Seems reasonable to me, but, bottom line, it means we have to start pulling our troops out immediately, and, as there are a lot of them, it will take some time to fully execute the plan in a timely manner. The point is that we must recognize complete withdrawal as the goal and start, right now, executing a plan to implement said withdrawal...

I like Howard Dean, but really, paying even one moment's attention to the Democratic party's position on the Iraq situation just plays into the Bush administration's hands. We shouldn't do it, even though the mainstream media love to obsess over the fact that Democrats are divided on Iraq.

The Iraq war (sic) is a colossal failure. If it ever had a moral basis, it doesn't now. Dr. Dean might be right that a middle course between immediate withdrawal and "staying the course" is the best for the sake of Iraq and our troops, but all this talk does is to take the problem off the shoulders of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and put it in the hands of political pundits (whose own children aren't fighting in Iraq).

If a corporate C.E.O. behaved illegally and ran his company into the ground, the Board of Directors wouldn't worry about subtle differences of opinion among themselves about a better course for the company. They'd fire the C.E.O. Impeaching a president is harder than firing someone, but the principle is the same...stop talking about minor differences between us, and get rid of the guy on top.

For me, it's like talking about Ann Coulter. It can do a lot of harm, but not a lot of good. That puts me in the minority here, but that's OK.

I must agree with RLM #2.

This is a republican invasion and occupation. It is a republican "catastrophic success".

The much sought after "trophy" goes to the republicans who coveted it so much. And who now covet Iran. They are trigger happy and can't understand why most people do not want that kind of happiness.

The republican framed issue that blame must be shifted to the democrats or that nothing must be done unless and until the democrats come up with "a better plan" is insane, inane, and wrong.

The republicans claimed this pile of shit, sprinkled it with white sugar, then brown sugar, then said "doesn't this smell good"?

When most everyone said it smells like shit, not sugar, they tried splenda. "Isn't this splendid now" they ask, but get the same response. This republican shit smells like shit.

The republicans want to stay and let another president solve the problem, say any change from staying the course is unpatriotic, and at the same time demand "a better plan" than calling shit shit.

Well, repuplicans, here is a plan for you: wake up and smell the shit and stop wasting the sugar.

Dean is an excellent spokesman. He's in a difficult job but doing it well. He's hampered by Mandarins who have been losing elections for ever, sometimes with a smile. Given all this, what more can we ask.

I find his media presence highly appropriate. I say

***Let Dean be Dean***

Aggressive, edgy, sarcastic...the times call for it, the public is fed up, and no more evicence is needed than the delusional performance of * in West Virginia. They must have looked long and hard in that great state to find a friendly audience.

Let Dean be Dean!!!

Dean was good; I wanna see more of that; the democrats verbally stomping out the republican controlled media echoing the White House spin...

Soledad was road kill after he finished...;-)

Fine job by dean. But the democrats need a sturdy platform to stand on in November, and just talking about having one isn't going to make it happen.

I like Dean, too. I don't think he should stop talking, only that he should remind his interviewers at every turn: "The problem here is not that John Murtha and I might disagree on the rate of troop withdrawal needed. The problem here is not that Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy might be on different pages in the book. The problem is the war itself."

If your kid came home with a report card that showed three D's and two F's, and said, "There's a real disagreement in the classroom about the teacher's approach to the subject matter," would you accept that as an excuse? Or would you say to your kid, "Forget the teacher. You're the one that screwed up here."

Watching TV pundits is bad for the health. I really believe that. They're incapable of discussing an issue on its merits, whether it's war policy, or abuse of detainees, or illegal spying, or a censure motion. It's always, "Why are the Democrats divided?" Or, "Do you agree with _____, who wants to leave Iraq now?" TV punditry is sophistry to the nth degree...the secondary question is always elevated over the primary one.

I hate to see this stuff coming out of his mouth. He had an email in my box, not an hour after Murtha first piped up, asking me to send Murtha a note of support, which I GLADLY did. He's in Murtha's camp for CERTAIN, but he has to talk this blather. I COULD JUST SCREAM! Uh, well, actually, I just did. Sorry.

There goes the '06 elections. I knew the "leaders" of the democratic party would blow this one, I just didn't think it would be this bad – 66% of the people of America want us out of Iraq and democrats just shined them on. Wow. That's sure gonna turn out the vote.

WTF are people going to vote for "Republican Lite" for when they can just leave the Rethugs in power? Cowards. Democratic Party cowards. Enough to make me puke.

Unless we run something like a Feingold/Murtha ticket in '08, we'll find a way to blow that election, too. Welcome to the "Republican States of AmuriKKKa".

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I would like to hear just one democrat rebut the argument that everyone thinks the Dems don't have a clear plan, with the question, "And what exactly is the Republican plan? To Stay the F-ing course? What the hell kind of a "plan" is that???" Have "the people" even been polled about the Republicans' "plan"?

"The Iraq war (sic) is a colossal failure."

INCORRECT. The REAL policies are working.

They're just illegal, criminal, and genocidal.

The real policies:

1. INSTALL PERMANENT AIRBASES. That's where most of the 'rebuilding' money went.

2. FOMENT CIVIL WAR. Shock and Awe, WP on Fallujah, pogroms, random murders, failing to guard ANY munitions or nuclear dump in the country, burning down the National Library, torching the Koran-Torah Repository, looting the National Museum, setting up Kusay's Torture Hut, and holding a well-publicized (Hussein's torture prison) Abu Ghraib cruelty and torture scandal, blowing money by the pallet while the Iraqis themselves have no water and no power, blowing up mosques, bringing S. African and Chilean deathsquad mercs into Iraq and giving them a carte blanche --- the list goes on and on.

3. PARTITION FORMER-IRAQ. "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." --- Henry 'Kill All Arabs Except the Sheiks I Work For, Until Later" Kissinger, briefing his Saudi clients, in early 2004. Kissinger has also advocated partitioning Saudi Arabia, after the USPNAC plan is completed.

So...should the Dems have an Iraq policy? They pretty much have to, but they shouldn't run on it, as Pelosi has seen clearly. The real policy is a success, and unstoppable short of removing the entire top half of the Republican party.

Continue to attack the policy as a 'failure,' and miss the actual GENOCIDE AND INTERNATIONAL WARCRIMES protest that should be our basic line of attack, those of us who are outside the government.

All it takes is another 'terrorist' attack on America, and Bush's policies all of a sudden go back to being successes. And if you don't think they know that, then you have your head solidly stuffed in a hole in the ground, not that I blame you.

Bullshit, Dean (and I'm pretty sure you know it, even though it was apparently 4 a.m. where you were).

We don't have ENOUGH troops in Iraq NOW to "keep the peace." How is slowly drawing down that force achieving anything but more chaos???

Get them all out NOW. And stop catering to, and caving to, the cowards in the Democratic Party.

Right now Dean is bordering on being reduced to simply using his influence to cover for the Congressional Democratic enablers of the out of control Executive Branch. I know he is in a very difficult situation, but I think he needs to start following the Feingold model here, Pelosi and Reid be damned.

P.S. RLM #7 - I agree. And to the extent Dean at least trashed the talking point(s) of the media here, he made some progress.

This is like Vietnam and Dean is the only one saying it. This time he mentioned Nixon and Agnew, the Veep who had to resign. Will Cheney resign?

Our guy says a lot in a short time.

Email from Howard Dean:

Never before has our party been more organized in advance of an election. With new staff hitting the ground everywhere from Alaska to Arkansas, we are going to fight for every vote in every corner of every state in 2006.

Right now we're preparing for the next big step in our 50-state strategy. On April 29th, thousands of volunteers will recruit hundreds of thousands more Americans committed to changing the status quo this year.

We're going to do it by making personal contact with our neighbors. April 29th will be the Democratic Party's first-ever National Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day. We're going to test our organization and build new relationships among volunteers with door-knocking events in communities across America.

We estimate that we need to print 500,000 pieces of literature to cover these events. With the cost of printing, plus the cost of shipping, staff time and logistics to make these events happen, we need an investment of $107,000 by Monday in order to kick-start this program.

Can you contribute something right now to help make this unprecedented program a reality? Click here to see the literature up close and make your donation:

http://www.democrats.org/doorhanger

snip

When is the pro-war Dead Democratic Party going to dissolve itself and most of them re-register as what they really are: Republicans?

Pro-war Howard Dean has been a major disappointment since he became head of the DNC.

Yep, keep the troops in Iraq for years to come (that's what it will end up being) so that thousands more can be killed. How is that any different than the Republican position? And let Bush completely off the hook.

Someone above wrote: "there goes the 2006 election."

How can anyone be counting on the 2006 election for anything after reading all that Brad and others have written about these worthless voting machines? They belong in the trash. I mean, really!

Here are some articles you folks might be interested in reading:

Let's get real about our rigged voting system
http://onlinejournal.com...ublish/article_589.shtml

As Alito Takes Supreme Court Seat, Ohio GOP Guts Election Protection
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-20.htm

And an article by Joshua Frank:

Political Lemmings. The Democrats and the Precipice.

Can you really oppose the occupation of Iraq and still call yourself a Democrat? I’m not so sure. The majority of Washington Dems continue to applaud Bush’s invasion of Iraq as well as his debauched crusade against terror. A few antiwar voices have echoed though Democratic corridors, but none have produced any genuine shifts in ideology, let alone direction. Nor will they.

It wasn’t long ago when a handful of activists hailed Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bid for the White House as worth fighting for. He seemed to oppose the war in Iraq and even offered a plan to get troops out quicker than any of the Democratic frontrunners. People were hopeful their support for Dennis would make an impact on the presidential race --- and maybe even pull the Democratic Party in their direction. It never happened. Two years have now passed and those who handed out fliers and buttons for Kucinich have nothing to show for their efforts.

So, why are Dennis Kucinich and his most loyal supporters still Democrats?

That’s a question I wish someone would answer. As far as I can tell, the reason the Dems can’t stand up to Bush is that they actually believe in this foolish war. They aren’t afraid or spineless, as so many claim --- they just support the president and his imperialist ventures. If Kucinich opposes the occupation, as he and his supporters have said over and again, then why is he still a member of a party that overwhelming backs it? Where the hell has he been, anyway?

Sorry Big D, whatever you are doing out there it’s not working all that well. Your party doesn’t need you. A new one does.

The same can be said for Rep. John Murtha, who was all but laughed out of office by his Democratic buddies when he put forward his strategic redeployment plan a few months ago. Even Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who courageously cast her vote for immediate and unconditional withdraw from Iraq, is still a Democrat. Why? McKinney would be better off jumping ship and throwing her weight into building a real alternative to business as usual. How can someone with such a keen understanding of what’s really going in this world remain a Democrat?

Cynthia, if you really want to end this war, why don’t you help give birth to a new party instead of attempting to resurrect a dead one?

Then, of course, we have the new progressive superman, Senator Russel Feingold, a hopeful 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Like Kucinich of 2004, Feingold is being lauded as our last best hope for defeating the Republican demagogues. But ol’ Russ isn’t finding much sympathy from his fellow Democrats these days.

Last week Feingold introduced S. Res. 398, which calls for the “censure” of the president over his illegal wiretapping incursions. Such a plea was long overdue. All leading Democrats immediately took cover, dodging any sharp-shooting questions about the resolution. As of March 21, not a single leading Senate Democrat had come out in support of the bill. Feingold stood alone.

So, what are you doing Russ? Why are you still a Democrat, anyway?

And there’s your biggest problem. Feingold’s fight to restore integrity in Washington (if there ever was such a thing) is hindered by his party allegiance and reluctance to break rank. The same can be said for every other DC Democrat who is willing to criticize Bush, including Rep. John Conyers. At the end of the day Conyers, like Feingold, McKinney and Kucinich --- is still a member of a party that supports the occupation of Iraq and Bush’s war on civil liberties.

Whatever they say won’t change that. Worst of all, when push comes to shove, and the Democrats nominate another pro-war candidate, all their causes will be sidelined. Party loyalty will matter more than the mounting death toll in Iraq.

I hate to say it, but that kind of bullshit will never end a war.

--Joshua Frank
http://brickburner.blogs.com/

When is the pro-war Dead Democratic Party going to dissolve itself and most of them re-register as what they really are: Republicans?

Pro-war Howard Dean has been a major disappointment since he became head of the DNC.

Yep, keep the troops in Iraq for years to come (that's what it will end up being) so that thousands more can be killed. How is that any different than the Republican position? And let Bush completely off the hook.

Someone above wrote: "there goes the 2006 election."

How can anyone be counting on the 2006 election for anything after reading all that Brad and others have written about these worthless voting machines? They belong in the trash. I mean, really!

Here are some articles you folks might be interested in reading:

Let's get real about our rigged voting system
http://onlinejournal.com...ublish/article_589.shtml

As Alito Takes Supreme Court Seat, Ohio GOP Guts Election Protection
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-20.htm

And an article by Joshua Frank:

Political Lemmings. The Democrats and the Precipice.

