Seems like there is a "Kaine" mutiny going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can I be the first to admit that I'm sick and tired of "National Security?"

I want freedom goddammit.

Osama killed something like 3,000 people on 9/11. How many are killed each year in auto accidents? Where is the outrage there? Seriously.

Here's a solution: let's ignore Osama. Pretend he doesn't exist. Either that, or treat it as it really is: 9/11 was a crime. Not an act of war.

How fucking pathetic is this nation? 3,000 died out of 290+ MILLION. And we trade every fucking freedom we have for "security."

What about the 600,000+ Iraqis that have died in a shorter period of time than the Vietnam war? We only lost 50k people in Vietnam and WE STILL REMEMBER THAT OUTRAGE.

Democrats shouldn't have to do anything to promote "National Security." The War on Terror was a fraud to begin with.

If anything should be done, we should be looking into our own foreign policy and how the CIA created Islamic extremists like Osama. Put the blame where it should be. The Fed is responsible for 9/11. Tell the American people that the Fed is going to fix their foreign policy and isn't going to be the fucking tyrant they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On HoPo the comments about this article are talking about the timing of this very convent tape popping up, just as one did for 2004 election. The only area Bush still rates in is his ability to protect US. Of course he has not done as Katrina proved. But impeachment has been introduced and republicans have to have Bush's state of the Union speech go back to his strongest area, keeping us safe: since Bush has not done anything to help anyone, but the rich. Some say he will talk about gasoline, since the bottom of the stock market really dropped out on at the roomer of rising crude prices on Friday. Murta is experiencing the Rove machine right now and much as I hate what it does to people, FOX still does rules the news. What will those people believe in the red states believe? Certainly not us to the left of far right. I think this has more to do with the Democratic Leadership Council, than the Democratic Party. They seem to feel only millionaires can compete with Republicans and those are the candidates they are choosing to support, like John Kerry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually, I agree that attacking Bush on his greatest vulnerability is a wise move. But I don't think it should be done exactly as the author puts it. It can be layed out clearly. Here's a short list of talking points. Answer the following 3 questions.

1. What's the mission?
a. Finding WMD's
(not accomplished - we haven't yet)
b. Bringing democracy to Iraq
(not possible - Iraq is in civil war)
c. Defeating terrorism
(not working - Iraq has become a training ground for
terrorism, resources diverted from effective
domestic security)
d. Creating a Israel-friendly Iraq (not working - Iraq has
become a greater threat to Israel since we invaded)
e. Grabbing the oil (not working - we're pumping less than
under Saddam)
f. Keeping military bases (not possible - Iraqis won't accept
it)
g. Staving off defeat (not possible - eventually we'll tire of
the fight)

Answer: Take your pick, any one we lose. We cannot accomplish any of the stated or inferred missions.

2. Costs?
a) Thousands of American killed, many more wounded,
many many more psychologically damaged. (Definite)
b) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by being in
the wrong place at the wrong time. (Definite)
c) Trillions of dollars. (Definite - estimated costs in the
trillions)
d) Destruction of the army. (Ongoing - recruitment is at
record low, troops stretched thin, lack of equipment)
e) Moral damage to nation. (Definite - Abu Ghraib and public
exposure and legimitimization of torture)
f) Executive belief that it is above the law. (Definite - it is
flouted daily)

Answer: all of the above.

3. What should we do?
a) Respect the troops.
b) Bring the troops home.
c) Let the Iraqis work out their problems (which we have
compounded).

Answer: all of the above - end the mission (whatever it is). Show some real courage, admit your mistakes and fix them. That's respecting the troops!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First order of business is to 'secure' employment and healthcare for all Americans. While the threat from Osama et al is real enough, I am 100 times more likely to die from cancer (because I couldn't afford the doctor visit that would have caught it early enough) than I am from an attack by Islamic murderers.

Period.

We let them frame security as nothing other than the threat from foreign bad guys we all lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, Arianna, why do you buy into this "war" thing, to begin with. It's an occupation, not a war. Call it what it is.

Secondly, Arianna, the Democrats don't need to do anything. This occupation is a creation of the folks in the white house. The occupation ends, and America continues down the road, returning to the values of Democracy, and the threat goes away.

