« Pork: The Other Mission Accomplished | Main | Eric's Story »
Blue in a Sea of Red
I was at a fundraiser at Schroeder's Bar and Grill in the not only blue, but ultra-violet blue center of the state, San Francisco. I met a few republicans and quite a few democrats banded together to hear from congressional candidates, veterans of Vietnam, the Gulf and Iraq II wars, fighting to gain seats in the Senate and House. All competing to represent "red" districts, and in one case, a red state.
What I heard was a moment suspended in time, and a reminder of a not-too-distant event last year, spoken by the then candidate for Senator from the great state of Illinois:
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
The candidates I met at Schroeder's were guys standing blue in a sea of red. Like what Senator Obama said, what they were concerned about was more basic, more essential than partisan politics. They dealt with the politics of COMMON SENSE.
"TO WHO MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED" - That is the quote on the commemorative plate with the image of John F. Kennedy that graced Paul Hackett's childhood home. It's there that his father brought both he and his brother to "woodshed' when they got out of hand, and its that expectation they were raised with. Much has already been said about what Mr. Hackett, candidate for US Senate in Ohio in 2006, appears on other websites. On this site, where we are non-partisan, we want to report on the one thing that stood out immediately: His cut-to-the-chase approach to handling the concerns of a predominately "red" community with "blue-state" solutions producing answers with appeal to a large red majority in his first run for Congress in August 2005.
CHECK THIS MESSAGE:
"I don’t need Washington and its career politicians to tell me how to worship my God or to dictate to my wife the decisions she makes with her doctor anymore that I need Washington to tell my neighbors what they can do in the privacy of their own home or how many and what types of guns I can keep in my gun safe.""But I do need Washington to wisely manage our military might and our economic budget so that my neighbors and I can safely provide for our families."
Simple, basic, to the point. Covers the concerns facing MOST Americans in the clearest most inclusive sense. And in outside-the-beltway American English.
I had a chance to talk to Charlie Brown, a veteran of Vietnam and Gulf War I, and a Democrat running for a Congressional seat in District 4, a region northeast of the SF Bay Area. Charlie’s district is 55% Republican, with pockets of Libertarians, Independents and some Democrats—who definitely are not the majority in any of the counties. Charlie Brown is pro choice, believes in separation of church and state, thinks we should balance the budget but not sacrifice quality of life. Charlie also minces no words:
I don't like labels. I'm trying to get folks to look at individual issues, forget about being a Democrat or Republican. Think about the issues that somebody stands for and vote on the issues...the labeling in this country is what's got everybody so partisan so that they won't even listen to somebody talk about what they believe in because of their party.
I attach some importance to this event and to what I heard because I think we’re tired of the finger-pointing, the blame, the rhetoric and the smears. Seeing blue in a sea of red right now feels like sighting land after a long time on choppy waters. There’s hope on shore, and we know now there is reality in Obama’s speech delivered what seemed ages ago:
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America…Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
I attach a Part I to this header because I believe we’ll see a Part II with more of the message I heard over a year ago in Boston, and that night at Schroeder's. I believe it will come from moderates on both sides of the aisle on issues that matter to us the most: When will we stop being at war? Will we be safe in my city? Will I be able to have a comfortable retirement? Will my family get health care? Will my children go to college?
I look forward one day to bringing back an instance about a similar type of candidate from a different party whose message not only strives to solve problems, but is as inclusive.
Given the urgency of our country's situation at nearly every turn, the appearance of political sanity from any front is a welcome change. And its about time.
Fabulous piece, Fe. Worth spreading around...
"But I do need Washington to wisely manage our military might and our economic budget so that my neighbors and I can safely provide for our families."
Right on! AND this is where the Republican neoCONS have led this country to the extremes of bad financial spending, incompetent war planning, and a complete abuse of power.
That sea of red is at least lavender after this past year...
Thanks for bringing back the words of Barack Obama :)
repost from previous thread header:
Good morning!
dwahzon and I are are sitting in a Starbuck's in Manhattan and reading over these threads. A couple of points:
1. There have been many Resolutions asking the House to think about and debate various issues surrounding the war, INCLUDING exit strategies, the lies leading up to it, etc. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich...We have featured many of these in the Five Minutes A Day on the front page; check the archive in the forum.
2. There is an Out Of Iraq Caucus in the House:
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/288/165/
Check it out...
3. John Kerry, Carl Levin and others we can't think of at the moment have given speeches that have proposed clear and direct exit strategies.
People, we are here working with other groups to build message and actions to make sure that Congress and the rest of the administration hear from us. Watch this space for updates. Meanwhile, turn off the TVs and read the newspapers telling the truth.
Start with the Toledo Blade...
Posted by: Karen at November 20, 2005 09:43 AM
The Toledo Blade has been the most consistant journalistic newspaper in the last 4 years.
Sadly, most "watergate-like" things they've reported have remained in the 'black hole of modern media giants'.
This is off topic, but I found it in, of all places, George Will's column this morning. It's a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Will goes on to say: But it is injurious, and unneighborly when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education.
If George Will is coming to his senses, there may just be hope for the country afer all.
Well the Independant of London has now confirmed it...
That only took over a year or so.
British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, admits that he knows of "alleged deaths in custody" and other "serious prisoner abuse" at al-Jamiyat police station, which was reopened by Britain after the war.
Militia-dominated police, who were recruited by Britain, are believed to have tortured at least two men to death in the station. Their bodies were later found with drill holes to their arms, legs and skulls.
The victims were suspected of collaborating with coalition forces, according to intelligence reports. Despite being pressed "very hard" by Britain, however, the Iraqi authorities in Basra are failing to even investigate incidents of torture and murder by police, ministers admit.
The disclosure drags Britain firmly into the growing scandal of officially condoned killings, torture and disappearances in Iraq. More than 170 starving and tortured prisoners were discovered last week in an Interior Ministry bunker in Baghdad.
American troops who uncovered the secret torture chamber are also said to have discovered mutilated corpses, several bearing drill marks.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328214.ece
El Salvadore ...?
ANYONE.?
I call your attention to the third paragraph of the article below paraphrasing Rummy.... He's said that before; repeatedly....
Someone on the previous thread made reference to the fact that eight to twelve weeks of training is done with the US military to make them combat ready. So..., what's the hold-up in training Iraqi forces... IF, indeed, they needed any training in the first place??? Likely some were in the military under Hussein, and could be employed to train their own people. Treating the Iraqi citizens (and Iraqi military and/or police personnel) like backward children while the US acts like an imperial power is demeaning and insulting to the Iraqi people, and arrogant on the part of The Cretin's administration and the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, our Congress is symbolically debating about whether they should use a round, square, oval, or rectangular table to sit around while discussing where and when to hold talks about potentially setting a timetable for withdrawing US military from Iraq. Forget the table shape, already, sit on the danged floor, and set a firm date for bringing the troops home from Iraq... and then stick to it. People are dying while legislators are flapping their gums, debating about trivial nonsense....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
Rumsfeld Won't Set Timetable for Iraq Exit
22 minutes ago
While some lawmakers press for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made no promises on Sunday and said commanders' assessments will determine the pace of any military drawdown.
