Let's get the party's act together for the mid-terms in 2006.
Last mid-terms were a joke. Let's get to work and elect Democrats to Congress. I can't stand the conservanazi republikan, Paul Ryan, from Wisconsin. The Dems need to get a good Dem candidate to take this little nazi pimp on.

BUCK FUSH !!!

I like Donna Brazil, she is a great leader, I like Howard Dean, he is not afraid to stand up, but there is also talk of John Edwards being the DNC chair, any of these three would be great, and they all should work together.

I like Donna Brazille as she lost the campaign for Algore. I also like Howard Dean because he was the front runner that never carried a state in the primaries. I like John Edwards for not even carrying his home state for the democrats. How about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, George Soros, Whoopi Goldberg, or any of the other Hollywood far left that Kerry said was the heart and soul of America.

So is it true about the investigation on the whole bush and kerry thing I here that bush really lost the election and kerry won but some how he was reelected I realy think he bought the election because all the stuff he put the americans and the iraq people threw was uncalled for he had no right and whats so bad about it he said there was weapons of mass destruction after he brudaly attact them what did we find nothing but alot of scared home less citizens thanks to George W Bush Jr to tell you the truth i think he's going to get inpeached because all the stuff he is doing his mouth is saying one thing his actions are saying another any regards you can Email me Charles black at prince_charles08972@yahoo.com yall know what do but first things first we need to get bush out of office because he could care less about his fellow americans all hes trying to do is finish what his dady started and i hope bush reads this and emails me with his elaboration thats all i would need is some more lies i'm tired of every body loosing their jobs the thing is bush made so many people loose their jobs but then he wants to fight so hard to keep his job George W Bush is a Hypocrite ladies and gentlemen thats right and i know you republicans are goin to be so mad at me but ya know what i could care less because i'm doing what republicans don't like to do, I'm Telling the truth but hey it's aall gravy in my world so if yall republicans want some come get it and guess what I'm only 15yrs old.

Wow, a lot of us still love Howard Dean.

I like Cuomo.

Just my opinion, but, how's about:
Lose the obscenity, but keep the attitude. No more gays kissing after marrying for awhile, okay? When you know Karl Rove will twist things and the media will distort things---that is when you need to stay in the new, updated closet with the jacuzzi a little bit longer. Yes, a lot of my gay friends have a lot of money. When you become the issue that fascists use to get back into government and hurt poor women and children, then you've not only damaged your own little boutique cause, you've hurt everyone. I am very supportive of gay rights, but that was just plain stupid.
Encourage people to OPENLY speak about media reform. Kerry had ideas that were quite specific about health care, etc., but the news media
did not spend any time with them. They covered the horse race and the ideas of both candidates in very superficial manner. Bush's ideas were merely ideas with no substance behind them. So, playing a bastardized version of the "objectivity" game, they covered Kerry's ideas as if they had no substance behind them. Then the media patted itself on the back for having done a "fair and balanced" job.
Sorry about Tom Daschiel. Guess being a nice democrat doesn't pay. We need attack dogs running. And no, we need to chastise dems who say we need to adopt the Republicans valueless "values" rhetoric.

Howard Dean is a passionate, honest and committed Patriot. He understands that the Democrats need to stand for principles of working people and prosperity for all-- The Democrats have become too much akin to the Republican's corporate-take-all party and we need to return to our roots and take our nation back.

The Grand Refusal is Launched! (part1 - part 2) Read The Grand Refusal and Join the Grand Refusal Coalition. CITIZENS FOR LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT (www.legitgov.org) Pittsburgh, PA: November 7, 2004
CONTACTS: Michael Rectenwald and Lori Price, clg_news@legitgov.org

Citizens For Legitimate Government is calling for the Grand Refusal to begin!! Again, to join CLG's Grand Refusal Coalition, please subscribe. You will be updated on actions and asked to participate: GrandRefusal@legitgov.org or: grandrefusal-subscribe@lists.legitgov.org.

We are now in Stage one. Stage one: Do not consume at normal levels. Do not buy any surplus goods or make other major purchases. Do not purchase entertainment goods and boycott the corporate media as much as possible. Only do what you have to do to survive. And, get others involved. Help get Citizens For Legitimate Government's Grand Refusal Coalition in motion. Help build the Grand Refusal! Stand by for stage 2. Once we reach critical mass, we will launch Stage 2. Stage 2 will include but will not be limited to: Protests in every city; Stage 3 will include but will not be limited to: Inauguration protests (No Inauguration for Bush: Fascist, election-stealing Dictator Bush must NOT be SWORN IN!); Stage 4 will include but will not be limited to: Massive Walkouts! Send the Grand Refusal and Grand Refusal Coalition link to every true citizen you know. We must build critical mass and awareness of the election theft and what we are doing about it. Spread the word. We need to build momentum to grow the CLG's Grand Refusal Coalition and move to the next stage.

http://www.legitgov.org/mike_essay_ballot_bullet_refusal_071304.html

http://www.legitgov.org/mike_essay_rev_will_be_Webcast_072104.html

Lori R. Price
General Manager, Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Howard Dean's moment has arrived. Perhaps his quest for the Democratic nomination had not properly coincided with the right moment in history, but there's no denying that this moment to assume the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was tailor-made for someone of Howard Dean's demeanor and genuiness.