If, on the other hand, the Democrats declare a continuation of imperialistic occupation and power grab over those sovereignties that object to such policies, the threat of our safety will, indeed, continue. Your article is buying into some weird misconceptions. Better you come up with a better plan, and start by acknowledging the values and goals long held by Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrates aren't week in leadership! They have no leadership! Whatever happened to the candidates for president? Nowhere to be found! Silence. Inaction. Wow! If they had been elected, where the hell would we have been now? Worse off? We're in a real mess! Impeach the emperor-with-no-cloths? There no one around innocent or courageous enough to tell him he has no cloths!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

he's no Joe Lieberman yet even though I was upset that Kaine endorsed Lieberman back in 2004 during the pres primaries. The problem with Kaine's victory is that his victory came from suburban and ex-urban areas most of which were strong GOP strongholds in addition to maximizing his urban victory while KILgore won most of the rural areas. That said, the DLC is going to do everything to control Kaine's thinking but as a Virginian who voted for him, I could care less what he says about the war as long as he doesn't run for higher office at this point as long as he shuts up and focuses on the state issues such as the economy, environment, security, etc ... and doesn't pander to the right on it as I've had enough of the Democrats pandering to the right even on social issues such as god, gays, guns, abortion, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I forgot to mention that I was pissed off at Kaine going along with the GOP on sales taxes. Yes, it's true that if the GOP were to do it, nothing would happen to them whereas if Democrats do it, they get pounced. For now, although the GOP likes the idea, they're happy to see some Democrats do their dirty work and take the fall for it just like everything else such as Iraq War, "tax cuts", class action "fairness", "partial birth abortion ban", deregulation, bankruptcy overhaul, etc ...

It's funny that Arianna doesn't even bother to mention it in her article but given the GOP's urge to always raise sales taxes for everything, for the Democrats to go along with the idea and kill progressive taxation is political suicide. By the time the GOP on the national level scraps the income tax and replaces it with a national sales tax which probably isn't too far down the road, I wouldn't be surprised to find more than half the Democrats going along with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course they remember. Many Democrats buy into the "ineptitude" of the Democrats as the problem. It isn't. The Democrats have as much skill as the Republicans, and maybe more. Their skill is in keeping Democrats convinced that they are "the party of the people". When actually they are the other party of the corporate establishment. The problem is that the working class citizen has no party. This is the bitter truth we must face and the problem we must solve. We the people must solve this problem; the politicians won't. Join the Lincoln Initiative, a grassroots movement, not an organization. There are no dues, no contributions, no registration, no leaders, no meetings, no marches, no hassle. Fight the revolution from the comfort of your own home. Help make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on join today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democraps will turn into an actual force for change (as opposed to stagnation) when they can prove that they can "keep us safe" from the biggest threat to our freedom,OUR GOVERNMENT!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suppose we should be thankful that Joe Lieberman isn't giving the response. Oh, I forgot, his only response to any Bush utterance has been agreement and way-to-go George head shaking. Jack Murtha should be giving the response, and Wes Clark should be the only person allowed out in public to speak for our (Democratic) party!!!!Wes Clark in '08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALL of us should start being pro-active on defeating the inevitable. Watch the Bushites as they use the same play they did in 2002 on Iran in the lead-up to the 2006 election. Also watch for some off-the-wall "religious" side-show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no way of keeping us safe. When is everyone going to get that point. If the Democrats come up with a cracker jack plan which trumps all arguments, the chances of it working in a real crisis are nil. A short time before Katrina a "drill" showed that New Orleans was safe from a Category 3 hurricane - guess what, they got hit with a category 4. If they find Bin Lauden, someone else will jump up in his place like one of those shooting games in a carnival. "The price of freedom is vigilence" On 9/11, we were not vigilent because we assumed we were safe. The changes which have been made to the government in the creation of Homeland Security remind me of the Emperor's New Clothes. In a real crisis, they look like members of a chinese fire drill.

We need to go forward into the future with the idea that our danger did not end with the Cold War. There is no door which we can open and find "happy". This is what we call life. The next time the citizens of the United States have an opportunity to choose a President, they should ignore the "safe" card completely. The idea that safety from the exigencies of life is possible is a fantasy which we can't afford to believe when choosing the next person to live in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Adrianna, as much as I have appreciated some of your insites, your coments about the Democrats response to the State of the Union speech shows you think there still is a two party system in the US. Not so, both parties--Democrats and Republicans-- are owned by big money and serve big money's purposes. Get with it dear girl, we need a new political structure in the US one that protects the interests of the average American. The two party system is dead,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush deserves to be ridiculed. He's a clown, and so it takes a sense of humor to see the senselessness of his posturing.

