification National Initiative, that will similarly actively oppose any territorial concessions to Azerbaijan.

    The proposed “legally binding international guarantees” are presumably intended to prevent any such perfidy on Baku’s part, and thus reduce domestic political pressure on Sarkisian. The final point of the declaration similarly stresses the importance of “confidence-building measures.”

    The international guarantees would presumably also encompass commitments by various states to provide international peacekeepers to be deployed in the seven liberated districts and the strategic Lachin corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.

    Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, too, can be pleased with the outcome of the November 2 talks, insofar as the declaration affirms a commitment by Russia to a positive role, promoting peace and stability in the South Caucasus in the wake of the August war with Georgia.

  • As The Armenian Vote Goes, So Goes The Nation?

    As The Armenian Vote Goes, So Goes The Nation?

    Posted on November 2nd, 2008
    by The Stiletto in All News, Society and Culture, US Politics

    Crazy as it sounds, losing the Armenian vote just might cost McCain the election.
    How can the votes of this “small tribe of unimportant people,” as Armenian-American writer William Saroyan described them, matter? By various estimates Americans of Armenian descent number 385,500 to 1 million – roughly one half of one percent of the total number of people who voted in the November 2004 election. But Armenians have more clout – particularly in this election – than their miniscule numbers might suggest.
    Once a reliable Republican voting bloc, Armenian-Americans have left the GOP en masse after George W. Bush reneged on his campaign promises of 2000 and 2004 to support the Armenian Genocide Resolution in Congress, which characterizes the systematic slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 as a genocidal crime against humanity.
    Unlike John McCain, who avoids the topic, Barack Obama has acknowledged the Armenian Genocide as settled history, and anecdotal evidence suggests that he enjoys near-absolute support of the Armenian-American community. Armenians have no idea where McCain stands on passing the Armenian Genocide Resolution, but Obama has made a convincing case to this community that he stands with them in their quest for justice.
    Armenians have clustered in states that are solidly Democrat – particularly, Calif., Mass. and New York – so they will neither help Obama much nor hurt McCain much in those states by abandoning the GOP. But swing states could be another story. The Armenian population in several of the states up for grabs is small, but these votes could be decisive in two of them this year: Fla. Is home to 25,000 Armenians, Mich. to 60,000.

    Armenians consider themselves in a permanent state of Diaspora, and reward candidates who support recognition of the Armenian Genocide with their wallets and their votes. Like Cubans and Evangelicals, Armenians tend to be single-issue voters. In the past, candidates from both parties made sure to pay lip service to supporting the Armenian Genocide Resolution and Armenians tended to vote Republican because of shared conservative economic and social values.
    But when it mattered most last October, Democrats tried to get the Armenian Genocide Resolution passed in the House whereas Republicans repaid the decades-long loyalty of the Armenian community with betrayal after Turkey threatened to complicate Iraq war logistics by cutting off air and ground supply routes. Obama – who successfully pursued a “no vote left behind” strategy in caucus states – wasted no time capitalizing on the opportunity created by Bush to aggressively court Armenian-Americans.
    Neither of the candidates’ campaign Web sites include speeches or position papers by the candidates on the Armenian Genocide. However, an officially-sanctioned coalition group, Armenians for Obama, compares Obama’s positions with McCain’s using statements and speeches from both candidates.
    In contrast, McCain has shunned the term “genocide,” even in his half-hearted attempts to reach out to the Armenian community. And not only McCain does not have a counterpart to Armenians for Obama backing him – there are, however, American Indians for McCain, Bikers for McCain and Racing Fans for McCain – even the Web site of the National Organization of Republican Armenians hasn’t been updated for quite a while.
    Pollster Scott Rasmussen zeros in on seven must-win swing states, which are very much in play, including Fla. Other numbers crunchers include Mich. on their lists of crucial battleground states. While a comfortable five-point margin separated George W. Bush and John Kerry in both states in 2004 (Bush won Fla. 52 percent to 47 percent; the results were flipped in Mich.) the Fla. race is much tighter this year, with most polls showing just one to two points separating McCain and Obama – and McCain has already ceded Mich. to his rival, having stopped campaigning in the state several weeks ago.
    In the 2004 election the Bush campaign used “microtargeting” to find significantly more black votes in Ohio than he got in 2000.

    McCain is using the reverse strategy with the Armenian vote. Rather than teasing out additional votes wherever he can, McCain has inexplicably chosen to leave 44 Electoral College votes on the table by writing off Armenian-American voters in Fla. and Mich. And it’s not like he can afford to lose them – especially in Fla., where Bush has also managed to alienate another important voting bloc, Cuban-Americans.
    As that old rhyme has it, “for the want of a nail … the horse was lost.” By overlooking – indeed, disrespecting – this seemingly insignificant ethnic group, McCain is extending a Bush legacy that will haunt Republicans for years to come.
    Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).