About 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq as the country approaches elections Dec. 15. The Pentagon has said it plans to scale back troop strength to its pre-election baseline of 138,000, depending on conditions.
Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalition continues to make progress in training Iraqi security forces, which he placed at 212,000.
Rumsfeld disputed reports that fewer than 1,000 Iraqis were capable of fighting the insurgency without coalition assistance, saying the lower number was "a red herring."
[Click on link to read the rest of the short article.]
We have to prove we can succeed. One Democratic president over the last 25 years is not getting that message of success out.
I honestly think that John McCain will run in '08, will fail to get the Republican nomination, and will start a new party after the primaries. He'll probably look for a progressive Democratic running mate to balance out the ticket, and he may very well win. And we still won't have the government we need.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 10:48 AM
PLEASE..... Enough about McCAIN!!! JOHN MCCAIN ENDORSED AND CAMPAIGNED FOR BUSH IN 2004 WHEN THE ELECTION CAME DOWN TO THE WIRE AND PUSH CAME TO SHOVE
THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE... (MCCain could have sat on the sidelines but no he had to campaign for draft-dodger/fraud Bush)
I like John McCain (unusual since he is a Republican) but he is a Republican and he supports Bush and the war.
Ralpheh and Linda, to quote the late, great Daniel P Moynihan from NY, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts." If we are going to still make the IWR a litmus test, or call Dean anti-war, you need to remember that authorization was not for war, but to verify a hyped set of contentions by the administration and stop a runaway train.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 20, 2005 11:09 AM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
What is your litmus test??? What do you tell people when they ask, "Why should I vote for a Democrat?"
of when they ask "What is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?"
Kerry - after his authorization vote - had plenty of opportunity to come out against the war, even as late as the 2004 campaign. HE DIDN'T. Peace groups couldn't believe this; the Dean people and the Kucinich people were astounded and angered by his support of the war. But we were told to shut up and vote for Kerry because HE WAS ELECTABLE!!!
BTW - I love quotes from Moynihan
ralpheh- I didn't say I would vote for McCain- only that he could win in a three party election. I don't think much of him anymore either, especially since he literally was kissed on the head by W on the campaign trail here in P'cola last year. I'm just saying, he could beat both parties with the moderate vote if he seriously tried.
And I agree with you on the IWR thing- Our congressmen can split hairs until there are no hairs left about what that vote was over, but the American people think it was to authorize war. And that cost us the election. That's the fact, simple and clear. It's not my fact- it's what happened. And by the way, I knew that vote was to authorize war the same day the vote was taken, because I knew they were putting a gun in the hands of a madman.
Anyone who didn't know Bush was totally off his rocker by the time that vote was taken hadn't been watching very closely.
So you and I agree on McCain and the IWR resolution.
Dunno what the argument is about.
Hello from Brooklyn Heights you two. How long in NYC?
We need bodies tomorrow at City Hall 10-1:00 to prevent electronic voting, which is coming in NY. Too much money and too much momentum. Demonstrations and speeches. The election board committee won't even require the PBOS be offered for certification, only error-prone and expensive electronic-DREs. Although paper ballots-PBOS-is superior, legislatively written as an option, and what we want. Again, too much money.
Note the reversal in CA to allow Diebold, because Arnold is losing support. They don't want that expressed in the votes.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 11:45 AM
Marjorie is right. The IWR was not a vote for war as the right-winged media claims. Furthermore, even NOW, we are gleaning evidence that the 2002 IWR was based on lies. Those facts were not there in 02, not there in 04, and in 05 they're inching closer to becoming a reality. Perhaps 06 will be the year they explode into full view.
Personally, why are we talking about this stuff over and over when 06 is coming up and this type of stuff really means nothing in the long term?
Also, Kerry probably did win Ohio, New Mexico etc, but the same as the IWR stuff...it doesn't have the complete evidence yet to explode into the daylight.
AND all of us here, KNOW the reason why! It has NOTHING to do with KERRY, Dean, Edwards, Kucinich or anyone...
It has to do with the MEDIA!
We need to fix the media! I'm reading this blog for the past three days and I just as well be sitting in the Media-freeper zone the way people are regurgitating media talking-points.
We all know better than this.
So...HOW are we going to fix the media and our election system by 06? OR how are we going to make it so we can clean out the corruption from the media and election process and those who are truly corrupt like Delay, Frist, Hastert? Why are we turning our weapons on Dean, Kerry, Kucinich etc when they merely have a different opionion than our own.
Now PLEASE...lets focus on the corruption and the media now, so we don't have to blog with regrets in 07!
Ralph, he may have even been elected, but the point is that he was a credibile choice who advanced the pary in time of war and misinformation. We are in the opposition with fewer options.
Kerry regrets the vote because Bush didn't honor the conditions, which was WMD disarmament. He was against this war, before and always.
We were as progressive and anti-war and still able to capture the center. That is a reality according to Phil Donahue and Ed Asner, always credible liberal politicos!
If we as Dems play into the GOP hands by making Kerry and the others more at fault, what are we gaining?
The Dems had safeguards and careful policy, and that's the huge, defendable difference.
Marjorie,
Great points.
AND I know you're so busy in NY working on election reform! Good for you!
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 11:45 AM
Marjorie is right. The IWR was not a vote for war as the right-winged media claims. Furthermore, even NOW, we are gleaning evidence that the 2002 IWR was based on lies. Those facts were not there in 02, not there in 04, and in 05 they're inching closer to becoming a reality. Perhaps 06 will be the year they explode into full view.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You must be joking - you're going to try to explain to the average voter that Kerry's vote IWR did not really give Bush the authorization to use force in Iraq?? You can waste your time trying to explain this to people, I'm not going to.
BTW - IF KERRY IS NOMINATED IN 2008 - I WILL NOT GIVE A DIME TO HIS CAMPAIGN.
KERRY HAD HIS CHANCE IN 2004 AND BLEW IT. JOHN KERRY LOST THE ELECTION TO A BARELY LITERATE, NEER-DO-WELL, DRAFT-DODGER.
IT IS TIME TO GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE.
- oh - let's explore the litmus test issue - What does the Democratic party stand for again???
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 01:38 PM
Ralph...
We've gone over this before. You know how we appreciate the hard work you do, but enough of the anti-Kerry stuff.
80% of Americans have changed their mind about the war and the propaganda networks have completely changed the wording on that vote. With 80% of American's angry at the media, we should be FOCUSED like a laser on getting the MEDIA to correct their inaccurate spin and lies.
Everyone, the tone on this blog is getting too harsh and combative!
Let's change the topic...
Regarding the ballot initiative in Michigan, have you heard about it?
Do you support having the minimum wage increased?
You live in a 'red' area, are they changing their minds?
Linda, What about where you live? Have they increased the minimum wage there? I remember what a big help you were in 04, but are there any issues (causes) to rally around in Florida (another red-zone).