Can you really oppose the occupation of Iraq and still call yourself a Democrat? I’m not so sure. The majority of Washington Dems continue to applaud Bush’s invasion of Iraq as well as his debauched crusade against terror. A few antiwar voices have echoed though Democratic corridors, but none have produced any genuine shifts in ideology, let alone direction. Nor will they.

It wasn’t long ago when a handful of activists hailed Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bid for the White House as worth fighting for. He seemed to oppose the war in Iraq and even offered a plan to get troops out quicker than any of the Democratic frontrunners. People were hopeful their support for Dennis would make an impact on the presidential race --- and maybe even pull the Democratic Party in their direction. It never happened. Two years have now passed and those who handed out fliers and buttons for Kucinich have nothing to show for their efforts.

So, why are Dennis Kucinich and his most loyal supporters still Democrats?

That’s a question I wish someone would answer. As far as I can tell, the reason the Dems can’t stand up to Bush is that they actually believe in this foolish war. They aren’t afraid or spineless, as so many claim --- they just support the president and his imperialist ventures. If Kucinich opposes the occupation, as he and his supporters have said over and again, then why is he still a member of a party that overwhelming backs it? Where the hell has he been, anyway?

Sorry Big D, whatever you are doing out there it’s not working all that well. Your party doesn’t need you. A new one does.

The same can be said for Rep. John Murtha, who was all but laughed out of office by his Democratic buddies when he put forward his strategic redeployment plan a few months ago. Even Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who courageously cast her vote for immediate and unconditional withdraw from Iraq, is still a Democrat. Why? McKinney would be better off jumping ship and throwing her weight into building a real alternative to business as usual. How can someone with such a keen understanding of what’s really going in this world remain a Democrat?

Cynthia, if you really want to end this war, why don’t you help give birth to a new party instead of attempting to resurrect a dead one?

Then, of course, we have the new progressive superman, Senator Russel Feingold, a hopeful 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Like Kucinich of 2004, Feingold is being lauded as our last best hope for defeating the Republican demagogues. But ol’ Russ isn’t finding much sympathy from his fellow Democrats these days.

Last week Feingold introduced S. Res. 398, which calls for the “censure” of the president over his illegal wiretapping incursions. Such a plea was long overdue. All leading Democrats immediately took cover, dodging any sharp-shooting questions about the resolution. As of March 21, not a single leading Senate Democrat had come out in support of the bill. Feingold stood alone.

So, what are you doing Russ? Why are you still a Democrat, anyway?

And there’s your biggest problem. Feingold’s fight to restore integrity in Washington (if there ever was such a thing) is hindered by his party allegiance and reluctance to break rank. The same can be said for every other DC Democrat who is willing to criticize Bush, including Rep. John Conyers. At the end of the day Conyers, like Feingold, McKinney and Kucinich --- is still a member of a party that supports the occupation of Iraq and Bush’s war on civil liberties.

Whatever they say won’t change that. Worst of all, when push comes to shove, and the Democrats nominate another pro-war candidate, all their causes will be sidelined. Party loyalty will matter more than the mounting death toll in Iraq.

I hate to say it, but that kind of bullshit will never end a war.

--Joshua Frank
http://brickburner.blogs.com/

Paul wrote:

"realize that your cynicism and impolitic vote for Nader helped screw us to the wall."

Paul, what on earth are you talking about? Do you think I'm Joshua Frank, by chance? My name is Josh but I'm NOT Joshua Frank. I simply posted his article. I don't know if he voted for Nader or not. I know I didn't. I've never voted for Nader. So you're wrong on that count. Also, Nader aside, it's time that the Dead Democratic Party and its supporters take responsibility for your own dead party's ineptitude and incompetence in 2000 rather than trying to lame blame on Nader or someone else.

And why would I go to work for Bush when I cannot stand the illegitimate Bush regime or the Bush Crime Family? One of the main reasons I despise the pro-war Dead Democratic Party is because they have served as Bush and Republican accomplices and enablers since 2000. They have helped Bush and the Republicans accomplish much of their goals. One cannot deny that if one is being honest and truthful. They vote WITH the Republicans most of the time. But if you want to live in denial about this pro-war, pro-corporate dead party, so be it.

We need a second party because this one-party system Congress has failed us miserably.

Josh (comment #18),

my man, I couldn't agree with you more. right on! i try to look at things realistically rather than wishful thinking or pie-in-the-sky stuff and my take on the dems and the voting machine problem and 2006 is the same as yours. brad does one hell of a job keeping us up on the voting machine saga. bravo brad!

now for the dems on iraq. when i think of the dems and iraq i first think of millionaire feinstein now because i just found out that this woman is a war profiteer. yep. recently because she's up for re-election she said that bush had 'misled' (sic) her on the reasons for attacking iraq. yeah riiiiiiiiiight. she was misled all right. i just found out from the center for public integrity and online journal that feinstein and her billionaire husband are making millions from iraq contracts through his company, perini. they're also making millions from afghanistan contracts. these two have blood all over their hands. this says a lot about the prowar and procorporate dem party which on the substantive issues is no different than the repugs. i have some links about war profiteer feinstein. she deserves to be kicked out of the senate...

From the Center for Public Integrity:
http://www.publicintegri...aspx?act=pro&ddlC=45

Senator Feinstein’s war profiteering
http://onlinejournal.com...ublish/article_544.shtml

Partisanship trumps ethics: The Feinstein family of war-profiteers, part two
http://onlinejournal.com...ublish/article_552.shtml

peace,

mike

Josh #15, #16, #18; Mike #19

In the tradition of the regime, all troll behavior is rewarded with strokes

Josh should get two strokes for his doing as the Dictator in Chief does, repeat stuff over and over to catapult the propaganda.

The people of the US want democrats to replace republicans in congress (link here). The people of the US do not like dictators in congress. Rubber stamps of the dictatorial regime in the White House.

So Josh and Mike even tho you care nothing for what the American people think, and instead are trapped within your psyop formed heads and wish to follow the republican dictator's lead and blame the victims, I thought I would show you how your "ideas" form.

Here is a link to mind-meld central (link here). Here is where you can study and find out where and why what you think is planned.

The only threat to the republican dictatorship at this time is the November election. Since the republican talking heads, evidently including yourselves, are all blaming the democrats for what the republican dictatorship is doing, it behooves me to ponder your conflicted musings.

You should know that if the people get their will in place the republican dictatorship is going down in November.

But as you pointed out about electronic election machines, and their usage in the recent elections and in 2000 and 2004, there is evidence of fraud. Evidence that the elections were stolen from the democrats.

So that makes the democrats victims of election crime. And that puts you in the camp of those who blame crime victims for being taken advantage of. Its like taking a homeowner to jail if someone breaks into their house and steals from them.

Why not drop the cowardice and blame the criminals instead? Afraid of them?

Join the American people and get into poll-i-tics ... Americans are against your victimization.

I must agree with RLM #7.

This is a republican invasion and occupation. It is a republican "catastrophic success".

The much sought after "trophy" goes to the republicans who coveted it so much. And who now covet Iran. They are trigger happy and can't understand why most people do not want that kind of "happiness".

The republican framed issue that blame must be shifted to the democrats or that nothing must be done unless and until the democrats come up with "a better plan" is insane, inane, and wrong.

The republicans claimed this pile of dead bodies, sprinkled it with white sugar, then brown sugar, then said "doesn't this pile of dead, tortured bodies smell like democracy"?

When most everyone said it smells like dead, tortured bodies, not sugar, they tried splenda. "Isn't this splendid now" they ask, but get the same response. This republican pile of dead, tortured bodies smells like dead, tortured bodies.

The republicans want to: a) stay and let another president solve the problem; b) say any change from staying the course is unpatriotic; and c) at the same time demand "a better plan" than calling dead, tortured bodies dead, tortured bodies.

Well, repuplicans, here is a plan for you: wake up and smell the dead, tortured bodies and stop wasting the sugar.

Isn't it something to hear a politician talk coherently and intelligently?

If only Dean woulda been the nominee in '04.... sigh

"Paul, what on earth are you talking about? Do you think I'm Joshua Frank, by chance? My name is Josh but I'm NOT Joshua Frank. I simply posted his article."

These comment areas are for YOUR ideas, not some reprint of a guy WITH YOUR NAME who hates the American political system and fantasizes about changing it by failing to change it.

"Also, Nader aside, it's time that the Dead Democratic Party and its supporters take responsibility"

And there you go again. Well, reread what I posted about your fake analysis.

"for your own dead party's ineptitude and incompetence in 2000 rather than trying to lame blame on Nader or someone else. "

First of all, the Dem party is not 'dead' just because we had a coup. Secondly, WE WON IN 2000 and 2004-- in a legal election. REGRETTABLY, we don't have legal elections since 1999. So while I did not "blame" Nader for what happened in 2000, I did blame PEOPLE LIKE YOU, who spread lies about D = R, and helped the Bushoviks take the country in 2000.

"And why would I go to work for Bush when I cannot stand the illegitimate Bush regime or the Bush Crime Family?"

Because your 'one-party' LIE serves their purposes.

"They vote WITH the Republicans most of the time."

And? Do you really think that voting differently would change what is happening? This is a COUP. They (if you ask me) killed Senator Paul Wellstone and his entire family. They sent anthrax to our Senate majority leader.

WHY WOULD THEY SEND ANTHRAX TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES?

The vote on the Iraq Resolution in the House was SIXTY PERCENT NAY, with change of leadership to Nancy Pelosi, the first female minority leader in the history of the United States. Against a HUGE wave of fearmongering and media lies.

"But if you want to live in denial about this pro-war, pro-corporate dead party, so be it."

You are poisoned by something you barely understand.

"We need a second party because this one-party system Congress has failed us miserably."

GREAT!!! When are you getting to work on that? And when you get your third party up and running some time in 2045, have fun trying to return the smoking cinder to life.

Your view has ZERO political value. It doesn't represent a political OPTION. We don't have TIME to play third party games. Therefore, you are helping Bush. YOU are selling a point of view that is self-destructive, and that fails to achieve ANYTHING.

Quit posting other people's ramblings, and quit your childish pretense that D = R. Do some study of history, so you don't sound like a fourteen year old who just woke up.

110 MILLION PEOPLE died from war in the last century. You have nuclear bombs over your head right now. Human beings have awesome technology, and we are about to expunge ourselves. So our politics may be a bit 'weak' from the outside, but THAT'S DEMOCRACY FOR YOU.

It is possible to derrange democracy and make even good people UNWILLING accomplices in tragedy. But you confuse that for complicity, and that is really disgusting.

"If only Dean woulda been the nominee in '04.... sigh"

IT WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING.

Jesus, don't you READ this blog? We haven't had a legal election in six years!!!!!

Kerry won in 2004. But he wasn't allowed to take power, just as Gore was blocked from taking power in 2000.

THIS IS A COUP.

Gov. Dean held together with the caucuses, and that was BRILLIANT politics. He didn't split the party. And we are all a lot stronger for it.

Bush will fall. IF we could get fair elections (BY DEMANDING THEM!), we could make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. And then Bush is toast.

But they are stealing our elections this year too.

To Paul in Los Angeles,

Until Brad tells me otherwise, I will post whatever I damn well please on here, thank you very much. You don't own this forum.

I'm not the first person to say that the Democratic Party is dead. Do you have any respect or regard for elected President Clinton's labor secretary, Robert Reich?

If so, please read this article he wrote following the 2000 stolen "election":

Dr Robert Reich: The Democratic Party is Dead
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0311-01.htm

A recent quote from Paul Craig Roberts:
"The Democrats have been a totally ineffective opposition and might not inspire any voter response other than apathy. Rather than vote for a cowardly party that is afraid to defend the Constitution, voters might simply not vote at all."
http://www.lewrockwell.c.../roberts/roberts151.html

If you folks have been reading what Brad has posted each and every day about these electronic voting machines, I don't know how any one in their right mind could begin to expect that we will have a fair, honest and legitimate election in 2006 or 2008. Read what he has written, if you haven't already.

Even if the pro-war Dead Democratic Party were to take over the entire US Congress in November not a damn thing would change from the dismal way it is now based on their pro-Bush actions and behavior since 2000. They would continue to be Bush ass eaters and rubber stampers. Hell, Russ Feingold can't even get them to support his un-Constitutional and lame censure. He should be calling for impeachment, but Nancy Pelosi has already outright dismissed calls for impeachment hearings.

Paul, you keep saying that I'm helping Bush. Other than the Republicans, your dead party has helped Bush the most since 2000. But of course you want to live in denial about that.

And if you sincerely thought that my political view had "zero" political value, you wouldn't have bothered to respond to any of my posts. You will continue to support this insipid dead party no matter what they do FOR Bush and what they don't do for The People as a supposed "opposition party." It appears that you will accept anything from them.