The Democrats need a pile-driving individual to completely rebuild the party organization on a national level. Dean has shown that he can command attention and financial support that goes with that. He has single-handedly propelled the democratic candidate on to virtually equal footing with a sitting president - and even now - that whole contest is under rigorous scrutiny.

Let's give Howard a chance - and let's hope he can take over the reins of the DNC and give it a good "turn-around."

Pete Newcome
Kentfield, CA

If you think Terry was to far to the right, think again!

tall2z

Sent to me as a Loyal Liberal Democrat by a Conservonazi Reich Winger newspaper editor (Douglas County News, Georgia) Have you ever seen such GOP ROT in your life? What do you think?

Do yourself a favor, he writes me, and read this. Perhaps you will then understand why we are in the right war at the right time and as the right place.

THE DEATH OF LIBERALISM
by Raymond S. Kraft

"The threat is great, the battle is hard, and therefore we should do nothing. We might lose!

The gangs are running wild in L.A. Somebody might get hurt. Get rid of the police!

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war. Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on
Germany, which had not attacked us.

It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the
United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada,
Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could.

Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's ass by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million. Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would (sic) have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi
Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of
today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements.

We have to do it somewhere.

We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once.

We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . a 27 year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $120 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,000 American lives, which is roughly 1/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.]

But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 30 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the
Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the
first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist, as many Democrats and Liberals, peace-activists and anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes,
cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German
Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 specious claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight the 1% of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the 99% of the population that is not a threat. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument too, for it supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have
trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history. The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe
more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 1,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 KIA on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by
representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. Too much TV I guess.

The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, liberty, freedom, and all that. But not for Iraqis, I guess. In America, but nowhere else. 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq, not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you want another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so, in America. Why don't we see Liberal Peace Activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. American Liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

And American Liberals just don't get it.

And long in the tooth not to mention offensive. It was also kind of irritating, and it has it's basis in probability and statistics which, have been all but proven to be nearly equal to psychic prediction. Psychic prediction is oftentimes better as it is more fun. Not to mention the fact that they were Repugnantan influenced statistics at that. For example, you are significantly more stupid than I.

The claim you made about the only amount of Iraqis who are insurgents being 1% is complete bushit. They are all insurgents women children everybody. It's their country, and were not supposed to be there.

You also mentioned another thing which kind of irked me. judeo christians versus the wahabis, I took note that all the other wars you were talking about were Democracy versus Imperialists Communists and Nazis. I took that as you trying to tell me that Americas form of Judeo/Crhistian/Orwellian-State Socialism has already won this seemingly civil war without a shot fired.

You didn't describe a war between Democracy and that which threatens it which is the war I am still fighting and will continue to fight even if it means being relegated such that I am similar to the Japanese soldiers who were still fighting World War II twenty years after Japan had lost. I don't believe that is the case because Republicans didn't get everybody's vote.

Needless to say I am not playing for the judeo/xtian team. I have my own ideas about a higher power and I keep them to myself because this is America and I can do that.

In other words, you have not a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me that the war in Iraq is a good idea. It also has nothing to do with me being pacifist or a conscientious objector. It has everything to do with me seeing people who are completely full of shit trying to get me to join their parade. It's not going to fahkin happen. You've got too much shit stacked up against you all to have me believe you people are right. I'll give two brief examples: Example one; My sixty year old high school social studies teacher has been in Iraq for two years. That's wrong. Example two; There is this poor fucker who lives in Havre Montana who had his head run over by a 5 ton hummer while crossing the street on his way back to the barracks from using the bathroom in another building while stationed in Iraq. It's a completely unnecessary war, and that guy as a completely unnecessary injury that will adversly affect the rest of his life.

This Iraq war more than any other war is GOD-DAMN unnecessary. It's not blasphemy if you mean it. I mean it. It's nothing more than some stupid crusade. This is history repeating itself and you obviously can't come to terms with the fact that you are wrong. I'm willing to put coin on you never having been in a war. I can tell by the enthusiasm in your writing that you've never been in a hummer while hauling ass back to the rest of your unit while hearing the sound of tank rounds whizzing past your vehicle.