What other issues (other than war) are people interested in?
Has anybody found any way to reach their neighbors and get some minds changed about the progressive agenda?
The next election will be more than the war. It will be about fiscal responibility, the growing deficit, corruption, and the plight of the poor.
Fighting with other progressives really doesn't help take back our democracy, but enables the media to keep their corruption, enables the election shinanigans to continue, and enables the neoCONS to keep doing what their doing.
So what ways can we keep the fight against them going strong for the next year?
Marjorie is right. The IWR was not a vote for war as the right-winged media claims. Furthermore, even NOW, we are gleaning evidence that the 2002 IWR was based on lies. Those facts were not there in 02, not there in 04, and in 05 they're inching closer to becoming a reality. Perhaps 06 will be the year they explode into full view.
Personally, why are we talking about this stuff over and over when 06 is coming up and this type of stuff really means nothing in the long term?
Also, Kerry probably did win Ohio, New Mexico etc, but the same as the IWR stuff...it doesn't have the complete evidence yet to explode into the daylight.
Posted by: sparrow at November 20, 2005 01:01 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Yes and this brings up the question (again) of why Kerry conceded, so early, the Ohio vote in 2004. Amazingly, I believe it was the Green Party - not the Kerry campaign _ that went to court, contested the vote and demanded a recount in Ohio.
But Kerry had already given up, threw in the towel.
Months after the 2004 election, Kerry was uninterested in the voting machine/fraud possibility in Ohio. It was left to wacky liberals like the Greens, Kucinich people and Dean people to get an investigation of the Ohio.
The early Kerry concession in Ohio in 2004 is yet another reason to eliminate him from the possible 2008 presidential candidates.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1880016,00.html
THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 01:52 PM
Ralph,
365 days later we have more information AND it's going to court in three different cases.
The early concension meant nothing. It was not going to change anything. BUT if you think back to what was happening, Bush had 'intentionally' heated up the war in Fallujah and that would have been most destructive to the troops there as well as any country who watched us handle another election crisis and a war at the same time.
Furthermore, it would have severely endangered the troops EVEN further than they currently were.
What Kerry did, he did to protect those over there.
In the end, Bush quickly 'finished' that battle rather than prolonging it for 6-8 weeks and how many more people would have died then?
What Kerry did SAVED lives as a result!
I'm done with this conversation. Particularly because there was no outpouring of support from anyone...not Kucinich, not Dean, not Murtha, not anyone! They LEFT Kerry alone and they tried to keep their hands clear of it. Sure...they all spoke before the House/Senate but look at how they voted. Look at the "DNC Election Fraud Report" THEY still say it wasn't stolen. So it's time for people to stop blaming Kerry for all that is wrong with the world.
Rumsfeld just announced that troops will be drawn down to 138,000 people after the Dec election. (Does Rumsfeld cut and run?)
Naw...
Bush backing down from the Iraq war debate?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_re_as/bush_asia
Doubtful!
It's just the ole' good guy pretence while his hacks go out and Swifty people.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 01:52 PM
Ralph,
365 days later we have more information AND it's going to court in three different cases.
The early concension meant nothing. It was not going to change anything. BUT if you think back to what was happening, Bush had 'intentionally' heated up the war in Fallujah and that would have been most destructive to the troops there as well as any country who watched us handle another election crisis and a war at the same time.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You tell me what we should learn from the "losing" Kerry campaign in 2004 so that we don't repeat the losing experience again in 2008.
Did Kerry make any mistakes in 2004?? Ran a perfect camapaign?? Just happened to lose to George the Juggernaut Bush?
Please tell us, who are wondering. those of us who supported Kucinich and Dean and Edwards and Clark....
Alito may be filibustered.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_go_co/alito
Time to make those calls of support--making sure you contact the MODERATE Republicans who don't want to give away all our rights and lose their seats next year.
More enemployed to come. Ford cutting more jobs.
http://tinyurl.com/brkya
Furore over ex-marine's account of killing of civilians
For 20 months, former US marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey has claimed in numerous interviews that he and his platoon killed unarmed civilians during the invasion of Iraq. Last year The Independent on Sunday was one of the first newspapers to publish his story, which has never been challenged by the Marine Corps. But now that Mr Massey's autobiography, Kill, Kill, Kill, has been published in France and is being considered for publication in the US, a reporter who was embedded with the 1,200-man battalion has questioned the veracity of his claims.
Earlier this month Ron Harris wrote a series in his newspaper, the St Louis Post-Dispatch, under headlines that included, "Is Jimmy Massey Telling the Truth About Iraq?". The articles seized on minor discrepancies of detail and implied that, because Mr Massey suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, he is less than reliable. Mr Harris's articles were immediately taken up by the pro-war lobby, triggering diatribes against Mr Massey on the internet. The first piece was circulated to media by Lt Col Richard Long, public affairs officer at Marine Corps headquarters and director of the embedded reporter programme in Iraq.
But when Mr Harris appeared on CNN to accuse Mr Massey of lying, claiming he had witnessed the incidents described by the marine, he in turn was challenged by another journalist. Jeff Schmerker, a reporter for The Mountaineer in North Carolina, said Mr Harris told him that he did not see the events with his own eyes. The St Louis Post-Dispatch man was assigned to a different company in the battalion from Mr Massey's. The sergeant's main charge is not denied by the reporter or the Marine Corps. "Yes, marines killed civilians," said Mr Harris. "I even reported on the shooting and killing of a British TV crew while I was in Iraq."
In December 2004, the Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon, Major Douglas Powell, told MSNBC: "We're not saying he's lying, but his perception of what the situation was in relation to the rules of engagement, and what was justified, is different than ours." Yet Mr Harris has contacted several other newspapers that published stories on Mr Massey and asked them to retract their articles publicly. The Sacramento Bee ran an editorial confessing, "It was an error of judgement. Before we published the story, we should have called the Marine Corps for a response."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article...
From Firedoglake...the deal that shook Washington:
http://www.firedoglake.blogspot.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20lobby.html
The Scanlon deal, which will be detailed more fully in court on Monday, isn't just any old agreement between a target and federal prosecutors.
In a town that is rife with rumor and innuendo over which shoe will be the next to drop, Michael Scanlon coming to an agreement with the Feds is sure to make more than a little ripple. This is a tidal wave of DC political possibilities, and it threatens knock out a lot of high powered lobbyists, politicians and deal makers.
After all Rummy's tv shows today, he may be target of Fitzgerald's investigation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5404292
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/19/701/31559
OMG go look at the story on global warming I just posted at Reb.
That is some SERIOUS shittokki Batman.
http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2005/11/we-are-all-going-to-die.html
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 02:41 PM
I will tell you what you should learn from it.
Courage is defined not because of what you stand for but what you STAND AGAINST.
And when you promise to fight for every vote...
Then you better snatch their swift boats from them turn them around and scream at the top of your lungs as you beach the damn thing right on top of them.