Your party has self-destructed. They have sold you out. You don't have them any more. You just want to believe you do. That's called denial and denial is a most comfortable state for many people today whether it be on this issue or the rigged/hackable electronic voting system issue.

And I've not called for a "third" party. I've called for a second party because the Republicrats and Democans are one party.

Your denial will not help you or protect you.

"COMMENT #15 [link]
...Josh said on 3/23/2006 @ 10:49pm PT...

"When is the pro-war Dead Democratic Party going to dissolve itself and most of them re-register as what they really are: Republicans?"

Gee, Joshua, why don't you go to work for Bush? You are one of the advocates of the Aventine Secession. Luckily the Dem leaders are quite a bit smarter than you.

Go back and replay these D = R LIES with your time machine. The date you want is at the end of 2000. Replay 9/11 a few times, and realize that your cynicism and impolitic vote for Nader helped screw us to the wall.

And you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You act like liberty has been your fairy godmother right because you were born --- when in fact our forebearers have fought and bleed for these rights, and we are STILL fighting for these rights.

You just want to feel pure and holy while the rest of us are trying to retain our democratic rights. But instead of that noble purpose, your morbid defeatism is noted.

From comment #23, Paul,

>>>First of all, the Dem party is not 'dead' just because we had a coup. Secondly, WE WON IN 2000 and 2004-- in a legal election. REGRETTABLY, we don't have legal elections since 1999. So while I did not "blame" Nader for what happened in 2000, I did blame PEOPLE LIKE YOU, who spread lies about D = R, and helped the Bushoviks take the country in 2000.

I agree with Mike and Josh. It's a given that the Dems won in 2000 and 2004. The problem is that they wimped out. Kerry folded over in 2004 like a wet doily. I heard Howard Dean say shortly after that election that it was probably stolen in Ohio but the Dems couldn't do anything about it. Sigh! You can't if you don't try and don't have a spine or a backbone. Gore didn't do all that he could have in 2000. As Mike Malloy of Air America has said, both Kerry and Gore are cowards.

Hello Erma, comment #26.

Agreed.

Paul in Los Angeles makes many erroneous assumptions about me when he actually doesn't know me personally or know anything about me or what I have done in the past or what I'm doing now politically.

Another erroneous assumption: Back in 2000 I was not "spreading lies about D = R." In fact, I didn't even think "D = R" at that time. And I didn't help the Bush Crime Family take power. I voted for Gore. In 2004, I held my noise and very begrudingly voted for John "Bush-Lite" Kerry. But no more!

(It appears that Silly Paul still thinks I'm columnist Joshua Frank. I've emailed Joshua a couple of times but I've never met him. I appreciate his work. He lives in upstate New York and I live in San Francisco. There are many guys who have the name "Josh" or "Joshua," these days, Paul. It's a rather popular name).

But based on what I've seen from the pro-war Dead Democratic Party since 2000, I'm done with the Dims (as in dim bulbs). I've had it up to here with these pro-war corporate pimps and whores. And I'm not alone. As Molly Ivins wrote in her column "Enough of the DC Dems."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-20.htm

"Even if the pro-war Dead Democratic Party were to take over the entire US Congress in November not a damn thing would change from the dismal way it is now based on their pro-Bush actions and behavior since 2000."

That's a LIE. You blame them for votes taken in the minority, and from that somehow determine how they will vote in the majority?

NONSENSE.

I have to go out and protest, but I'll come back and respond to the rest of your defeatist, slandering screed later.

Paul,

Referring to your Comment #28.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion although I don't get the sense from you that you feel I am entitled to my opinion. Not at all.

Unfortunately, you missed my point. My point was that even if there were only 3 Dims, for example, in the US Congress and the rest Republicans, those 3 Dims would do their job vigilantly as a true, real and viable "opposition party" opposing any and everything that Bush and the Republicans put forward. Those 3 would stick together as a firm, united group of true Liberals. For example, they would not be pro-war. They would not be for the unPatriot Act. They would not vote for Alito and Roberts. They would not be for illegal wiretapping. They would not be for this bogus "war on terror" nonsense.

Unfortunately, the current pro-war Dead Democratic Party have NOT behaved like the above group of 3. The Dims have done as much for Bush as they possibly can: from being FOR the Afghanistan war, FOR the Iraq war, FOR the unPatriot Act and extensions, voting FOR Alito and Roberts and I could go on and on and on. Based on their pathetic performance since 2000, regardless of their numbers in Congress, they will still serve as Bush rubber stampers.

Doing one's job should NOT be dependent upon the number of members you have in your party. A true, real Democrat in the traditional sense will do their job regardless of how many people they have in their numbers in Congress. That is my point. Russ Feingold is an example of a real, true traditional Democrat who will stand up and do his job even when he's the only one standing up.

I didn't realize that when a party is in the minority that they are required to cowardly go-along to get-along with the majority. That's news to me. The Republicans did NOT behave like cowards when Clinton was in office. They did the job that one expects from Republicans. They even went so far as to impeach his ass! Are the Dims calling for impeachment of Bush? Hell no. And they're not about to.

It's a cop-out to try to justify and defend these political corporate pimps and whores by saying, "They're in the minority. That's why they vote and act like Republicrats. If they were in the majority they would act and vote like real, true Democrats. You'll see."

BS.

What we have with the Dims is what we will have regardless of their numbers in Congress.

Josh,

I agree 100% with you. The Democrats are not the way they are because they are in the minority. I've heard that tiresome reasoning for so long. They are the way they are because many of them are as corrupt as the Republicans.

If the Democrats were an opposition party---which they're not---they would call for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They would **work** to get the needed votes. Yeah, they'd have to bribe Republicans to join them and the Democrats would have to promise to vote for some piece of future legislation that comes down that the Republicans want, but that's the way the Republicans operate. Bribing and promises are nothing new to these politicians. That's what they would do. BUt the Democrats won't do that because, hey, that's too much work. They'd have to start working for their salary for a change, and when most of them seem pleased with the status quo, they're not about to do that. They get paid regardless.

Josh,

I agree 100% with you. The Democrats are not the way they are because they are in the minority. I've heard that tiresome reasoning for so long. They are the way they are because many of them are as corrupt as the Republicans.

If the Democrats were an opposition party---which they're not---they would call for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They would **work** to get the needed votes. Yeah, they'd have to bribe Republicans to join them and the Democrats would have to promise to vote for some piece of future legislation that comes down that the Republicans want, but that's the way the Republicans operate. Bribing and promises are nothing new to these politicians. That's what they would do. BUt the Democrats won't do that because, hey, that's too much work. They'd have to start working for their salary for a change, and when most of them seem pleased with the status quo, they're not about to do that. They get paid regardless.

"In 2004, I held my noise and very begrudingly voted for John "Bush-Lite" Kerry."

John Kerry who 1) outed and documented US warcrimes in Vietnam, 2) outed BCCI, the largest banking scandal in history, 3) outed Iran-Contra, and 4) outed the PNAC invasion of Iraq for airbases scheme, in front of 60 million Americans.

And, btw, WON the election in 2004.

"(It appears that Silly Paul still thinks I'm columnist Joshua Frank."

You, with the name Josh, post an article by someone named Joshua. It was a simple error of attribution based on that obvious similarity. See if you can get more mileage out of it, why don't you.

"But based on what I've seen from the pro-war Dead Democratic Party since 2000, I'm done with the Dims (as in dim bulbs)."

That's great. But since the Dem party is the ONLY political power we have, we'll just continue to work for real political solutions, while you go pout.

"I've had it up to here with these pro-war corporate pimps and whores. And I'm not alone. As Molly Ivins wrote in her column "Enough of the DC Dems."

Molly Ivins is hardly the bellwether of America. Neither is Robert Reich. A few scattered comments of dismay about a COUP that already murdered Paul Wellstone, sent anthrax to our Dem leaders, and killed 120,000 civilians in Iraq, not to mention gutted 650 environmental laws, and all the rest.

What you have is a bad case of the leftism. While you prate on about third parties and slander the hardworking people in the Dem party, keep in mind that you are not producing any kind of solution. You are in fact working to poison the well.

Congrats. Rove should send you some money.

Oh, and btw, this 'dims' bit is taken directly from the rightwing, who use and have used this stupid word association for quite a long while, with just as much probity.

So a pat on the head from Karl for that as well.

LOL....The first step Dr. Dean: Get the Democrats to actually agree on something within their own darn party do that they may move forward.

Democrats were happy to adopt a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in regard to gays in the military.

Judging by the glorification of "Ole Crazy Eyes" himself - might I suggest that they adopt the same policy in regard to Howard Dean's sanity.

I see this being the basis for elections. Americans will either run afraid or pass out in hysterical laughter.

Hi Josh,

I think you should give up on Paul. He's not going to get it. I don't think he's all there.

"If the Democrats were an opposition party---which they're not---they would call for impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

We don't have enough votes to carry that off.

"They would **work** to get the needed votes."

There are NOT enough votes. There are not enough votes by about 200 votes. There is no way in this hell to work to get those 200 votes. The problem is the Republican party, which has sold its soul to the devil outright.

"Yeah, they'd have to bribe Republicans to join them and the Democrats would have to promise to vote for some piece of future legislation that comes down that the Republicans want, but that's the way the Republicans operate."

You are lying to yourself. And you are ignoring the anthrax attacks on the Dem leaders, and the murder of Senator Wellstone and his whole family. It's not exactly a missed message on the Hill.

"Bribing and promises are nothing new to these politicians."

And that is a slander. Give evidence of ANY bribing by our Democrats. Or shut up with the lies.

"That's what they would do. BUt the Democrats won't do that because, hey, that's too much work. They'd have to start working for their salary for a change, and when most of them seem pleased with the status quo, they're not about to do that. They get paid regardless."

How repugnant, your cynicism and hatred. Go up to Rep. Conyers, Senator Feingold, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Rep. Waxman (etc.) and say that, coward. You are slandering good people, and you are so PROUD of it.

It's a sickness you have because you have no CLUE what it takes to function in our democracy in any case.

Under a coup, all the normal rules are out the window. There are blatant threats and even acts of violence repressing the democracy so that an illegal invasion and fascist coup can take over the country.

You have selected for your part blaming the minority.

If the minority was complicit, why did a majority of Dems vote against the Iraq Resolution in the House? Why did they change their leader to the anti-war Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to EVER hold the post, in 220 years? Why has Rep. Conyers documented FIFTEEN MAJOR FEDERAL CRIMES by the Bushoviks? Why has Rep. Waxman worked TIRELESSLY to uncover the theft of US funds (18 USC 1321 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, each count of which are felonies)?

Your thesis is the result of your lack of appreciation for what the Dems have done. All you focus on is the many ways in which they have been played. And why were they played?

You say because they are corrupt. There is not a corrupt name on the list I have used so far. They got played because the way things are done in DC are no longer being observed. The R's are playing ruthless politics, complete with deaththreats, and that breaks democracy pretty damn good.

Leftists always look through the wrong end of the telescope. The Chinese lived under tyranny for 3,000 years. The American democracy was the first --- 220 years ago. It took a civil war to gain the full rights which we are STILL working out. This democracy is a pile of shit so high you can't even imagine, but you don't notice it, except in order to SCAPEGOAT our Dem representatives, who a lot of us have worked our fingers to the bone to get into office.

Nancy Pelosi's current job, Howard Dean's current job, those are both ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE GRASSROOTS. WE achieved that. But to you, lazy leftist with NO plan other than chaos, it was a waste of effort. You don't believe in democracy, which is why the left has ZERO seats in the federal government. You don't ever want to go be in a room full of 99 other people who believe all kinds of horrible things, as befits their constituency, including the business interests which can't be denied. Go into a room with people with diametric beliefs and interests, and work it out.

Ordinarily, that is the task of our representatives, but that kind of willingness to work does not work in a coup. Make sure you blame them and trash American democracy as much as you can, so Karl will send you a Valentine next February.

"He's not going to get it. I don't think he's all there."

This from a slanderer is not going to keep me up nights. Continue with your delusional path of angry inaction.

"HowardsInsane: "Democrats were happy to adopt a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in regard to gays in the military."

Actually, if you read Clinton's autobiography, he makes it clear that he was SANDBAGGED by the Pentagon --- that it was all the military said it would take, and even then put the policy forward iin order to derail his agenda, by attacking him on it.

And which sterling general produced this policy?

A defrocked LIAR and war criminal named Colin Powell.

Anyhow, as for the 'Democrats' happy to sign it, quite the contrary. There is no record of intolerance in the entire history of the united states, and certainly not in the military, right? Just like when Gov. Dean rammed through the first comprehensive state domestic partner law, the Never Enough people are ever ready to down the accomplishment.

To them, there is no context for these accomplishments. All they would ever be grateful for is EVERYTHING, right now.