I cannot call him a criminal until he is finally tried and convicted. But the evidence has only now just begun to see the light of day.

The GOP operates like the mob. Can the Demos fight it without also becoming a mob? Not yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To offer a real alternative would require stating why we have terrorism in the first place. It is “blow back” from the many years we have interfered with the countries in question for the purpose of protecting the US oil companies and stealing their countries' natural resources.

The oil companies have succeeded in getting the US taxpayers and the DOD to do their security work for them. So far, the Iraq war has cost about $250.00/barrel of oil in Iraq — cost of war divided by the best high estimate of oil production over the next 20 years – roughly $250.00 per barrel plus, of course, the lives of our young men and women and the lives of the approximately 100,000 Iraqis who have died and who knows how many Iraqis injured.

To date, the Iraqi oil will be the most expensive oil we have ever imported with the US oil companies cherry picking the profits and leaving the liabilities, risks, death and destruction for everyone else to pay. Acknowledge that, or, the Democrats have no alternative plan.

Any plan for increasing our security has to include very substantial reductions in our oil consumption, which is doable. The Democrats would never take up this as part of our nation’s security plan.

We are in for some real blow back from the illegal aliens in the US too as they wake up and start acting like the Muslims in France did some few weeks ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why was the only true PATRIOT's (a word so squandered by the scum-maggot illegally occupying the White House that it means nothing anymore) campaign for president confined to TV airing between 4 and 6 a.m. only? Nader did something neither candidate had the COURAGE to do - maintain a web site where Americans could see EXACTLY what his intentions as President would be. Not even debating reveals such clarity of purpose - he was setting the bar so high that Corporate America was more TERRIFIED of him than the threat of actual terrorists. This highly literate and brave individual was NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE BY THE MEDIA and confined to time frames where his message would be lost. NOT ONCE was his focus that of FEAR, therefore - a true leader for the destiny of America. He was not "just that environmentalist guy", but had a stunning grasp of the global neighborhood that was just as inspiring as JFK's optimism. That this noble individual was subjected to the insult of being begged not to run because a green party candidate was not perceived as credible was insulting beyond comprehension. The Democratic party should have STOOD BEHIND NADER 100% because they WERE watching between 4 and 6 a.m., as were bushbaby's goons - and BOTH KNEW Nader was the oustanding Presidential candidate who could have easily defeated them both at the polls if only Americans had been permitted to hear what he had to say. America - you are still so ignorant you do not even comprehend now how BADLY you "threw away" a true American Son.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If there were an fair, objective press, an educated objective populace and a fair election process (I know, we're talking about Nirvana here) not only would ole "W" have been scrambling to explain 9/11, but he would have already been impeached for endangering the security of our country and general global populace. Of course, if we had those things, he would just be some spoiled papa's boy in Texas whom nobody had heard of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to a US Army veteran acquaintence of mine, Kerry was right to claim in his first debate with Bush in 2004 that we needlessly lost bin Laden. According to many in the know, Bin Laden had been successfully tracked to a secured compound in Tora Bora in Afghanistan and surrounded and observed for some time by the 10th mountain division of the US Army. Sadly, the much awaited order of approval from the Commander in Chief to attack the compound and capture bin Laden never arrived. This stunned and shocked many who sincerely believed we were in Afghanistan to catch the world's most wanted terrorist who is now back in play to menace the US and its allies. At this critical point most available manpower and equipment was diverted to what was apparently the real target, Iraq! The rest is well known. Bush has plenty to answer for though he probably will never be called to account. I believe that Michael Moore was correct to point out that Bush's past deep associations with the bin Laden family business probably provide the key to much of the answer to why Osama bin Laden is still at large. Like so much else, we may never know the real story behind the amorphous "War on Terror."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murtha wants to REDEPLOY the troops outside of Iraq. Murtha is a HAWK. He's right about Iraq being a quagmire, and our troops having no useful purpose at this point. But he fundamentally believes in the policies of imperialism using our obscenely bloated military.
Bin Laden's pronouncements will have the effect of delaying the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's tugging the beard of the chickenhawks (if you can picture that), and they can't be seen to acquiesce. It would not surprise me to find that the White House orchestrates Bin Laden's appearances.
The Democratic Party, or at least the DLC, wants to promote military adventurism -- there's big money in it. Also, perhaps there is the perception that most voters still favor U.S. military intervention overseas. Perhaps it is an accurate perception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While this is interesting, I think it misses a couple of points.