And only when you are willing to FIGHT FOR IT will you take the prize.
You want the ONE...?
Edwards is it. And make SURE he takes the gloves off.
And send him to the deep south to embedd himself throught. Let him charm them and they will lay an empire at his feet.
THAT is how to take the ENTIRE NATION.
No more patty cake. Time to choke the monkey.
Excellent article about why the media is still complicit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/memo-to-the-media-stop-e_b_6889.html
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 02:52 PM
Hey Christy,
i don't have the link but I'll see if I can find it. But in the meantime, I found a nonpartison "think tank" that has said that from the 70-90 there was approx. 2% increase in global warming.
AND by year 2020 if we continue as we're doing there will be a 20% increase.
Huffpo has tons of great articles today. It makes me so angry! WE MUST TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY.
2005 is the time to take this news out to people. To find local candidates and start fundraising to get your message across.
Is there a Paul Wellstone in your community? CAN you be a Paul Wellstone?
Find out who is running locally and get involved now. Because frankly, we have to stay united and we have to work hard to take this country back...from the most local office in the land to the highest office in 06...change happens with our involvement.
Let us not succumb to negativity.
Tearing people down who put their lives on the line and made valiant efforts to stop the current death regime is like a violin screeching, or fingernails on a blackboard, in my opinion. The negative energy that accompanies repetitive put downs in any arena has the potential to carry people's spirits to the dark side if left to fester and grow.
Although we may not like someone, let us remember there are plenty of others here who do, and let us be sensitive to that fact. Please let us not get so intent on controlling every one's opinion that we cease to respect every one's freedom to think for themselves, and hold their own opinion dear.
I think once we have stated our opinion, it amounts to nothing more than attempted control of a collective body to repeat that opinion many many times over. Let's focus our energy on positive affirming remarks toward the people who are trying to change the direction this country is now headed, and let us never forget that though we have but feet of clay, we are all patriots who want this to turn around. We all want a better tomorrow.
We have alot more things to worry about in the next three years than scrutinizing with a microscope every word and every move a candidate put forth in a past campaign. We grow, the world grows, candidates grow. 20/20 hindsight is wonderful, but to do things perfectly in the midst of battle is a bitch, and to expect that is perhaps being a bit unrealistic.
So, what are we going to be doing this coming week to personally contribute to making a difference?
Let's start with our five minutes a day!
What else can we do this week?
sparrow- yes we do have a minimum wage here in Florida that is above the national minimum. I think it's about $6.25, I'm not sure though. Most people in my area of the state start out at McDonalds and like jobs at about $7 per hour, and they consider that a good starting wage. So the minimum wage won't win any voters over in the reddest part of this state. Quite frankly, the only issue I know of in Florida that would be a winning issue would be to force the insurance companies to honor their promises, and I don't see any candidate out there talking about that. They get too much money from the industry.
Ralpheh- I don't disagree with you on your choices of candidates in the primaries, and I don't disagree with you on what lost the last election. If we had it to do over again, knowing what we know now, things would have definitely been done differently. I'm not sure Democrats across the nation wouldn't go back and nominate another candidate who didn't have as much conflicting baggage as Kerry carried into the campaign- if they knew what we know now. And I also don't disagree with the point made above that the MSM helped cost the election, by giving vent to the swiftboaters and their incredibly stupid lies. But you have pretty much made your point and "I told you so" is something most people don't care to hear more than once, if that often. I think that's what's getting under people's skin on here today. I too hope we have another candidate next election, but a lot of people on the DCP still are attached to Kerry. I do think the arguments are kind of counter productive.
And Christy- Edwards could do it too in '08. He can win the South. You're absolutely right about that. And he'd be a good one to take on the insurance companies in my state as an issue. That's what would win Florida
Although we may not like someone, let us remember there are plenty of others here who do, and let us be sensitive to that fact. Please let us not get so intent on controlling every one's opinion that we cease to respect every one's freedom to think for themselves, and hold their own opinion dear.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I don't think that "liking" someone should be how we select our candidates. Shouldn't it be, at least in part, BASED ON BELIEFS, AND VALUES that the person is representing???
And can we not agree that Kerry made some mistakes in 2004 and lost the campaign? And this means that George Bush will be president until 2009?
If we cannot agree on these very basic things, I do not see how we are going to win the presidency in 2008. This is not being negative - it is being realistic and learning from the past. Sometimes called "constructive self-criticism".
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 04:35 PM
Linda,
If you work full time at the federal minimum wage, you're earning 5k less than the federal poverty line. (That's about 11k per year and the Federal poverty line is 16k per year...approx!)
So...At 6.25 you're still earning 13k per year. That is still below the federal poverty line as you can see. Then add into the fact that health care is not covered.
And that means every state has a major crisis on their hands.
Many people want Labor to step up and get people voting for fair wages. They feel we can 'take the south' on that issue too.
I'm not sure. New Orleans DID open peoples eyes but did it open them enough to get rid of the old "I'm ok..I have a job and those people are just lazy" mentality?
Go look at this video of bush trying to run from reporters right into a double locked door..
What a national disgrace
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454738.stm
"I told you so" is something most people don't care to hear more than once, if that often. I think that's what's getting under people's skin on here today. I too hope we have another candidate next election, but a lot of people on the DCP still are attached to Kerry. I do think the arguments are kind of counter productive.
And Christy- Edwards could do it too in '08. He can win the South. You're absolutely right about that. And he'd be a good one to take on the insurance companies in my state as an issue. That's what would win Florida
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 04:35 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The repetition of the losing candidate's name gets very, very saddening and, I would say, dangerously unproductive.
It makes me think that all the mistakes of 2004 will be repeated in 2008.
Was nothing learned by the Democrats in losing in 2004??
More reminders of probable election fraud. Humidity, huh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2265888
Ralph,
Kerry did not "lose" the election. The American people were smoking the cultural equivalent of crack, as witnessed by the 70% of Bush's supporters who told pollsters in October 2004 that they still believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11. That 70% should be ashamed. They betrayed this democracy by their sheer stupidity.
Kerry was not the problem, even though he didn't run a perfect campaign. And those other candidates were either not ready for prime time or fringe candidates. I can only imagine how much we would have lost by with either Kucinich or Dean at the top of the ticket. McGovern would have looked like a strong candidate compared to those two.
I sometimes can't decide which group is more in denial - the loony right or angry left.
It makes me think that all the mistakes of 2004 will be repeated in 2008.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 04:51 PM
You hit my secret paranoia dead on the head with that.
This is not about blaming Kerry. We all voted for him so that fight is over.
We KNOW they will rig 2006.. AND 2008..
WE KNOW it will happen. Our best defense is to do things much much differently.
This is not about dem and repell.. this is about THEM VERSUS US.. and anything past 100,000,000 all eats from the same plate anyway.
This is WAY BEYOND repell/dem.. THIS IS ABOUT WHO IS THE SLAVE, WHO IS THE MASTER, AND WHO WANTS TO BE SLAVE MASTER SOME DAY.