Bill Clinton promised something he couldn't deliver. WOW. Let us all hang our heads in shame.

From wikipedia: "Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces was led by Democrat Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive.

While Congressional support for reform was led by Democrat Congressmen Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a compromise,"

(ANOTHER DAMN DEMOCRAT FIGHTING TO CHANGE THINGS. Who was he trying to kid?)

"and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued for a complete repeal of the ban. Social conservative interest groups successfully flooded the Congressional phone lines with oppositions to lifting the ban, and for his part, President Clinton soon backed off on his campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces."

Josh, Erma, und Mike

What associates you so much with Bush ideology is that you ignore what the people want and say.

That is the for sure DNA of the Bush dictatorship.

He has been asked about the polls and he says he ignores them cause he has to rule good and rulin good means not listening to people carping.

The polls show by astounding percentages that the people want to replace congressional republicans with democrats.

Let the people have their way, that is the American way after all. Join America now.

Erma, Comment No. 35

You wrote:

"I think you should give up on Paul."

I already have. Thanks.

HowardsInsane, Comment No. 34,

Reading your post I was reminded of this article. Have you heard about this?:

Howard Dean lied to gay Democrats
Gay Democrats should withhold money until the party reinstates the abolished gay outreach office.

By Ramon Gardehire
Friday, February 10, 2006

LIKE MANY GAY Democrats, I was shocked to learn from a report in the Blade last week that party chief Howard Dean had abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach.

As the former deputy director of the office, I see this decision as an affront to all progressive Democrats, GLBT or straight, especially considering the importance of the gay vote and gay dollars to the party.

http://www.washblade.com...10/view/editorial/e2.cfm

I'm sure some people will see nothing at all wrong with this, especially those people who give blind and unconditional support to the pro-war Dead Democratic Party.

I have heard some "toe the party line at any cost" Dims do their best to try and somehow justify this in order to support Howard Dean. (It was pretty messy. They were really grabbing for things to justify it, let me tell you).

I also heard Howard Dean interviewed on Air America not long ago. He was asked about our easily rigged and hackable electronic voting system (that Brad covers superbly). He said, "Oh THAT." He brushed it off and went on to something else. Sigh!

This is from a bumper sticker I saw at the protest here in San Francisco last week:

"Diebold Voting Systems: saving America from democracy."

josh,

paul did the same thing to you that right-wingnuts do to me. every single time i give a link to an article to back something up in my post to a right-winger they always find something wrong with it...it's never good enough or they dont like the source...unless it comes from fox news. i dont know who paul finds credible if it's not molly ivins and robert reich. reich was in the clinton administration for godsakes!! actually i do know who paul would find credible. someone who marches in lockstep with the dems...no dissent allowed...that sounds just like these right-wing bushco traitors.

peace,

mike

"I was shocked to learn from a report in the Blade last week that party chief Howard Dean had abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach."

Did you contact Dean and find out WHY he did this? Maybe there is something you are missing.

"i dont know who paul finds credible if it's not molly ivins and robert reich. reich was in the clinton administration for godsakes!!"

Wow, and double wow. So was Madelaine Albright, a racist and probably a war criminal.

Robert Reich has a point-of-view, mostly economic in nature, but this comment of his was from a while back, and in context to how he was feeling in that moment. Molly Ivins is clearly a pissed-off Texan --- there are quite a few of those. Neither person is the Uber-Dem with the credentials to speak for the entire party, or the nation. Neither has EVER been elected to anything.

To understand Reich's perspective, it would take a lot more than a single comment at some point in time.

"actually i do know who paul would find credible. someone who marches in lockstep with the dems...no dissent allowed...that sounds just like these right-wing bushco traitors."

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that, as you slander the Dems without a SINGLE piece of factual evidence. Just keep telling yourselves that Democrats are "in lockstep" when they explain, rather patiently, that it is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to blame the Dem leadership for actions that they have decided not to take at this time because it is an election year.

That decision doesn't stop a Dem like me from helping Carl Sheeler get R.I. to file impeachment, or to send HUNDREDS if not thousands of impeachment letters to Conyers via a two-year campaign at the grassroots, or working to out the Bush crimes and call for JUSTICE.

The difference is not "lockstep." I support Feingold's action, 100%. I support more acts like his. But unlike you, I don't trash the party or the party leadership because you thought they would solve all of YOUR problems for you.

It's a garish affair, the leftists. On the one hand they trash-talk and slander the Dems, and on the other hand they talk sweet about what they could pretty-please do RIGHT NOW, or else be damned. It's a bi-polar and neurotic approach, which spends most of its time patting itself on the back for being pure, and the rest of the time being so outraged that it withdraws all support for THE ONLY PART OF GOVERNMENT THAT LISTENS TO US AT ALL.

And nevermind the ANSWER people who think that Milosevich and Hussein were heroes.

paul,

i know you're filled with rage, anger and venom and you can't wait to put other people down for their political views if they don't match yours but try reading next time. in your comment #44 you asked josh if he had contacted howard dean to find out why dean abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach. josh wasn't the one who said he was shocked to learn about that. Ramon Gardehire said that. he wrote the article. not josh.

the dems lack of action...it hasn't been an election year for the past 5 long years, paul. we've even heard that the dems are going to 'keep their powder dry' for the 2006 elections. they don't have any powder left to keep dry. they gave it to the republicans in 2000 because the dems wouldn't stick up for gore when he won or kerry when he won. they bent right over and laid on the ground and bush walked right over them. when are these people going to start acting like dems, paul? the republicans don't hold back during election years or any other time. we need true leadership and we don't have much of it. you are in lockstep with these weak-kneed, backboneless dems with only a few exceptions. i wonder how you feel about lieberman? how about feinstein who is a war-profiteer?

you party-line people are party-line first, and country second. period.

Paul and comment #44

Do you ever listen to yourself Paul or think about what you say? You're very quick to accuse others of "slander." You accused Josh of slander even though from reading his posts he has not mentioned any Dem politician by name. You; however said of Albright:

>>>So was Madelaine Albright, a racist and probably a war criminal.

SLANDER, SLANDER, SLANDER!

What a hypocrite! It's all right for you to say what you think about politicians but it's not all right for Josh. You are one piece of work Paul.

You said that Ivins and Reich have never been elected to anything. Since when did getting elected to some position become the barometer for granting someone regard, respect and esteem? A lot of trashy people have been elected to various positions. Being elected to something means nothing to me, especially these days. We elected Reagan and Bush I. That's about as trashy as it gets. Bush II was not elected for either term. He's even trashier.

"COMMENT #45 [link]
...mike said on 3/25/2006 @ 6:43pm PT...

"paul, i (fantasize that) you're filled with rage, anger and venom and you can't wait to put other people down for their political views"

I have opposed the slandering of our SITTING Dem officials without the profer of evidence, and while TOTALLY IGNORING the context of those actions, which has included assassination and crimes worse, it appears.

I have also opposed as BAD POLITICS attacking the Dem leadership for decisions based on the election cycle. Those decisions are INTRINSIC to our system of government, and they are just about unbreakable traditions. Anyhow, the caucus will not split their duties between running in their districts and states, and trying to nail themselves heroically to the tyrant's gate, as in the Aventine Secession.

"you asked josh if he had contacted howard dean to find out why dean abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach."

No, I asked the person who posted this bit of information if he had verified it, and checked with Dean to see WHY he would have done this.

Failing to do either thing is rumormongering and a lack of context from the accused, if this is used to bash someone before 1) verifying, 2) hearing the defense.

Paul,

The article about Howard Dean closing the GLBT outreach office in DC is published in the Washington Blade newspaper. I've also seen the story reprinted on other reputable websites. The article was written by Ramon Gardehire who lives in DC and is the former deputy director for GLBT Outreach for the Democratic National Committee. IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU? Or do you STILL have to speak with Howard Dean directly to confirm that the story is true and not "rumormongering?" If so, give him a call why don't you. I'm sure he'll speak with you.

http://www.washblade.com...10/view/editorial/e2.cfm

Honestly, I've never met anybody like you in my life other than fundamentalist Christians and Bush supporters who act the same way as you. They believe only what they want to hear. Talking with them is like talking to a damn wall. Just like you.

mike said "The article about Howard Dean closing the GLBT outreach office in DC is published in the Washington Blade newspaper. I've also seen the story reprinted on other reputable websites."

Reprinting doesn't tell you anything.

"The article was written by Ramon Gardehire who lives in DC and is the former deputy director for GLBT Outreach for the Democratic National Committee. IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?"

No, it's not. Why haven't you contacted Dean, to find out his side of it? After all, you can hardly claim that Dean is anti-gay, since he was the first governor in the country to push through, uphill, a comprehensive and equal domestic-partner bill in his state.

"Honestly, I've never met anybody like you in my life other than fundamentalist Christians and Bush supporters who act the same way as you."

That's pathetic. Honestly, I do DECLARE...

Honey, you have the vapors. You sound like Katherine Harris.

Here's the background you REFUSED to get before you tried to bash Dean. It took me exactly five seconds with Google in the menu bar.

http://www.churchstreetf...der/03_02_06/LaVera.html

A SAMPLE FROM THE LINK (slightly formatted for readability):

"Joyce Arnold: When and how was the decision made to move from a structure that included an Office of GLBT Outreach to the American Majority Partnership?

Damien LaVera: When Dean was elected DNC chairman last February, he set out to revolutionize the way the Democratic Party reaches out to its core supporters.

Dean concluded that, if we are going to be competitive moving forward, we need to replace the old, isolated political desks with an integrated approach that incorporates outreach to our core communities throughout the DNC’s work.

In order to achieve this, he merged the political desks representing our core constituencies into the American Majority Partnership and placed this new effort directly in his personal office, making the AMP director one of his senior staff members and greatly elevating the significance of the DNC’s outreach efforts.

He also (is) requiring that every DNC department assign staff to a DNC-wide working group charged with enhancing outreach to specific communities, including the LGBT community, thereby greatly increased the resources brought to bear in LGBT outreach."

Read the rest of it --- it's comprehensive.

Well, here's some more of it, so you can stew in your own juices (again, minor formatting added):

JA: What are some of the key initiatives that have and/or are planned, in regards to the DNC’s work with and on behalf of GLBT persons? In our conversation, you mentioned the importance of the “impact” that is already taking place, and as I understood you, you expect will take place. Please talk about this.

DL: Chairman Dean and the DNC will continue to provide the state parties the resources they need to reach out to and organize the LGBT communities in their states through the State Partnership Program.

By the end of March, the DNC will have trained more than 200 party staffers from more than 50 state party organizations.

By providing state-specific assistance in reaching out to and organizing the LGBT communities in their states, this effort will have a dramatic impact on helping fight ballot initiatives in states across the country.

We are already seeing some results, like the successful effort to protect Maine’s LGBT families from discrimination.

The DNC will continue to seek out opportunities to stand up against Republican efforts to scapegoat America’s LGBT communities and deny them their civil rights.

This shameful brand of politics is a staple of Karl Rove’s Republican Party. Democrats everywhere are united in our commitment to ending the politics of fear and division."

"I am and always will be a Democrat despite Dean’s actions. I truly believe that Democratic values align with America’s promise of equality and opportunity for all. But until the Democratic Party can again find its moral compass and adhere to the principles that make me a Democrat, I will withhold financial support and encourage others to do the same." --Ramon Gardehire

So the question is:

• HOW MUCH HAS Mr. Gardehire damaged our chances of retaking the House of Representatives, and GIVEN HIS ENEMIES a powerful propaganda weapon, by his OVER-REACTION to Dean's action, which appears to be in fact an effort to INCREASE the LGBT efforts of the Democrats in response to STATE-LEVEL ballot initiatives?

• HOW MUCH HAVE YOU damaged our chances, by spreading this year-old issue, without bothering to get Dean's side?

• How can Gardehire pretend to be a Democrat, while defunding the Dems during the most critical period in US history, a functioning COUP, intent on destroying ALL of our rights, not just those of the GLBT?

• How much can scribblers and leftists damage the party's chances of stopping Bush via legal elections and democracy, by demonizing the Dem leadership and pretending to D=R theories, that are inherently USELESS in the face of the threat we face.

• What is your strategy? Civil war? Revolution using a new 1 million stong Rent-a-Latino program? Why don't we take a timeout and work for a third party movement that will come to fruition in 50 years after the rainforests are all gone, and the country is being run by a 3rd generation Stalin?

Spreading rumors? Loose lips sink ships. Don't think you aren't a fifth column, because you are acting just like it.

On March 8, 2006, Dick Cheney was roundly and warmly greeted by over 4800 folks, with 8 standing ovations, at AIPAC.

Howard Dean, who alleges "Democrats know we can't bring the troops home now", took a nice paid trip to Israel on AIPAC's dime, when they were using a mole in the Pentagon to pass them military secrets. The mole has pleaded guilty to Conspiracy.