Sorry for blaming you. I went off on a tangent and forgot it was a post that you posted from some other source.

/\/\/\/\
||||||||
my bad

What happened to the links to articles? Is this site just a blog now?

We need a democrat with balls and courage to lead our party. I'm sick of my party moving to the right so that we can win elections. We need to go back to what got our country to where we are...LIBERALISM. GO HOWARD DEAN!!!

This is revisionist history. Apparently, it made it's way to the John Rothman Show on KGO San Francisco. That is where The Death Of Liberalism can be found printed out. There are 'germs' of truth in this rant, but they are surrounded by pure garbage. When people read stuff like this, the first thing to do is run a google(or favority search engine)search on the writer, in this case, Raymond S. Kraft. Kraft is a writer/attorney living in Northern California.

Odd that this would have come out of the south in email form. Without checking too deeply, one finds that fundie christianity is also involved in this convoluted thinking...note some of the buzzwords used in the piece.

To put the email together with another entry, here are the links:

The Death Of Liberalism google keywords: raymond s kraft

http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=316609&PT=personalities

Rebuttal To The Death Of Liberalism

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rebuttal_to_raymond_kraft.htm

Personal note: The history, in both cases is not quite right. Touches of truth surrounded by a cesspool of disinformation and in some cases, outright lies. On just a quick scan, what is the purpose of either piece...both seem to be just rants by some disinformed people. One would have to read both very slowly and carefully to make heads or tails out of it. Various hate groups figure prominently in both pieces. Makes for interesting reading but means little in today's context of reality.

How about "Other" or "None of the Above" in your DNC Chair poll.

I agree with the State party chairs - split the job up. Have an administrator and a spokesperson co-chair the DNC.

Wellington Webb and Simon Rosenberg

I have yet to understand what the significance (in 2000 election) that no Senator backed the folks who were protesting the election in the Congress. No Senator stepped forward at that time and now there is once more concern that no Senator will do so. What was wrong with doing so in 2000 and what is the problem now? Can someone please spell this out for me.I understand that it has something to do with legitimizing the appeal but what considerations were convincing to Democrat senators? Could Kerry himself step up in this situation?
Help!

I'm seeing candidates for head of DNC mouth all the words used by the republicans: "We've got to find and kill those terrorists"..."We've got to 'respect faith' in this party". If we accept this kind of talk, we will never get out of this hole, that championing minority issues has put us in.

We need Biden to run for president and O'Bama with him. Howard Dean is the only one who has had guts enough to challenge the Iraq war and the party leadership stopped him. I've still got a bad taste in my mouth over this.

I contributed three times to Moveon (that jerk Trippi) and to Howard Dean's campaign. If you want my money in the months ahead, you better deal with real issues: Social Security, medicare, Iraq, and the budget. The only terrorists we have to worry about are the ones running the country.

I served 26 years in the U.S. military and my only regret is that I could not be selective about who I was protecting. Every citizen has the right to express his or her impression about anything but anyone who advocates violence is sick and doesn't deserve to live in this, the greatest country in the world. Anyone who demonstrates peaceably against the inauguration should be allowed but anyone who creates civil disobedience and violence should have his or her head bashed in. Get a life. You lost but another election will happen in four years.

There was a time not too distant ago, when I could rightly be called a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. But after so many years of listening to complete and total jack ass idiots like you, I've changed. I'm starting to believe that some people are just bad for societal growth and should be "eliminated" from the public discourse.

Maybe the world and this great country would be better off indeed if you and your ilk were all behind bars as enemies of the state. You are after all apparently totally ignorant of your own country's Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think if you don't understand the Constitutuion you swore to uphold, then your oath was a lie and you should be convicted and imprisoned as a traitor. A terrorist even. Wouldn't you agree that a sworn oath that is taken so lightly and erroneously is treasonous?

 Spirituality exists without organized religion   

brian@takebackamerica.us

progressive beliefs but pramatic in style. I don't think we should be blinded by our own rightousness. Being right doesn't guarantee victory, There is no greater betrayal of one's own principles than refusing to fight for them.

The act of treason by this person is without doubt. But who demands that this person pay for his treason? I do for one.

I know, this issue has blown away due to time, but the traitor walks among us still. Are republican hacks immune from prosecution? They shouldn't be, and this guy deserves with all of his lies over the years, to pay the price for his treason.

Why is there no hew and cry for this? Have we forgotten?

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/01/robert_novak_as.h...

Don't the people have the right to prosecute?

Dean