As long as they are stealing our votes, as long as we have no champion to fight them for it..
Then WE are the slaves. And not one of THEM will find it in OUR better intrest to set us FREE
WE KNOW they will rig... 2006
2008
2012
2014
2016
and by 2018 elections will no longer even be needed.
Sparrow- no, it won't work down here, not if you put it on the basis of being a "Labor" issue. You'd be absolutely shocked to know how anti-union most Deep Southerners are.
We can't even get our teachers decent salaries in my part of the country because, as members of the NEA, most people think they're getting more benefits than they're worth anyway. We have an all Republican school board in this county because the local citizenry WANTED our board to "hold the line" on teachers salaries- believing anyone in a union was doing better than the locals as far as health insurance, retirement, and other benefits were concerned already.
As far as New Orleans goes, a lot of people here in my town, which welcomed the refugees originally, now are afraid that the refugees who came here will cause the crime rate to go up. So yes, there is a lot of that "those people are just lazy (and criminal) mentality.
The only issue that is truly on people's minds, and that both Democrats and Republicans in this area agree on, is the issue of insurance companies and their failure to honor their committments after the storms. That would probably be a huge issue in Louisiana as well as in Florida.
You'd be surprised how low the cost of living is here in Northwest Florida. There are a lot of couples living here making $7 per hour per person and getting by on that.
And you couldn't convince them to join a union if their lives depended on it.
Yes, it's ignorant.
But it's just the way it is.
They would like health coverage of some kind too, but they don't believe in the government interfering in that issue. They'll vote against their own best interest every time, unless it's put in a way that they believe they're "earning it."
And I don't know how to offer a national health policy that people could feel they were earning. But something like that would go over ok down here.
Kerry did not "lose" the election. The American people were smoking the cultural equivalent of crack, as witnessed by the 70% of Bush's supporters who told pollsters in October 2004 that they still believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11. That 70% should be ashamed. They betrayed this democracy by their sheer stupidity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ah!!! Kerry didn't "really" lose in 2004. WOW, talk about rewriting history.
O.K., I guess we can't even agree that Kerry lost in 2004 and Bush will be president until 2009.
Let's just go back to bashing Bush - it so fun and easy....
Kerry did not lose the vote.
Kerry 'lost' the election the moment he conceeded.
Kerry won AND lost. Both are true.
************Off topic...
Ok..So I've been out struggling to plant the bulbs I bought (discounted!). I think I must have bought over 500 of them because they were a great price and I love flowers.
Well...the ground is nearly frozen now, (yes, you may swear for me here because all of you know how I feel about winter!), and yet I've only planted around 300 of them. (Yes, you may swear again for this too.)
I'm tired, I'm sore, and man am I ticked off that the ground is not cooperating with me! Afterall, I want "drifts" of blooms to greet me at the end of the horrific winter.
But to get these lovely blooms, I'm out preparing the ground, drilling holes, mulching, sticking a bulb in and watering (with care) and covering with soil and going to the next spot and starting all over again.
Man...It's hard work and I'm wondering if it is worth it.
Next spring, when the flowers come and the deer eat the flowers, I'll be happy for the work I've invested into it.
But I'll have to face the fact that maybe not all my bulbs will bloom. Maybe the deer will eat the bulbs instead of the blooms. Maybe the flowers will not bloom very long.
Regardless, if I don't take the time to go out and do it now, then I have no hope for flowers in 06.
It's the same thing with any election. We can chat online all we want or we can complain about candidates from here to eternity but to make things bloom, you have to be willing to invest time and energy way before the 'event'.
The fact is, we can complain about just about every candidate but in my opinion doing so only gives the other side poison to use against us next year (or in 08) so our flowers will die from our own toxins instead of having a chance at good health.
BUT on the other hand if we can stay busy, tilling the soil and planting our seeds and giving 'our side' food and water, then we have the opportunity to let our flowers take back the garden from the weeds. Then if things don't go exactly as planned at least you tried.
So...maybe it's not so off topic after all!
ralpheh- It's counter productive to keep this argument going.
I don't know what direction you want the Democratic party to go in, but my impression is that you want the party to head more to the left than it is already.
I agree with you- I want another candidate in '08 too, but there has never been a completely pacifist, anti-war candidate elected to the White House that I know of. Jimmy Carter was probably the closest to that that I can remember, and he was a one termer. And he did NOT run as anti-war,by the way. If he had, I would not have voted for him. He would have not carried a single Southern or Mid-western state had he run as an anti-war candidate. And it IS important to win at least one or two of those states- anything else is a sure defeat in a national election.
If it's tiring you out to mention the names of the candidates who lost in '04, it might behoove you to stop mentioning Kucinich and Dean's names as well. The percentage of Americans who label themselves as "very liberal" is actually less than 20%.
I know you're unhappy and analyzing the election over and over in your mind. But Dean or Kucinich wouldn't have fared any better than Kerry did last November. The polls showed it.
This country may be against this war now, but they weren't back then. The times have changed, and for the better. So maybe 2006 will straighten a lot of things out in our government.
But hoping for an idealistic, John Lennon type character to be elected president in '08 is just dreaming. We can "Imagine" all that good stuff, but the world is not ready for it.
And this country won't vote that way. No matter how much you wish it would.
'We can "Imagine" all that good stuff, but the world is not ready for it.'
I disagree.
99% of Americans say that congress is NOT acting in their best intrests.
99%
This country is ripe for RADICAL change.
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 04:51 PM
Good one.
Here is an interesting anomoly...
The less 'liberal' that our government has gotten historicaly...
The more 'mistrust' they are viewed with.
Time and time again every step they took towards the center or right, the same number of steps went against wether they were viewed as trustworthy.
Im not joking go study the numbers.
Less liberal = less confidence.
More liberal = more confidence.
It is not just 'suggested' by the numbers. It is absolutely consistantly proven again and again.
If the world isn't ready for it, then we need to MAKE them ready. It's not too early-- it's around 200 years late. But the time is now; it will never be earlier.
...And by the way, ralpheh:
Please blame ME for the 2004 election. It's my fault. I'm serious. Well, not ALL my fault... but I certainly played a role. See, I should have worked harder, I should have done more than I did. I won't make that mistake again, though. Not in 2006 and not in 2008. So please continue to critique choices made by Kerry and his team in 2004-- we should all do that to learn from what we did wrong and what we did right. HOWEVER, if you ever feel the need to blame KERRY for the loss of the election, please BLAME ME INSTEAD.
NT4K..
I don't think this is about blame.
And even if it was it certainly wasn't your fault.
>>I sometimes can't decide which group is more in denial - the loony right or angry left.<<
When you are a self-righteous ideologue you can only see down a tunnel. Common sense eludes you. When there is no gray - only black or white - then it does not matter if you happen to be on the right side of an issue. You still end up being a radical who cares more about being right than doing the right thing.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 05:19 PM
Ralph, let me make this simple.