The republicans for the last 13 years have shown they can win in the south. As the old expression runs, "everyone loves a winner". A little display of candidates that can and have won isn't a bad thing.

And while Iraq is a large a sore spot for the president it hit's Congress evenly. Democrats overall were just as fooled as Republicans.

Elections tend to fold around economic and goverance issues. Now that the republicans had fumbled the governance issue it's time to focus on promoting good candidates with a strong record of growth. In that vein Kaine's predecessor Gov. Wagner might be a better choice.

Iraq is a mess caused by bad goverance, the wagon, not the horse. That's how to present Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh for Christ's sake!!, so pudgy, white, pasty Americans don't feel safe. FUCKEM!! first, doesn't it surprise ANYGODDAMNEDBODY that on 911, EVERY ASPECT OF A TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM FAILED!!, EVERY PART OF IT. second the US government is responsible at very least for knowing before hand and failing to let the American's know, and at best engineered the entire fiasco. Seven of the "hijackers" have been found alive and well wondering how their names found their ways to this Bushco list. Wake up you dick heads. PNAC by their own admission needed another "pearl Harbor."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore, although he has baggage, I feel would have, by far, the most articulate and informed rebuttal to anything bush might conjure up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is going to push National Security as long as he can keep the bin Ladin bogeyman scaring little kids as well as weak kneed oilmen. Bush,Cheney,Rummy,Rice and alll the other oilmen are licking their chops as well as fillling their pockets with present and future oil profits and already dreaming of the billions they will reap if they can start a "war" with Iran. That was what Bush had in mind after he crawled out from under the bed in Air Force 1 on 9-ll ranting about axes of evil. The Democrats get drowned out, the media is 98 % Republican owned and they are not going to give a Democrat a chance at the White House and risk losing their big tax breaks. They might have to tap their off shore accounts to meet the high cost of gasoline and heating oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reading the posts here helped me clarify my own opinions. National security, Iraq, and the many problems of the Democratic Party are separate issues. Yes, they are linked to each other, but their solutions need to be approached individually, albeit consecutively.

The Democratic Party has lost its base because so many of the elected officials and advisors are concerned about academic liberalism, not street-level issues. Thus, we are told to worry about how the United States is funding military assault groups in other countries, but we are told any concerns we have about civil rights of (insert your group) in America are not that important.

The Democratic Party cannot find its way out of the mire of Iraq and national security because it no longer has a strong anchor in the day-to-day lives, needs, and concerns of Americans. Nevertheless, the party is trying to define Iraq in terms of Americans' personal interests. Iraq is a foreign policy issue and needs to be solved in that context. National security, or homeland security, is a matter of big government. (How many of you knew that when the Republicans talk about "big government" they mean the number of people employed by the government? For me, big government is a bureaucracy that pries into my personal life, demands increasingly amount of invasive and difficult to obtain documentation, and otherwise treats me as a threat just because I breathe.) Yes, we can have homeland security, just as Saddam Hussein kept Iraq safe by dictatorial control, just as Stalin kept the Soviet Union safe by killing his enemies, just as Mao Tse-Tung kept China safe by sending potential dissidents to the rural countryside where they could not cause so much trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A---the Contagious Festival you are running, is being hosted by 'AOL,' the most reviled company in internet history. They, since the early days of Steve Case as Director, have been the foremost web service when it comes to recording customer activity and e-mails for turnover to warrantless search. This organization is opposed to anything you might even think of proposing. Please, lose these clowns ASAP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not trying to bump Ms. Huffingtons story here, folks, but this article by Molly Irvins says it all.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20250

Now, as much as I vehemently oppose the ideology of the current administration neither will I back the wussy, straddle the fence, won't take a stand that might offend the voters Democrats. Either get some backbone or get out of the way. Until then, unfortunately, those of us that would like to move forward in this nation are stalemated by having no choice at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After I posted below as a response to gonzoskismet I realized it may be worthy enough as a new comment? Thanks AlterNet.As a Doc I have purchased small 5 inch anatomically correct plastic backbones that I have sent to a few RARE politicians over the past ten years as a BACKBONE AWARD. Could we formalize this? Maybe there is a backbone award already? Writers and Bloggers have backbone IF they put their personal $ and behaviors where their rhetoric is? :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd give the author of Sat 1/21/06. New York Times, article about the Republicans being " the party of pain". They let the DEA tell doctors how to treat pain.