So, is it really "Democrats" that "know" we can't bring the troops home now, you friggin' liar Dean???

YOU are the reason farang's cash isn't going to any "official" democratic bullshit org.

Capice?

The Democrats need to take their cue from the people.
Polls now show most people, Dems & even Republicans, don't like Bush or what he's doing. (That's because the people finally FOUND OUT what Bush has done & is doing.)
GO WITH IT DEMS.
Go against Bush 100%, let it ALL hang out, tell it like it is!
Admit your OWN failings that led to this situation.
Apologize.
Tell them we'll get rid of Bush & the neocon's total control of our government.
People will eat that up!
They LOVE honesty.
They love admitting you were wrong but now you're trying to make it right.
Besides, they're the only party we've got with any clout at all, besides the Republicans.
Bring the troops home now!
This is an illegal, preemptive war based on lies, against the Geneva Convention & other international bodies. We are war criminals in the eyes of the world.
We HAVE no right to be there. We voted to REMOVE the WMD initially. We NEVER voted to even remove Saddam. That's what Bush morphed it into. The new Iraq government itself has said they want us out.
What is the worst that can happen? Violence? NO. It will prove we are NOT occupying. We are leaving. That is a huge cause of the violence now.
Civil war? So what if it does break out ? (& that's under question)
OUR country went through a civial war once & we survived as a nation.
Bush doesn't want us out because he'll be tried as a war criminal, along with the rest of the "cabal".
The Iraqi police cannot get control of their own nation so they can support their own government until we LEAVE.
Until we are gone, everything they do is "with" us. WE tell them what to do & where to do it.
They CANNOT get authority over their country til we leave--no matter WHAT they do.

The DEMS watered-down response to the incredibly nervy & in-your-face assault on Democracy from Bush & Co. is a disaster! For them & for our country!

Did you hear Bush taunt the Dems at his recent press conference?

He more or less said 'Go on. I dare you to try & stop me'. In almost those words.

Even if my suggested course of action does not work for the Dems & they lose, & I don't believe it would--because of e-machine fraud or other reasons--they can say they valiantly TRIED their BEST to save this country & hold their heads up.!
The way they're doing things now, is not honorable.

I need to throw my two cents into this back-and-forth over whether we should be supporting Democrats and whether we are traitors if we choose to support third parties.

First of all, Paul in LA (and Dredd) this is not a black-and-white issue, and you are treating it as one. Josh is not a troll for posting his comments. This is a free and open exchange of ideas and perspectives (I thought) and the "truth" is probably somewhere in the middle.

For instance, I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. Not because I wanted to sabotage Democrat chances of winning elections, but because I believe firmly in a multiparty system, and if the case is to be made that the Democrats and Republicans are indeed separate entities, then I still do not believe that two parties constitute "multiparty." I wanted Nader to get his 5% so that he could legitimately take part in the debates because he would wipe the floor with both Bush and Gore. You may not like the fact that Gore and Bush agreed on more things than they disagreed on in their debates, but it happens to be the truth. I wish it weren't so, but that does not make it not so. Personally, I like Al Gore much more now than I did when he was in Clinton's shadow. If he made a run for it in 2008, I'm pretty sure he'd have my vote. But I lost no sleep thinking that my Nader vote helped Gore lose the election in 2000. That election was won by Gore, and it was stolen from him. All the pissing and moaning about those 537 votes in Florida, and if Nader people had voted for Gore that could have been the difference. Bullshit, the Bush team was hellbent on stealing it, and if it hadn't been 537 votes, it would have been 864 votes, or 1157 votes or what the hell ever. It's useless and idiotic to blame Nader voters for Democrat losses in ANY election - what I want to know is, why didn't Gore simply pull out the big guns and declare the Supreme Court decision unconstitutional. It could have been done, it could have been fought harder...why wasn't it? I think every Nader voter in the country would have been behind Gore (and Kerry) if they had chosen to dig in and keep fighting. But they didn't. Kerry rolled over almost as if on command. Call me a troll, I guess. Anyone who had read me post here over the last five months should know that I'm not, and that I will spar with any Republican or real troll that pops his or her ugly little head up. So the "troll" calling in this instance is condescending and unproductive. This is a real, honest debate and should be treated as such. The truth is that we are on the same side, but I, like Josh and Erma, believe that the Democrats need to fucking pull their heads out and fight tooth and nail. I want to see heart, I want to see spirit, I want to see them draw blood, and when blood has been drawn and the Republicans are staggering, I want them to see them go down in a flurry of knockout punches. That much I can get behind, and I suspect Josh and Erma would say the same. Until they do that, though, they leave people like me wondering "WTF?" Are they an opposition party or not?

Why the votes for NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and all of the other horrible trade agreements? Why not support Feingold's censure? Why vote to confirm ROberts and Alito? Why the votes to keep funding this war? So many more "whys" and so many more bullshit excuses.

On the other hand, I supported Dean throughout his run because he exhibited the tenacity to take on the Republicans fearlessly. And he still does this, but he has been co-opted by the DNC, the same Committee that insured his demise in the primaries because they believed some bullshit polls that said he was "unelectable." So he now kisses their asses the same way McCain kisses Bush's ass, and it's really rather revolting. Yet he still says things that need to be said, and has more balls than most of the rest of the Democratic senate put together. I still appreciate that he defends truth for the most part - and I still wish he would say the troops need to come home now. But he is doing a better job handling media and PR than most others would in his position in this current political climate.

There isn't a cut-and-dried answer to all of this. Paul in LA is right that the Republicans must be taken head on at every opportunity and that some Democrats have been willing to do this throughout their careers (referenced Boxer, Feingold, Waxman, McDermott (my guy), Kennedy (some of the time), Conyers) - I think these congresspersons are great - but they get downplayed by their own party. Noone stood with Boxer to question the election fraud in '04. Conyers was relegated to a basement for the Downing St hearings, and was joined by very few other Dems - how many of these continued the pressing? Reid shut down the Senate to demand answers, but then what? So the Dems don't have enough votes to impeach...so what?? Isn't there a principle to stand on here?

I have no doubt that the Democrats and the Republicans are different parties, and I will vote for a Democrat over a Republican any day. The Republicans are liars and charlatans through and through. But the Democrats leave me feeling disappointed and empty...often. Take my own Senator, Maria Cantwell. She's about as useless as a sack of sheepshit. Actually, you can use sheepshit for fertilizer, so... but she has a legitimate Democratic challenger for her seat, and she hasn't shown she can vote as a Democrat. So she should be ousted in favor of her challenger, who is a potential Feingold, McDermott, or Boxer. That's what the Democrats need an infusion of. It's not that the traditional ideals of the Democrats are misplaced, it's just that a lot of Democrats need to get back to them.

And please, again, voicing different perspectives on what Democrats should do and why...diverting from the party line that all Democrats should be supported because they are not Republicans...this is not "trolling." And if the Democrats are not interested in being pushed towards a higher standard, then fuck 'em. Integrity and winning elections are not mutually exclusive.

farang: "On March 8, 2006, Dick Cheney...standing ovations, at AIPAC."

• Cheney applauded at AIPAC.

"Howard Dean, who alleges "Democrats know we can't bring the troops home now","

Alleged. You pretend to be able to speak for him now with words from him then.

"took a nice paid trip to Israel on AIPAC's dime, when they were using a mole in the Pentagon to pass them military secrets. The mole has pleaded guilty to Conspiracy."

• Dean took a trip to Israel. OH MY GOD.

• Then you slander him by trying to link him to SPYING? That's hilarious, ugly, and false.

Your contention that Dean supports AIPAC because he went to Israel on their dime is silly. Do you REALLY think that the chair of the Democratic party can just ignore AIPAC?

Leftists are OBSESSED with their purity, which is why they have no representation in the ACTUAL government. Stand back and be pure, and watch the earth be destroyed.

Soul Rebel: "this is not a black-and-white issue, and you are treating it as one."

No, I am specifically demanding that it NOT be treated as a black-and-white, settled issue. These are highly complex events, and the SCAPEGOATING of Dems without any context to their actions other than SLANDEROUS assumptions of corruption (with no direct evidence) is wrong, Bush-supporting, and counter-productive.

"Josh is not a troll for posting his comments."

HIS comments are not the issue. His posting of an entire article, even though a link and a paragraph would suffice, is shunned by most blogs. I mistook him for the author of the article, since they share the same basic first name. Since he clarified that and defended his posting as acceptable here, I have said nothing further about it.

"For instance, I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000."

I have CONTINUOUSLY supported Nader's right to run for office, and Americans right to vote for him. I do NOT blame the 2000 coup on Nader --- it is clearly a rightwing takeover with vote-fraud as the main tool.

"I wanted Nader to get his 5% so that he could legitimately take part in the debates because he would wipe the floor with both Bush and Gore."

That's another conundrum. I support the 'speak truth to power' aspect of that idea, without at the same time blaming Gore for the mealy-mouthedness of sitting politicians working inside the traditional poltiical culture. That's the way that culture is. Should it be different? Absolutely. But I don't demonize Barbara Boxer for sending out constituency letters that don't SCREAM BLOODY MURDER, because that's not generally how it is done, for reasons that have to do with complex cultural norms. I don't blame either Boxer or Gore for not having a perfect answer to that conundrum.

"You may not like the fact that Gore and Bush agreed on more things than they disagreed on in their debates,"

Unlike the leftists, I don't BELIEVE that what poltiicians say in campaigns represents their innermost truth. I don't try to nail them on their pitch --- I vote for who I think would be a better person in OFFICE.

"Kerry rolled over almost as if on command."

Kerry was SHOCKED that ABC was in the employ of the Bushoviks. He was bowled over by winning the election, only to have it fliipped on him overnight. I don't blame him for running a campaign, which is exhausting, and then being so downcast at the election being stolen that his only thought was to go apologize to the troops in Iraq for not being able to help them. He is, after all, a soldier.

You may not appreciate the mind-numbing effects of being in the Senate for 30 years, but I do. However, in our Constitutional government, stealing elections is illegal. It is not the fault of the 'victim' that the system did not protect his/our votes. That is a failure of the legal system.

Nonetheless, I voted for Kerry because I STILL believe he would make an excellent president, regardless of his failings as a candidate, or impromptu hero. I also have no doubt that his family received believable death-threats from the criminals who have seized our government.

"So the "troll" calling in this instance is condescending and unproductive."

Since there are trolls, sometimes a non-troll gets the label for ten seconds. Big deal. I've been accused of being a rightwinger --- I don't cry over such suspiciousness, since lots of suspicion is necessary to fight a conspiracy.

"I, like Josh and Erma, believe that the Democrats need to fucking pull their heads out and fight tooth and nail."

In a legal democracy, the Dems would be the majority. In a legal election system, the Dems will retake the House and probably the Senate this November. ALL I have said is that it is unreasonable to expect them to want to fall on their swords now, when in six months they could be IN CHARGE OF THE CONGRESS.

"I want to see heart, I want to see spirit, I want to see them draw blood,"

Yeah, I understand that. But that is not what they job actually is. You do understand that, don't you?

"Why the votes for NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and all of the other horrible trade agreements?"

Not enough votes to oppose the powerful lobbies.

"Why not support Feingold's censure?"

Not enough votes to get the bill onto the floor.

"Why vote to confirm ROberts and Alito?"

Not enough votes to block. Roberts more so than Alito, who mocked the process.

"Why the votes to keep funding this war?"

No Congress in the history of the world has stopped a war. It is practically IMPOSSIBLE to not fund a war. Our representatives are REQUIRED to support the federal government's 'chosen' policies.

"So many more "whys" and so many more bullshit excuses."

Again, you supply no context for what you consider 'bs excuses.' Embarassing as it is, the US democratic government is WEAK in the face of tyranny --- a point that Hitler made frequently. Although democracy is the only system that can be PLURAL, the fact is that such plural systems are PROFOUNDLY VULNERABLE TO TYRANTS.

This tyranny is a very broad act of treason, involving the press most critically. That betrayal by the press is THE MAJOR REASON WHY DEMS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED repeatedly. They can't get any traction. And, of course, that is the fulfillment of STRATEGY by Rove and his minions.

The suspicion that they are corrupt, and that explains it, is false. They ARE being played, and it is horrible to watch. But to not understand that this is the DIRECT RESULT OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT is to ignore the context, yet again.

Democracy is WEAK. No one denies this. A concerted fascist coup can take it over, as we have seen. Many, many countries have suffered similar fates --- but the US system being the oldest, it has many powers for survival. And our states still stand. So the Bushoviks WILL fall, and they will be prosecuted for their crimes.

Blaming the minority is just scapegoating to assuage your grief at the weakness of democracy.

"On the other hand, I supported Dean throughout his run because he exhibited the tenacity to take on the Republicans fearlessly."