Kerry ran a reasonable race against an incumbent President who had the corporate controlled media largely covering his Administration's back, and the right wing radio machine propagating an alternative version of reality that an awful lot of American voters apparently bought into to.
The idea that another candidate would have done better than Kerry is truly magical thinking. I mean, if a candiate can't win a couple of Presidential primaries, by what basis can anyone credibily assert that they would have done better in a general election?
The only candidate other than Kerry who was able to capture the enthusiasm of Democratic Primary voters was John Edwards. According to polling data, Edwards did poorly during his Vice-Presidential debate with Cheney. Let me repeat: the campaign actually did polling during/following the debate, and Cheney apparently polled better with respondents. And I personally thought Edwards did fine in that debate.
At some point, we have re-introduce critical thinking skills on the left. No amount of magical thinking is going to change realities on the ground.
I think Linda is absolutely correct. It's obvious that the Democrats are going to have to do a better job at reaching out to mainstream America in the next election. I personally think that John Edwards' message will resonate with mainstream America in 2008, much better than it did in 2004. I think the time for a populist candidate who doesn't scare people is coming.
Christy,
Well I supose, as Robert Kennedy said (today would be his 80th birthday by the way) "There is enough blame to go around."
Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at November 20, 2005 06:09 PM
Amen.
Bobby Kennedy.
What a hell of a man.
Me I like his son
Bobby Kennedy.
What a hell of a man.
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 06:13 PM
Amen!
Native- I'm wondering what period of history it was when we had a truly "liberal" government? By that I mean one that put it's citizens welfare above corporate growth, one that didn't opress any people (not Native Americans, nor Black Americans, nor any minority), and one that was against using our military for any purpose OTHER than defending our country when it was attacked. FDR's administration may have been the closest to all that, but even he went through a very rough time prior to WWII when he wanted to "mind our own business" and stay out of Europe. And even he betrayed the Polish people during that war so that they lost their freedom for many, many years. So Roosevelt wasn't perfect either. I think we all have to acknowledge that we shouldn't have been pacifist as long as we were during Roosevelts administration. There are just times that we cannot sit around and "Imagine" that the world is kind and good and loving, because that planet doesn't exist.
We have to have a ready military, because we have to be ready to defend ourselves. We can't just imagine a world of peace and love, because it's not going to happen. Human nature is greedy- we're born that way. Humans want supremacy over other humans. It's all wrong, yes. But we cannot be so unrealistic as to think of electing a president who is completely anti-war. Kucinich impressed most people as a complete pacifist, and Dean's very logical opposition to this particular war didn't go over well either, because, at the time of the election, a good half the people in this country still thought this war was winnable.
As far as liberals being trusted more in office,I'd like a link to that survey. Johnson was a liberal, and no one trusted him. Carter was a liberal, and no one trusted him enough to re-elect him. When it came time for the '80 election, Americans wanted a strong leader to protect them from the evil Iranians who had kidnapped our citizens.
And Bill Clinton's leadership was trusted (his morals maybe, not so much), but he was certainly no liberal.
I don't get the link between Liberal= trustworthy and moderate= not so trustworty.
I'd like to see that survey.
Dinners burning bbiam
Ralph, let me make this simple.
Kerry ran a reasonable race against an incumbent President who had the corporate controlled media largely covering his Administration's back, and the right wing radio machine propagating an alternative version of reality that an awful lot of American voters apparently bought into to.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
As I said previously, this is very sad that the Democrats cannot come up with a candidate who can beat a barely literate, neer-do-well Draft-Dodger like Bush.
But maybe you are right: Bush truly is a giant... no one could have beaten him in 2004.
And let's not even think about an election where the Republicans come up with a candidate who is literate, intelligent, persuasive and has charisma.
[Edited ... please keep it positive.]
No I just don't want to lose in 2008 like Kerry lost in 2004.... real simple..
Matthew- my point on John Edwards is that he also could impress a lot of Southerners who have been ravaged by the hurricanes because he's fought against big insurers so many times.
I think he'd resonate really well this time around- hey, he impressed a lot of Southerners the last time around, just not enough to vote for him at the bottom of the ticket.
But, in looking forward, I really think the health insurance issue is going to be the big issue of '08. The war will be the '06 issue, and we'll win on that one. But we've got to get a candidate with a believable plan to bring insurance to all Americans, without making it look like it's a big Labor plan or a government boondoggle. Southerners and Midwesterners won't accept either of those two things. And it's going to be very hard to do that, especially when we're likely to have the biggest deficit in World History.
I'd like our potential candidates to be thinking about those things now- because something like 40 million voters with no insurance could turn any election their way.
Maybe a minimum wage increase with part of that increase earmarked for guaranteed health coverage from a government subsidized group of private carriers. (With price controls, of course.) Then it would seem like it was earned and paid for by the worker, which is what a lot of people down here would want. And it wouldn't seem like a completely government run program.
We have to win on issues the next time around. It can't be a personality contest, but we do have to have a candidate who can explain things in plain terms to the voters.
It can happen. It's just got to.
Linda,
This is a serious question that I have wondered about since the election. When you say Edwards "impressed a lot of Southerners the last time around, just not enough to vote for him at the bottom of the ticket.", what do you base that on? In my mind the election was lost in Ohio. And even with Cheney scaring the bejesus out of a country still wanting to stand behind the commander in cheif during a time of war and the gay marriage ammendment that brought out all of the right wing zealots, he almost pulled it off. (I'm a huge fan of Edwards and I'm from the south - I just have really wondered how his red roots really helped us)
Well I supose, as Robert Kennedy said (today would be his 80th birthday by the way) "There is enough blame to go around."
Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at November 20, 2005 06:09 PM
OMG I miss the Kennedys.
Shaun has a wonderful photo of Robert Kennedy on his blog:
http://upper-left.blogspot.com/
(But you also owe it to yourself to read the entry below it called "your tenor wang")
Lou,
[Edited -- please keep it positive.]
I don't have any polls to back up what I said- it's just instinct and having listened to a lot of people in my area who were really tired of Bush being in the White House. Almost to a person though, they didn't like Kerry because of his northeastern roots (something he couldn't help), the way he spoke (long explanations with a lot of nuance that they just didn't "get) and the fact that he'd protested the Vietnam war.
They preferred the devil that they knew and could understand to the devil that they couldn't understand and were confused by. But an awful lot of them said that they could have voted Democrat had Edwards been nominated. They liked his youth, his enthusiasm, and he didn't have that nasty Vietnam baggage hanging around his neck. The night before the election Edwards came to the airport here in Pensacola and there was a HUGE turnout for his speech. He could have gotten the "I'd like to have a beer with him" voters away from Georgy. And I think he'd have pulled Ohio in too- the truth is, that Kerry is just too nuanced for a lot of people to understand. I mean, we're arguing on here 3 years later about what he meant exactly when he voted for the IWR, what he meant when he said he wouldn't have changed his vote even if he had the info he has now. He only makes sense, quite frankly, to the very literate, politically savvy type of people who blog and follow the news carefully. And that's not most Americans. He just confused the hell out of most of them. It's not his fault, it's just the way it was.
So, I'm not slamming him guys. Don't jump me. I'm just trying to answer the question Lou asked.
I don't honestly think Edwards appeal in the South HAD to do with him being Southern. It had to him being as plain spoken as he could be. And they needed to see more of him- for him to be on top of the ticket- for them to get to know him enough to vote for him. I really think it could have happened.
I suspect it might just happen in '08, because I don't think Hillary is really going to run.
Linda
You didnt get what I was saying. It is not a survey.
As I said go back and look at polls since they began polling.
The more 'conservative' the gov was percieved to be, the less honest the overall gov was percieved to be as well.
The more 'liberal' or visionary the president.. the better the gov did over all in 'honesty' or 'trustworthyness'.
The less liberal the gov gets, the less trustyworthy they are.
Think about it a moment, ALL of our Founding Fathers were LIBERALS by definition.
Repells have twisted that definition. And people watching it know at heart they can not be trusted.
When 99% of the people say congress does NOT have their best intrests at heart, it is time for radical change.
Edwards could bring that change but only if he comes to the south and holds his ground at every turn.
Posted by: lou at November 20, 2005 06:57 PM
There's no question at all in my mind that if the MA Supreme Court had not thrust gay marriage into the center of a Presidential Election, then Ohio and perhaps one or two other states would have gone Kerry's way. Kerry was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position with regard to gay marriage. And Ohio was a state where the wingnuts really were able to get their voters out on the strength of this single issue.
The ULTIMATE dream come true in 2008?
Edwards not only runs but sets up campaign headquarters in Baton Rouge.
They need hope. His words will give it to them. It would radiate out into the entire nation from there. He could sweep the south.
Turn it blue like the ocean.
And the south would indeed rise again.
A new south.
Linda,
Thanks for the reply. I really was thinking you might have seen some data I had missed. Although I certainly agree with you on Edwards appeal and wonderful qualities, my caution is that he never had the bright lights and guns turned on him because he was at the bottom of the ticket. And when you say he didn't have baggage, he also didn't have national security creds. Which in my opinion was critical to our being able to come as close as we did to beating a sitting war time president, even before the country was ready to turn the corner.
But you are right, instead of stirring anything up, we should have a laugh. When you mentioned the "I would like to have a beer with him" voter, I had to pass this link on to you. I just saw it today and nearly laughed myself silly. Enjoy.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 07:19 PM
Blue Moon
You saw me standing alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own
Blue Moon
You know just what I was there for
You heard me saying a prayer for
Someone I really could care for
And then there suddenly appeared before me
The only one my arms will hold
I heard somebody whisper please adore me
And when I looked to the Moon it turned to gold
Blue Moon
Now I'm no longer alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own
And then there suddenly appeared before me
The only one my arms will ever hold
I heard somebody whisper please adore me
And when I looked the Moon had turned to gold
Blue moon
Now I'm no longer alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own
Blue moon
Now I'm no longer alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at November 20, 2005 07:15 PM
I agree. Completely.
Never underestimate the "I'd like to have a beer with him" factor of modern American politics. With Bubba, it was a donut instead of a beer.
Christy- yes, I agree with you - all our founding fathers were liberal. There's no doubt about that.
I think that a lot of presidents that we've considered "liberal" like Kennedy (who really wasn't ) had great speaking abilities that made people trust them to do the right thing.
I know Roosevelt certainly did. If you ever get the chance to go to even one monument in Washington- FDR's is the one to go to.
Just reading the words on the walls of that monument make you see what a truly great man he was. I had no idea he had spoken like that- just judging from the little snippets of his speeches that I'd heard from the old radio broadcasts made me think maybe he was just an average to good speaker. But there's no doubt why the people of my dad's generation loved him so much when you go to that monument and read the things he said.
And they actually encourage visitors to wade in the pools of the monument to cool their feet, because it's what FDR would have wanted. To comfort the tired feet of all those average Americans who came to his monument. You won't get that at any other monument in DC.
I'd have trusted him, that's for sure.
Just not LBJ, no matter how liberal he was. He did some great things, but he was a sneaky Texas politician. That's why I say all liberals haven't been viewed as trustworthy, just some of them.
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 07:19 PM
Don't it Make My Red Eyes Blue - Crystal Gayle
Don't know when I've been so blue
Don't know what's come over you
You've found someone new
And don't it make my red eyes blue
I'll be fine when you're gone
I'll just cry all night long
Say it isn't true
And don't it make my red eyes blue
Tell me no secrets, tell me some lies
Give me no reasons, give me alibis
Tell me you love me and don't make me cry
Say anything but don't say goodbye
I didn't mean to treat you bad
Didn't know just what I had
But, honey, now I do
And don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes blue
Don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes blue
Don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes
Don't it make my red eyes blue
AOL Is helping the Dems out tonight:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051120143609990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001
HOUSE ROOKIE IGNITES UPROAR:
"Rep. Jean Schmidt (stupidly) plays the coward card"
Did Jean Schmidt go too far during the debate?
Yes 64%
No 36%
What do you think of the rancorous House debate over Iraq?
It's justified, war is a divisive topic 54%
It's too much and doesn't help matters 46%
Total Votes: 76,100
Note on Poll Results
Lou- thanks for that link. Here's my favorite line from it:
"Then George mentioned that he used to be a cheerleader at Yale. I didn't know what to say to that one, so I just drank the rest of my beer real fast."
Can you imagine sitting in a bar and bringing up the fact that you used to be a cheerleader in college?????? It's a good thing Georgy had the Secret Service there with him for protection.
What a twit.
'When Honest Abe heard the news about your fall...
Folks thought he called a great Victory Ball..
But he asked the band to play the song 'Dixie'..
For you Johnny Reb, and all that you believe..'
Johnny Horton
We were worth fighting, and dying for once.
We still are.
The percentage of Americans who label themselves as "very liberal" is actually less than 20%.
I know you're unhappy and analyzing the election over and over in your mind. But Dean or Kucinich wouldn't have fared any better than Kerry did last November. The polls showed it.
This country may be against this war now, but they weren't back then. The times have changed, and for the better. So maybe 2006 will straighten a lot of things out in our government.
But hoping for an idealistic, John Lennon type character to be elected president in '08 is just dreaming. We can "Imagine" all that good stuff, but the world is not ready for it.
And this country won't vote that way. No matter how much you wish it would.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 05:36 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I have to disagree - THE LIBERALS!!!! YES THE LIBERALS!!! are controling the debate in Washington. The debate now is WMD in Iraq - Did Bush Lie to the country for two years??? Was the country misled into war??? The debate is "How many have to die before we leave Iraq?" The debate is "How many years will we be in Iraq?" The debate is "How corrupt are the corporations that are getting no-bid government contracts?"
Murtha admitted so much in his press conference:
"The Iraq policy is a failed policy. The American people know it - and they are ahead of the Congress and the President. The troops can't do anymore - Saddam is gone and there are no WMD."