Governors have the advantage of not being bound by DC politics. Dean also was not a SITTING politician, so more free to speak. In our system, it is neck and neck between Govenors and Senators achieving the presidency (aside from VPs).

"he has been co-opted by the DNC,"

Co-opted? He's the chair. He took the job so he could build up our defenses against this coup at the states level. Your claim of co-optation is not demonstrated.

"the same Committee that insured his demise in the primaries because they believed some bullshit polls that said he was "unelectable."

No, that was a simple matter of SENIORITY. It amazes me that a lot of people think it is just random who gets the nod. It is not. Just as with Hackett --- who could NOT be supported by Reid in a contest with 35 year elected official Sherrod Brown --- the caucuses have to be upheld, and that means nods to seniority.

"So he now kisses their asses the same way McCain kisses Bush's ass,"

Wow, that's a HUGE slander. Shame on you.

"has more balls"

I wish we could get over this kind of testicular politics. It is not balls that are lacking. It is A LEGAL GOVERNMENT that is currently lacking.

"I still wish he would say the troops need to come home now."

HOW would that help things? Those airbases are installed. The war with Iran is scheduled. The fascist coup has ZERO intention of being slowed down. The genocide on the ground is THE ACCEPTED, PLANNED STRATEGY going back to the beginning. There is NO SUCH THING as 'withdrawing the troops.

YOU HAVE TO WITHDRAW THE ENTIRE BUSH GOVERNMENT. Otherwise, if the troops were somehow magically moved back to the US, the PNAC would simply turn further to the AIR WAR, which is actually far worse for the civilian population.

This is terrible, but I'll say it: At least with the troops dying over there, two to five a day, the blood is getting reported to Americans on some level. Remove the troops, and you remove the canary in the mine. If we are not taking any substantive losses, the American people would more readily accept the genocide. I wish that weren't true.

"But he is doing a better job handling media and PR than most others would in his position in this current political climate."

Of course, that's why his election to that post was a GREAT accomplishment. Rather than spitting on that accomplishment, I'm in favor of WORKING DEAN FOR ALL HE'S WORTH. We should be filling his email box with vote-fraud info and many, many requests for him to meet with vote-fraud activists, get up to speed, and develop a REAL vote-fraud response team in EVERY state.

That's the key thing I want from my (lifelong) party at this point. It hurts me to see people slandering Dean, and the party, over half-baked ideas, and refusing to put out the effort to work with him, while feeling virtuous about that laziness.

"I think these congresspersons are great - but they get downplayed by their own party."

That's PART OF THE DEAL. They know it. Ask Conyers --- he'll tell you it's part of the show.

"No one stood with Boxer to question the election fraud in '04."

As with the censure, it only required ONE senator and ONE representative. That's all it takes to file that Hayes-Tilden complaint, for the record. THAT'S POLITICAL STRATEGY.

"Conyers was relegated to a basement for the Downing St hearings,"

BY THE PARTY IN POWER-- NOT BY THE DEMS.

"So the Dems don't have enough votes to impeach...so what?? Isn't there a principle to stand on here?"

Principles are not politics. Read up on the Aventine Secession. The principle in times like these is minimum exposure UNLESS you have a good shot at WINNING.

"But the Democrats leave me feeling disappointed and empty...often."

Read U.S. history. No one has ever looked to the Congress to keep them emotional fulfilled. Disappointment is the handmaiden of politics. But if you look closely, you will see that your disappointments are the flipside of the REAL problem --- which is the coup.

BLAMING THE MINORITY IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. And then expecting them to endanger their possible majority by taking runs at a violent fascist coup without the votes to prevail??? Insane, in DC terms at least.

Great comments by you, so I'll reply to the Cantwell part too:

"Take my own Senator, Maria Cantwell. She's about as useless as a sack of sheepshit."

I agree, she is a disappointment. However, you should recognize that she is a first-term Senator. First-termers have to make MANY compromises of principle to get committee assignments and develop the political power to get anything done. That's just a fact of how it works.

Also, check out her voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.or...gory.php?can_id=H4152103

Not so bad, looked at in aggregate.

"she hasn't shown she can vote as a Democrat."

Not according to that Vote-smart summary page. She is a progressive on MANY issues.

"So she should be ousted in favor of her challenger, who is a potential Feingold, McDermott, or Boxer. That's what the Democrats need an infusion of."

IF your state can improve on her, bully.

"And if the Democrats are not interested in being pushed towards a higher standard, then fuck 'em. Integrity and winning elections are not mutually exclusive."

Ouch. You realize that WE ARE WININING THE ELECTIONS, kiddo. It's the VOTE-FRAUD, silly. Reverting to a simplistic view, after all your clear-thinking, is a shame. Obviously if the Dem party was all Conyers-level heroes, things MIGHT be different. But that's not how it ever has been. In my state, we cannot remove Feinstein, even though Boxer just won by the largest margin in US history (8.7 million votes).

And we have to be careful not to inadvertently elect IDIOTS in our attempts to improve the situation (such as support for Nader may have done to a degree, and which we face in MANY House races this year, risking splitting the ticket on the hope of improving the caucus).

Thanks for your considered comments. FAR more accurate than "D=R" lies supported by BLACKOUTS on positive Dem news (such as Kerry's repudiation of the PNAC in the first debate, somehow elided from Democracy Now!'s coverage to date).

Ah, one more thing:

""I wanted Nader to get his 5% so that he could legitimately take part in the debates because he would wipe the floor with both Bush and Gore.""

I wanted that also, and I BELIEVE NADER DID RECEIVE MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT, and had it stolen from him by the very same vote-fraud.

I was also FURIOUS at the party leadership for blocking his participation at these moribund events. On the other hand, unlike the leftists, I do not consider these campaign events to be "debates" in the collegiate sense. Would that they could be.

Nader participating in the 2000 debates would NOT, I believe, have prevented the coup.

I like you Paul. Your comments are excellent, and well worth more consideration on my part. I will admit to getting caught up in what you call the "purity" angle. It is hard not to. I also understand the realist angle. That's why I said I would always vote for a Democrat over a Republican. That's not a difficult moral choice. I am here on this blog because I, like you, consider votre-fraud to be THE paramount issue. I fully understand that without honest, open, fair elections nothing will change because the Republicans will illegally retain their power. I also believe that Nader got his 5% in 2000. I've met Mark Crispin Miller and Bob Fitrakis, got my books signed by them (Cruel and Unusual is one of the best indictments of the Bush Crime Family that I've read so far). I believe that if we can oust Bush we can end this war and minimize the potential impact of PNAC and the military juggernaut. You were right to call me on the "ass-kissing" Dean comment. It represents the height of my frustration, though, with the "politics" of politics. I had laid my hopes on him for over a year, and from time to time it seems that he has become part of the machine rather than the force that was meant to change the machine. That is my "purity" issue.

I also agree with you on Nader's presence not preventing the coup. Nothing would have prevented the coup because nobody saw it coming.

I appreciate you taking the time. That's what blogs like this are for. SR

#41 Erma & Josh

I agree with you both re "Paul in LA".

He has a job spreading disinformation & he's full of it.

I'm going to ignore his crap from now on.

Soul Rebel, you're wrong about "Paul" & his comments being "excellent".
But, go ahead, let him lead you around by the nose til you get fed up too, like the rest of us.

Soul Rebel,

I love Ralph Nader, always have. I give him money because I want him to debate the Republicans & Dems & nail 'em.

But I did not vote for him.

That's because he's gay & old.
Don't get me wrong.
I, myself, don't care--but the point is---I recognize that he is not 'electable' in most of the rest of America's eyes, because of who he is.

So, I support him, but I don't vote for him.

"He has a job spreading disinformation & he's full of it."

Hey, slanderer, why don't you quote the 'disinformation' I've supposedly spread?

(dialtone)

Poll ten million Americans. You won't find more than a handful who even knew or ever wanted to know if Nader is gay.

"I also agree with you on Nader's presence not preventing the coup. Nothing would have prevented the coup because nobody saw it coming."

Actually, there were plenty of signs that the "crazies" (their name in GHWB's admin.) were dangerous to democracy.

And there's that Hillary comment about the "vast rightwing conspiracy."

But, indeed, we are slow on the uptake to our own detriment. Another reason why democracy is apparently always in danger.

But justice will prevail. What state do you live in, SR?

Charlene wrote: "Civil war? So what if it does break out ? (& that's under question)"

Civil war is the POLICY.

"OUR country went through a civial war once & we survived as a nation."

Which means absolutely NOTHING in a nuclear age. Our technology as a species is FAR too powerful, and OUR civil war was not fought against or by civilians, until late in the war.

"Bush doesn't want us out because he'll be tried as a war criminal, along with the rest of the "cabal"."

INCORRECT. The plan, from the beginning, is civil war, followed by partition. In favor of that, Bush underdeployed, left the munitions dumps unguarded, failed to repair the electrical and water, brought death-squad mercs into the country by the thousands, with a total legal waiver, bombarded the country with waste uranium shells, used white phosphorus on civilians, committed repeated pogroms on cities (destroying 70% of Fallujah's buildings, a major warcrime by itself), carried on, and leaked, a vile torture program in Saddam's most hated prison, burned the Koran-Torah Repository to the ground, torched the National Library, robbed the National Museum, left the nuclear dumps unguarded so that civilians got into the Yellowcake drums and poisoned themselves, failed to supply the hospitals, failed to count the civilian death toll, failed entirely to hold inquests into suspicious activities of the mercs, failed to guard the UN building in Basra, failed to protect Iraqi assets (Custer Battles president caught smuggling dinars at Lebanon airport --- the company, contracted to move billions in dinars, didn't even exist until after the invasion), and made several 'slips' of tongue, such as calling the mission a Crusade.

Yep, he REALLY didn't want a civil war to break out.

"There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There will be three territories." --- Henry Kissinger, briefing his Saudi clients in early 2004.

Well, he called the Afghan mission a Crusade. But the message to Muslims came through loud and clear. And then he took it back, which is really a second slap in the face.

Charlene

What I'm seeing here, and I'm guilty of much of it myself, is a divide between an emotional argument and a practical argument. I'm not letting Paul lead me around by the nose, thank you. I resent that as much as I resented the "troll" comments much earlier on in the thread. I'm interested in his arguments. He presents them well. I'm interested in considering things I hadn't considered. Doesn't mean I accept them, necessarily, but I can entertain them - I can certainly see the perspectives. The more this war is protracted, the more it seems that what is happening now - the "chaos" and civil war, was actually planned. I've presented the idea myself to the groups I'm involved in here in WA, and a lot of the repsonse I get is that they (BushCo) are too incompetent and bumbling to have planned this. Crazy like a fox. To think that in the face of all the sound military and Middle East policy advice Bush had access to, that he rejected it all in favor of the current shitstorm - it goes beyond ineptitude into the realm of planned madness. Someone who was just a bumbler would have done a few things right here and there, but at every opportunity to make a step towards peaceful resolution, BushCo has fucked it up. How can that be anything other than purposeful, thus the end that Kissinger had referenced must have been the ultimate goal. The conspiracy is bottomless.

I still maintain, however, that both sides to this "third party" or "stick with the Dems" have some validity. You go to war with the Democrats that you have, not necessarily the Democrats that you want. Or perhaps not. It really is a testament to 1) the power of money in politics, and 2) that we are still a fledgling democracy, that we have not been able to foment some real multiparty system here.

#69 Soul Rebel

I wanted you to realize that others here have dealt with "Paul" & have dismissed him as full of it.
I wanted you to become curious enough to read the other threads he's been on where various people have called him out for talking out of both sides of his mouth, making no sense, & then refusing to be held accountable. He gives just enough facts to give the impression he's making sense, but he isn't. He likes to throw in a lot of words to make himself sound official like, "Nonsense!", "It's a fact.", & "Incorrect". But when you examine his stuff, it IS nonsense, it's NOT a fact, & you weren't "incorrect". His "explanations" don't explain anything--it's double talk.
I dislike seeing "Paul" mess with people's heads, because the people on here are sincere & responsible & trying to bring about change for good.
He isn't.

It's like having to watch a pervert molest someone & not being able to take action to stop it.

I have to take action, it's how I'm made, as are most people.
The rest of us were "led around by the nose" until we recognized what he's about also. Not just you.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt...

I could go through each one of Paul's assinine "assertions" & refute them--but that would take a lot of my precious time, which I've already done too much of on other threads with his stuff & wasted too much of my time on the likes of him. His crap isn't worth it. Look at them yourself & think about it.

Let me ask you this:
What difference does it make if Bush& Co. planned a civil war in Iraq or not?
We already know Bush is a dirty, lying SOB.
How would knowledge of whether he did or not, make ANY difference WHAT-SO-EVER to the problem we face of ending the war & bringing Bush& Co. down?
So why waste precious time speculating?
After we get the impeachment, we can split hairs over what Bush did or not for fun.
I'm a git-r-done, gal.
I want to be part of the solution, not part of the inaction problem.

Our country is hurting as we speak & needs us to take action.
We don't have any time to waste.
I'm taking a cattle-prod to my Democratic Representatives--I'm writing new letters to the editor, specifically blaming them by name & calling them out to explain their inaction to the people.

Soul Rebel and Paul in LA

I am enjoying reading both your posts and have watched the tone of your posts towards one another change into a respect for each others viewpoint. You both agree to disagree but do it in a calm and dignified manner, sans the name calling and vindictive verbal assaults on each others character that seems to be the trademark of a couple of posters at this blog.

If more of the worlds leaders went through the process of peace talks before heading off on a tangent like the Charge of the Light Brigade, maybe the world might be a better place for all, including the U.S.

I now scroll through and ignore the posts I don't want to waste my time on and get to the good stuff where I can learn something, even if it's only respect and tolerance for the other persons point of view.

"I could go through each one of Paul's assinine "assertions" & refute them--but that would take a lot of my precious time, which I've already done too much of on other threads with his stuff & wasted too much of my time on the likes of him."

I don't recall you ever replying or responding in detail to anything I've written. And as for "likes of him," please point me to more people who think like me, because I need to get in touch with them.

"What difference does it make if Bush& Co. planned a civil war in Iraq or not?

The difference between a planned GENOCIDE, and just a series of well-meaning mistakes of a well-meaning, befuddled president. In law, all the difference in the world.

In Hitler's Germany, millions of Germans maintained the latter delusion in the famous phrase, "If ONLY the Fuhrer knew." If only Prince George knew what was going on in Iraq, he would make sure it was done right.

Well, he does, and he has.

"How would knowledge of whether he did or not, make ANY difference WHAT-SO-EVER to the problem we face of ending the war & bringing Bush& Co. down?"

It swings a whole other raft of laws against him.

"After we get the impeachment, we can split hairs over what Bush did or not for fun."

How are 'we get(ting) the impeachment'? The only way to impeach is to retake the House and probably the Senate. That requires THE DEMOCRATS, who you appear intent on denigrating and slandering to your heart's content.

"I want to be part of the solution, not part of the inaction problem."

Your slanders don't advance the cause.

"I'm taking a cattle-prod to my Democratic Representatives--I'm writing new letters to the editor, specifically blaming them by name & calling them out to explain their inaction to the people."

Yeah, that will help a lot. Btw, did you bother to check which ones are anywhere near an election for their seat, or if any of them have anything to worry about in getting reelected?

I'm a vociferous protester. I yell and scream. It's not like I don't understand emotion. But while you are attacking your representatives in the press, why don't you check to make sure you aren't ELECTING MORE REPUBLICANS by weakening the minority further. Or never mind. 'Solutions' people who don't look before they leap usually end up being other people's solution problem anyhow.

When you have something like Paul in LA--you have to shove back hard to make your point--otherwise, people begin to believe his disinformation campaign.

He knows what he is--even if you don't.

Tell me the truth: Aren't some starting to believe that expecting Dems to take action & holding the Dems accountable, as the opposing party, is not a good idea?---thanks to Paul in LA.
Aren't some starting to believe that Dems CAN'T be expected do anything unless they get a majority?---thanks to Paul in LA. (And a Dem majority may never happen mind you).
Aren't we being pounded daily with various forms of this same message, by Paul in LA, that Dems are "excellent" people, & couldn't help the atrocious things Republicans have done in this country's name?
Some ARE beginning to believe that, aren't they?
See what I mean?!

I realize the Dems don't WANT to be held accountable for their part in the current 'horrible state of everything'.
They want to be re-elected ANYWAY, without being held accountable.
They don't want to be forced to come out against what the Republicans, aided & abetted by the Dems, have done.
They don't want to have to come out AGAINST Republicans because if they do, they will be expected to follow through with campaign promises & make big changes if they get elected.
However, in reality, they don't WANT to make any big changes--even if they DO get elected.
The only change they want is to get in there & get THEIR piece of the lucrative pie.
That's why they say a little something here or there, so they can pretend they tried, but they do nothing big or real.
What else is new?

Paul is pushing for politics as usual.
But politics as usual is why we are in this mess in the first place.
The 2 party system has gone wrong because both parties are corrupt.
We have to hold their feet to the fire!

If Dems want to be elected, let them prove themselves & earn their keep as opposing party.
If the Dems want to get elected to a majority---LET THEM EARN OUR VOTES BY TAKING ACTION, & TAKING A STANCE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
They have no excuse in not rallying behind Feingold's resolution to censure Bush. Even Republicans are bailing on Bush.
Even if it doesn't pass..
It's the 'unified Dems against wrong' that counts with the voters.
The Dems just want to slip in & get THEIR piece of the pie, so the Republicans can't have it all to themselves.
They don't want reform.
Just re-election, without being held accountable.
That story is as old as the hills.

I disagree.
NOW is the time to push the Dems with the election coming up.
FORCE them to produce for the people or risk losing.
If they can get elected without promising to do anything, they WON'T do anything if office.
Why else are they sending out people to drum the opposite into our heads?
CREATE DOUBT & FEAR & conquer. That's why.
Don't buy it.

Bush & Co are already war criminals, for real, all over the world. They could be hanged right now with current evidence. You can't hang him twice for trying to create civil war too.

"Paul is pushing for politics as usual.
But politics as usual is why we are in this mess in the first place."

And there is your DELUSION.

What is 'politics as usual' about these fine events of the last six years, and which ones can be blamed on the Dems:

• Assassination of Paul Wellstone and his family.

• Anthrax attacks on Senate Majority Leader Daschle, and other Dems (no Republicans).

• Death threats on the floor of the Congress (sample, from defrocked congressman 'Duke' Cunningham: "Your son is toast.")

• Violation of at least fifteen major federal laws, including Obstruction of Congress.

• Outing a spy network in order to silence critics.

• Nine-eleven failure of NORAD, Pentagon, and Shitehouse to protect America.

• Failure of corporate media to report the conspiracy, the corruption, the coercion, or the canards.

• Vote-fraud system installed in 30 states, run exclusively by Bushbacker Republicans.

• Mid-decade redistricting in Texas, which added six seats to the majority R House.

• Stopping and searching of Senator Kennedy at airport.

• Illegal invasion of Iraq (House Dems voted 60% NO, changed leadership).

• Lies abetting illegal invasion of Iraq.

• Allowing Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.

• Use of torture and 'extreme rendition.'

• No-bid contracts to Bushbacker companies.

• $6 trillion national debt.

• Katrina failure of gutted FEMA.

• Deployment of National Guard and 80% of their equipment in combat.

• Votes left open for three hours so R leaders could coerce votes; Dems blocked from attending innumerable committee meetings; R chairmen turning off mikes; Conyers stuck in the basement; R chairmen crediting obvious Nay votes to the Affirmative; innumerable instances of lying and deception by R leadership in Congress, obstructing that body almost completely.

Etc.

In YOUR world, Charlene, NONE of that ever gets mentioned.

That's because you NEED to bash the minority because you need a SCAPEGOAT.

But WE need the minority to HOLD THEIR CAUCUSES TOGETHER, or else the Constitution will be LOST, gone, kaput, for 20-50 years at least.

So, once again, I advise people to read up on the Aventine Secession, and face the music. Because if the (inadvertent Bushbacking) demonization of the minority is successful, it doesn't take that much to destroy the caucuses. A few major retirement episodes, maybe another assassination or two, some more election "losses," and you could have the minority party collapsing in the legislature.

In which case Bush WINS, and YOU LOSE for good.

So keep on slandering, Charlene. Karl Rove LOVES you for it.

Charlene,

Paul has made worthy points, and I don't think they extend to "we should allow Democrats to be corrupt." I don't think that is at all what he is saying. It comes down to a matter of priorities - is the number one priority the removal of Bush and the neocon cabal? If it is, then there is merit to the idea that supporting the Democratic party - even if you are not in full agreement with their policies, their voting records, their ties to corporations, etc - is the only viable way to do this. If your highest priority is holding everyone (Democrats and Republicans alike) to some standard of accountability, then even this cannot happen without the neocons having control of our government wrested from them. At this point in the calamitous state of our union, if we are hurting Democrat chances of election of re-election, then the only thing that will fill that void is a Republican. Which is worse. Sure, it feels like playing the odds at a Vegas crapshoot sometimes, but any student of statistics says that you go for the game that gives the steadiest payout in the long run rather than hanging your hats on a big risk. Right now, other than all out overthrow of the Bush team by some kind of popular (and likely violent) uprising, it seems like the safest bet is to work to get Democrats elected. I don't like it - I don't like to see Democrats like Joe Biden get all buddy-buddy and cozy with torturers like Alberto Gonzales, like he did at the hearings..but there's some truth to "you catchmore flies with honey than vinegar". I understand the passion and the fire that would make you scream "how dare you?" at some Dems, because I feel it often. But I understand the strategy of removing Republicans from positions of power by any means necessary. I'll say again, I don't believe that Democrats and Republicans are the same by a long shot - and I also believe that many Republicans are starting to see what their party has morphed into over the last five to ten years, and the corruption (because that's really where everything lies) does not sit well with them.

We are at a crucial juncture in our nation's history. We are on the precipice of overt fascism. Much as I dream of it, there won't be a popular uprising - the media has been controlled too well, and not enough people truly understand the peril we are in. So what's the best option? I think it lies somewhere in the direction that Paul is emphasizing. It is a bitter pill, but perhaps the only pill available. It's not that I don't think there is some element of truth to statements that Democrats haven't fought hard enough, haven't voted "against" enough, haven't been willing to sacrifice "right" for political expedience - it's just that there is a reality to our political system. If we manage to pull out of this nosedive towards global war, then we can go about making some real changes in the way our system operates in terms of money, power, and influence. BUt there's no way any of that has a hope of changing if we aren't able to put control back in the hands of the Democrats. It might not change even after that happens, but there at least is some chance...

Paul's arguments are making sense to me in this regard, and I don't feel like I have been snowed. I'm just finding myself more willing to consider other options than I had been. If you were about to fall off a cliff and a leper held out his hand to save you...would you take it? That may seem a little dramatic, but since you are characterizing Democrats as lepers, essentially, I don't think it's out of place.

We don't have to settle for what ever crumbs the Dems feel like throwing our way out of FEAR that it's all we can get, Soul Rebel!
That's what they want us to think.
That we have no power.
That we better shut up & take what ever they say is good enough & be glad.
I see they convinced you.

Power is the ability to make things happen.
And the people still have power over their representatives.

If we demand more, the Dems will be forced to give us more--not just to get elected (because they may have e-votes rigged too), but to go anywhere & enjoy a pleasant reception--for their staff to enjoy a pleasant encounter with the constituents, to move about & not feel intimidated by the righteous anger of the people & so forth.
THAT'S what I'm talking about. Pressure.
It's come to this because Dems have been sloths in office (not 'lepers'). If they want their comfort level to increase, they can make the people happy for a change, instead of just the corporations.
We SHOULD all be "mad as hell & not willing to take it anymore".
Not rollin over & playing dead.
Demand nothing & that's exactly what we'll get--nothing.
Look at the last few years...

Giving up power is foolish.

As you said, there is no guarantee the Dems will do anything-----unless WE insist on it.
Our best shot is to hold their feet to the fire & force them to take a stance right now, while they're nose open for the elections.
After the elections, we won't have much leverage except to make life uncomfortable for them.

I think we are farther along that only on the "precipice of overt fascism". It's much worse.

Can you believe that the federal bureaucracy is the only major domestic foe of the Bush Administration?
(Not the Dems)
There's been an exodus of experts & experience over the last several years. Evidently, they've been tangling with the neocons' agenda & lost.
Over 243 administrators, managers & career civil servants have specifically quit in disgust or were fired, or threatened to retire by Bush strong arm tactics, cronyism, & disastrous policies.
They've all been relaced with hand-picked Bush operatives (Ala, "good job Brownie..")
Some have very interesting letters giving notice.