Long article, but it reads like a spy novel. Wish like crazy it wasn't all true... It shows how completely and utterly most people in this country were taken in by the LIES of The Cretin as he forced those LIES on us as his version of "the truth...."
German Intelligence Slams Bush Admin. on Pre-War Intel
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005X.shtml
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told US officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.
The twit is still a cheerleader.
PomPom Circumstance
ralpheh- Murtha is no liberal. He's as hawkish a representative as we've ever had in Congress.
And unless you believe that it's ONLY the liberals who want an honest government, a president who doesn't lie, and corporate honesty, it's pretty much the whole country that is hunting answers right now. Everyone except the extreme right wing of the Republican party.
I'm sorry, but 66 percent of the population, which is approximately Bush's disapproval rating now, is not liberal. If they were, George W Bush would not be in the White House today. Probably neither would John Kerry. Dennis Kucinich would be president.
What they do agree with is that Bush is a liar.
And even those who call themselves moderates can see that now.
[Edited - please keep it positive.]
Just spoke to Karen. She said...
The world can't wait organization has some tremendous actions in the works for all of us beginning in January.
Let's keep focused guys. We're doing great work so far.
Matthew- And never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
That's a t-shirt slogan.
And it's also why we have the president that we do.
"Almost to a person though, they didn't like Kerry because of his northeastern roots (something he couldn't help), "
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 07:10 PM
;-) Do you know how prejudicial that sounds? ;-)
The Cretin's true roots are also in the northeast where he was born, but he has that lamentable (fake) southern drawl that grates on my last shredded nerve. I used to like listening to southern drawls and try to guess which region people came from by the different accents.... but after Jan. 09, I really don't want to listen to any more southern drawls....
And, yes. I do know how prejudicial that sounds, but after the Selection of 2000, in the future I'll likely equate any southern drawls (fake though they may be for some, and real for others) and wonder if I'm being LIED to - again.... ;-)
The joy I used to take in listening to the different southern drawls is now all gone....
nd, yes. I do know how prejudicial that sounds, but after the Selection of 2000, in the future I'll likely equate any southern drawls (fake though they may be for some, and real for others) and wonder if I'mA being LIED to - again.... ;-)"
NonnyO- yes, I do know that resenting Kerry's northeastern roots is prejudicial- BTW I voted for Kerry, remember, but I don't deny that the words "Damn Yankee" are still one word in a lot of parts of the South. There is prejudice in the South.
And I also know that there is prejudice in the North against Southerners. There was a lot of it spoken on the Blog when it was implied that Kerry and the Democratic party could "get along ok" without the ignorant Southern States voters.
And there's prejudice against the midwest as well- a lot of people in the Democratic party thought they could get elected without those Bible Thumping midwesterners too- you know, people like John Ashcroft.
I guess the West is the only party of the country no one is prejudiced against. Pretty much both parties agreed they needed to win that part of the country.
I suppose that if we all drove West our IQ's would go up a good 50 points, huh?
It's EVERYWHERE, IT'S EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
Oh MY GOD!!!! People are suspicious of people who aren't like them.
How strange.
How very strange.
I wonder if, Hmmmm- just from all the wars the world has had- it could just be part of human nature.
Not our best part, put definitely part.
Denying it doesn't make it go away.
That's why "Imagine" will never be a world anthem.
No matter how much a lot of people would love for it to be.
Nonnyo- and you wouldn't like my Southern accent anyhow.
It's the ones from Gawgah that are the REALLY purty accents.
Mines kind of Southern Alabama. Maybe worse. It's plumb nilly hillbilly.
Just pulling your leg, but I never said Southern politicians are the most honest in the nation.
EVen John Edwards has his good ol' boy act practiced to perfection.
He's a lot smarter than his accent would lead you to believe, ain't he?
What I Knew Before the Invasion
By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005; Page B07
In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.
The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.
The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.
I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Interesting poll results:
Should U.S. troops begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? * 16274 responses
Yes - 74%
No - 21%
I don't know - 5%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10112386/site/newsweek/#survey
I'm sorry, but 66 percent of the population, which is approximately Bush's disapproval rating now, is not liberal. If they were, George W Bush would not be in the White House today. Probably neither would John Kerry. Dennis Kucinich would be president.
What they do agree with is that Bush is a liar.
And even those who call themselves moderates can see that now.
[Edited - please keep it positive.]
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 07:49 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
And 50% of the people don't vote (many because they are lazy, but many because they don't see any real differences between the two parties).
But you put whatever label you want on it - liberal, lefty, bleeding heart, progressive, cut and run etc....
The anti-war people are in the ascendency. We were correct on almost all of predictions about the war - it is like Vietnam, in so many ways.
And if the Dems nominate a candidate in 2008 who wants to "stay in Iraq until we win". I will not give him/her a dime and I will abstain from voting probably. My money and time will go to Conyers, Woolsey and Move On, True Majority etc....
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 07:40 PM
Hey...Just curious...how does Granholm hold up in your neck of the woods?
And do you know who if anyone is running against Rep. Joe Schwartzzzzz?
(Extra zzzzz- since he's sleeping through the corruption of his own party!)
More Evidence of Liberal Domination of AOL News!!!!
Rep. Jean Schimdt:
--------The House exploded in catcalls and jeers among outraged Democrats. When debate resumed, Ms. Schmidt retracted her comments and said, "I did not intend to suggest they applied to any member," especially Mr. Murtha.
Ms. Schmidt could not be reached for comment on Saturday, with voice mailboxes full at all three of her offices. Her campaign manager did not return a phone call.
Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.------------
Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.------------
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 08:55 PM
and this is who beat out Hackett for a few perccentage points in Ohion. Oy...
I mean Ohio!
I guess the West is the only party of the country no one is prejudiced against. Pretty much both parties agreed they needed to win that part of the country.
I suppose that if we all drove West our IQ's would go up a good 50 points, huh?
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 20, 2005 08:04 PM
I'd disagree...
The Hollywood Liberal Elite reputation still stands, even though California is very red in many places, including where I am.
(Yes, I returned to California 8 hours ago.)
On my flight back, I watched CNN News showing American use of banned substances in Iraq, and W's smirk during the APEC summit. Not a very good way to return home, but I am determined to start fighting again.
I noted that at the APEC summit, W was hanging out very closely with Japan's PM Koizumi, who is another right-wing b*stard and a very hated figure in China and Korea.
In any case, nice to be able to log on here daily, even though I didn't like having to come back to the States.
Posted by: Christy at November 20, 2005 04:51 PM
Thanks for that link Christy.
Best part of my day!
hahahaha
New thread...
Since the next thread is about a special person I met who is really not so much different from so many others who have joined the military, I personally am requesting that we keep the old discussions on this thread, but let the new thread be more about Iraq, Veterans, and how we can help them.
Thanks,
Suz
Florida's increase in minimum wage did not send jobs away as predicted by political interest groups.
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBXOR0P8GE.html
Welcome back Alley.