Re civil war---There was little resistance at first when Baghdad fell--but then it all expanded & increased because of Bush & Co.'s desire to make Iraq a 'wish-list' for international investors.
Initially, the new Iraqi government wanted collective ownership of their own resources with social justice & a right to a job for all. ALL factions agreed. Iraq had many government owned factories & other businesses that constituted 40% of their economy.
Bush's Bremmer insisted on dismantling the entire Baathist state apparatus with sweeping reform of Iraq by dismantling society & the military. (Raping Iraq basically)
Bremmer wanted to sell off Iraq oil & other natural resorces & put them under the control of (take a wild guess!) big multinational oil companies, open up oil reserves to big oil, & privatize social services in Iraq like education & health care!
The state owned businesses with specific expertise in electrical, sanitation & water purification systems, not to mention its cement industries--were forbidden from obtaining subcontracts from the multinational corporations placed in charge of infrastructure. (Cheney's homeboys like Halliburton etc). They weren't allowed to help rebuild their own country.
They had a hard time getting a Constitution because Iraqis insisted on ending the occupation first before agreeing to Bremmer's version.
At first, when the Iraq market opened it was multinational companies vrs. Iraqi local enterprise.
The Iraqi people suddenly could buy air conditioners & cell phones for example. But the multinationals had far cheaper prices & even sold at a loss to capture market. (Like Walmart did to our country.)
So winter of 2003-3004 a depression swept through small business in Iraq leaving neighborhoods without the small shops & the money that they would have plowed back into the economy.
Also, demobilization of the army & the sidelining of state enterprises resulted in an almost immediate unemloyment crisis.
These depressed neighborhoods became incubators for ferocious criminal gangs who looted public buildings & private ones for anything to get money on the black market. Looting became a permanent fixture of urban life once the occupation dismantled the Iraqi police.
Kidnapping for ransom became a regular fact of life for prosperous Iraqis.
The multinational companaies pulled out since most Iraqis have no money to spend.
Unemployment is estimated between 30 to 60% now.
That's why Iraqis fight.
At first they thought it would be a real liberation. But then Bush's reality set in--with the capture of anyone & everyone & torture & now they know Bush is raping their country & they want him out.

I personally think Iraq should stop the killing & accept whatever for now, even though its hard--so Bush has no excuse to stay.
It's a tough call.
But if we leave, it WOULD help the situation.
Bush isn't going to leave those multi billion dollar state of the art military bases.

Charlene -

You should re-read your post. I am not disagreeing with you on anything that you said about the wanton destruction that the Bush administration had leveled. And I am not talking about giving up power. I am talking about losing power for good. Forever. It seems to me that's the option we are faced with.

We can be mad as hell with the Democrats when they are the ones in power. And we will be. I think that they understand our "mad as hell" a whole lot more than the Republicans do. But it is apparent, and has been for five years now, that this group of neocon thugs fear absolutely nothing, least of all our "mad as hell." So while we may be saying "if we put you there, you had better damn well straighten things out" we can't even say that unless they are there.

I was so mad about the fact that nobody stood with Boxer in Jan '05 when she called for a resolution to investigate voter fraud. Some stood up (Hillary, Barack, Chris Dodd, and a few others) and made impassioned speeches about the sanctity of the vote...but nobody else signed their name to Boxer's appeal. It was at that point that I turned my back on the Democrats, and I have been unable to bring myself to campaign for local dems because I have found their party-line politics lacking. But the truth is, as Paul has said, that that resolution would have ended nowhere because they don't have the body count. We have to get them the body count. Without that, we are truly lost.

In the event that they do regain the Senate in the mid-terms, and they do not run this administration up the fucking flagpole for their corruption, malfeasance, warmongering, and lying then I will turn my back on them again with the attitude that "I gave you a chance to right these wrongs, and you did nothing." At that point, maybe it is time for a popular uprising. But within the bounds of our constitution and current political structure, the Democrats are our best hope.

I don't like it. Not one bit. But I accept it. Things may be too far gone for any hope of recovery from Bush. But I'm not entirely convinced that they are.

I am for 100% troop withdrawal from Iraq. I know that some Democrats (like Joe "I'm really a Republican" Lieberman) have made statements in support of keeping them there. But they are 100% NOT coming home with a Republican majority, don't you think? So what's the alternative?

It's incredible--all the awful stuff 'Paul in LA' keeps listing (for some reason)--& yet despite ALL the stuff the Republicans have done to assault this Democracy, the Dems are evidently so inept & lame, they have never managed to speak with authority or take unified action against it all. All they've managed to do in the face of ALL this crap is to WAIT---Paul says the "Dem leadership" stated, 'until or if ever they get the majority again'--although I've never seen the quote.
Paul's 'list of shame' for the Republicans is also a 'list of shame' for the Dem's inaction.

There. I mentioned it in "my world".
I think you should stop listing it because it makes the magnitude of the Dems excuses painfully obvious. There's no excuse that can cover Dems for failing to do anything much about all THAT.

Scapegoating is when you ask someone to bear the blame of others.
I'm not doing that.
I'm not blaming Dems for causing the above 'list of shame'. I'm blaming them for not doing their job as opposing party to stop it.
Asking someone to do their job & getting nothing but excuses is a legitimate outrage. Not scapegoating.

Paul in LA thinks we should give Dems a medal for "holding their caucuses together". I don't see what's so heroic about that.
Paul says the Constitution 'could have' been kaput for 20 years over caucuses. It's already kaput. Bush trashed it & the Dems sat on their asses & let him do it with barely a wimper.
Latest example is this Feingold resolution to censure Bush.
WHY can't they get behind him?

He likes to keep saying I slander.
Slander involves being false.
I haven't said anything false in any way.

There you go, soul rebel.
I wasted some more time on him for you.
He is so full of it.

Keep asking him in-depth questions. Lots of them. He likes to answer.

The system needs reform.
I am not under any delusions that if the Dems get a majority they will make any.
BUT--I DO know they really, really, really want to get elected. Like always.
We should USE that desire as leverage to FORCE action!
Raise the roof.
It's a unique time. It's the voter's best chance to scare the bejeesus out of them & get some action.
Use their desperation & desire for power as leverage.
Force it all out in the open so ALL the voters know what awful things are being done in the name of America.--There are some signs that may be possible now. DEMAND. RAISE HELL. DEMONSTRATE IN THE STREETS. DROP NICE. GET PEOPLE RILED UP.
We have to jerk the power that is rightfully ours back from the corporations who usurped it with the help of the politicians.

I don't want Democracy to die with a wimper.

Hell, that's what we should have been doing all along anyway!!!!!

And if this doesn't work to get the Dems to straighten up & fly right, we're going to have to continue to do this type of citizen action anyway with them or with out them. We're going to have to fight to get our country back.
I don't think there is any other way.
Any other response is politics as usual.

Again, Charlene, I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. I think we are more on the same side of things that you are willing to admit. The difference lies in order of operations. You say hold Democrats acountable now. I think holding them accountable after the mid-terms would be safer. It's just a matter of timing. The paramount goal should be to have Republicans out of office. Everything else is secondary.

It isn't that simple. It's worse.

Did you know there was a piece of legislation introduced that would have forced a 17 hour discussion about the Iraq war--just a discussion, mind you--which would have included both sides?The Dems DID have enough votes to make it happen this time--but they couldn't get enough support from the other Dems.
The truth is, the Dems have had options all along that they could have chosen from, to try & bring about change, or even just inform the people re what's going on--even if they are in the minority.

But they have consistently chosen not to do that.

Yet you count on their 'record of excuses' as evidence they'll nail him & reform the country.

You don't think maybe Bush&Co. have gathered so much dirt on Dems from illegal spying that the Dems may NEVER want to make a decent collective peep against the Republicans ever again for fear of retaliation?

Riddle me this.....if it's true that the Dems are going after Bush if they get a majority & it won't be pretty...then why would the Republicans let them get a majority?

I mean, we know how far Republicans have gone in the past to hold onto power.
We KNOW they've already stolen the 2000 & 2004 Presidential Elections of The United States of America--even going so far as to recruit The Supreme Court Of The Land to aid & abet their criminal activities.

Why would they now leave their fate to chance, in the hands of the Dems, in the next election?

A sudden desire to self-destruct?

Even if the Dems get their majority by some strange chance--perhaps because the Republicans want to give the left false hope & thereby stop an all out revolution against their fascist ways for at least 4 more years while they perfect & tighten their grip on America?--the Dems will hit the ground running with their own load of crap & claim they can't waste time going after the Republicans because of the war, the economy, whatever, (pick from their list of excuses). They won't go after the Republicans. They're scared of them.

If we 'play it safe' & wait to see what happens...nothing ever will.
That's what they're counting on: Keep em in doubt about what to do so they'll do nothing. Keep em afraid to do anything.
CREATE DOUBT & FEAR & CONQUER.

We need to be mad as hell & refusing to take it anymore.

Charlene. Trust me that I'm not discounting what you are saying.

As I've been saying throughout my "two cents or less" on this thread - both 'sides' have worthy points.

Why would the Republicans let the Democrats take back power anyway - regardless of whether they thought the Dems would hold Bush accountable for anything? We know that the game is rigged, that's why across the States individuals in the state houses and senates (like Debra Bowen) are coming forward to demand safe elections. That is where the real fight is - not even necessarily at the federal level. But if the Democrats in Congress (regardless of whether they are effective (Boxer) or ineffective (Cantwell) are being undercut by those who for all intents and purposes are on the same side of things (OK, so that's a debatable point, but for the sake of this argument let's assume) then it will weaken the position of those in state governments to go after election fraud.

If we can't stop election fraud we have nothing else.

"If we demand more, the Dems will be forced to give us more--not just to get elected (because they may have e-votes rigged too),"

Another slander. Show ANY data that supports this LIE. Find a single Democrat implicated in the vote-fraud system in place.

• ALL the vote-fraud equipment companies are Republican run, most linked DIRECTLY to Bush.

• ALL the three certification/testing companies are Republican run, linked directly to Bush.

• The vote-fraud coup is CLEARLY being used to Republican, linked to Bush, advantage.

Keep spreading the lies, Charlene. Karl Rove LOVES you.

Charlene: "It's incredible--all the awful stuff 'Paul in LA' keeps listing (for some reason)--& yet despite ALL the stuff the Republicans have done to assault this Democracy,"

What you miss, habitually, is that this is a list of ASSAULTS ON DEMOCRATS. The way you phrase this, I think you know it, too.

"the Dems are evidently so inept & lame, they have never managed to speak with authority or take unified action against it all."

You aren't in the target sights, so you can trash the victims.

SIXTY PERCENT NAY WITH CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP is 'unified action against it all.' That was the Iraq Resolution vote in the House.

You don't take the deaththreats seriously, that's clear. You mock the intended targets of those actions, and CONTINUE to allow no contextualization of Dem failures to respond effectively.

That's the Gold Standard of Minority-bashing. Congrats.

"Paul in LA thinks we should give Dems a medal for "holding their caucuses together". I don't see what's so heroic about that."

Because you have no clue about Aventine Secession. Apparently you don't Google.

"Paul says the Constitution 'could have' been kaput for 20 years over caucuses. It's already kaput."

That's how you justify your scapegoating --- you think democracy is already dead, so there is no need to try to protect what is left.

As for your characterization of my words, again, you don't read. I said that the Constitution will fall IF the caucuses collapse.

Since your approach fails utterly to contextualize Dem actions, it is easy for you to scapegoat them --- TO BLAME THEM FOR BUSH'S ACTIONS.

As such, you are a radical. You are not the voice of reason in a horrible conflict within our government, caused by vote-fraud, treason, death-threats, assassination, and war. You don't have a practical point of view to offer, since to you, the only thing to do is whip and abuse the minority.

And that point of view directly aids Rove. Meanwhile, we don't have your resume, what you have done to make you so HOLY. It's just the bitterness of a professional blamer.

"If we 'play it safe' & wait to see what happens...nothing ever will."

And, again, I never said that.

What I said is that the Dem leadership has decided to wait for the elections. That's a fact of politics.

And I also said that we who are not sitting Dems must fight for impeachment, indictment, censure, resignation --- by all means available --- EXCEPT bashing the minority.

That means working with Conyers, Boxer, Waxman, Kennedy, Feingold, etc., to continue doing what they are doing and working with the states to get them to file impeachment bills, and working within the states to stop the vote-fraud.

The value of these actions is MOOT, however, if we use the decision not to join the caucuses in these fights to bash the Dem leadership. ONE Senator can file a bill of censure. ONE Senator can file (with ONE Representative) an election protest under Hayes-Tilden. Those actions are GREAT, and worthy. Adding the rest of the caucuses names to these bills and protests WILL ADD NOT ONE THING TO THEIR POTENTIAL FOR PASSAGE, which is ZERO.

I support Pelosi and Reid 100%. Which doesn't stop me from using every available means --- EXCEPT MINORITY BASHING --- to move justice forward for the Bush crimes. And I recognize, as clearly Charlene does not, that the work in the states is OURS to do, and cannot be blamed on the Dem leadership. Indeed, we should do everything we can --- other than alienating him --- to get Dean to develop a state-level, nationwide, Response Team effort for dealing with election fraud.

That's a set of practical, activist goals and intents. It's not radical, which is good, because radicalism is counterproductive --- here, or overseas among Bush's victims.

Paul in LA

Blah...blah...blah...blah...
You've had to work hard to sell this snow job about letting the Dems off the hook til "after the elections".

You're spittin into the wind, surfer boy.
The more you write, the more obvious it becomes.

Contextualize that.