I nominate John Tierney the writer of the above article. I'm hoping by the end of the day, maybe more nominations. If not, Monday is another day. Let us be generous and give out many BACKBONE AWARDS, not just to politicians[most are cowards] and they see which way the "wind is blowing" before choosing to do the RIGHT thing for the good of humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow...this story hit a nerve!! I appologize if I repeat some
one elses point of view...I quickly scanned the responces but
I`d like to add my two cents.......
The arguement seems to me to be ...who is the best qualified person to keep us safe!...
My question is simply this.....WHO....was ultimately responsible....for a handful of Middle eastern men...who caused alot of destruction and loss of life on 9/11 ???
Was it our own? And IF....thats the case...then it doesn`t
matter who the democrats or republicans send in to represent
their respected parties.....they`re one in the same! Has there been any reserch on the "terrorist" families since 9/11? How are the wives and children of these guys doing since?? It would be intresting to know if perhaps they have moved up in social status and are being well taken care of?? Has the Saudi
government taken care of them on behalf of an inner circle from the USA??
WHO...ARE...THE ....REAL...TERRORIST?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt, Prescott Bush, Adolph Hitler, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Carl Rove, Samuel Alito, etc.

This is how it happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tom Vilsack's new creation: www.ourtenwords.com is an example of why the Democrats cannot offer a strong voice in opposition. Vilsack is Iowa's governor and one of the people mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. Instead of leadership, he is just offering yadda yadda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There should not be any comment from the Democrats! This President, who I dislike intensely, is for better and worse, the only President we have and he should be able to give his view of the State of the Union without any partisan response. There are other Forums for the political parties to make their partisan views known but I do not believe that the State of the Union address should be one of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Did you happen to hear the President's speech last night?"

"No. As a matter of fact, I happened not to."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is related to the comments by 'starvinmarvy' in this thread, but goes one step further to assign responsibility. The Twin Towers were already known to be THE primary target, since they had been attacked previously, without succeeding. Since the Federal gov has been assuming, increasingly, the defense of likely targets, the President was responsible for not defending the site. My suggestion is that the National Guard Air Wings in most States be given the go-ahead to set strategy for defense of their cities and bases. Consider: if the New York Guard had been given free reign, they would, I believe, have had at least one armed helicopter on patrol around Manhattan on a continuous basis. With a two-minute warning, such defender(s) would have destroyed the airliners en route. It's sad, but it's true that any commandeered airliner headed for any primary target has to be eliminated. I understand that, in the previous scenario, the debris would likely have come down in the City, but at least the flailing about at the innocent population in Iraq would (maybe~) have been avoided.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You want a plan to keep safe? Try looking at the death statistics:

- #1 heart disease: try cutting back on on french fries, and don't be a couch potato

- #2 cancer: stay away from chemical plants, don't each preservative filled junk food, be lucky

- auto accidents: drive carefully, trade in the SUV for a car

- bee stings: stay away from bee hives

- lightning: stay inside during lightning storms

- terrorism attacks: only vote for politicians who oppose the war (and remember, your chances of dying from lightning are greater than the chances of a terrorist getting you)

Arianna: let's get back to serious subjects and drop the fear-mongering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tim Kaine is great, but he's not the right person for this job.

Dean isn't either, by the way.

Someone who could get heard (Murtha should be consulted) -- someone who is respected, but doesn't seem bland, or blend in too much.

Kaine should be used in other ways -- there is an opening in the national security issue and Dem's are passing it by.

A. Millbarge

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since the Bush League declared it's overriding priority was national security and launched it's response to 9/11 they have claimed success but have only succeeded in:

1. Getting a virulently US-hating government in Iran.

2. Providing a majority group in Iraq closely allied with Iran.

3. Getting Hamas as the controlling group in Palestine.

4. Allowing both Al Quida and it's Taliban protectors to openly regroup and regrow in a safe haven on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border.

5. Making terrorist leader Ben Laden a household hero among millions of Muslims.

6. Arousing hatred all over the world for a bully named the United States.

7. Watching the demise of a US favoring Mexican government with a leader that the US president claimed to be a close personal friend.

8. Watching the democratic leaning Russian government moving toward a dictatorship clearly unfriendly to the US. (Again with a leader the President claimed to be a personal friend.)

9. Watching several Latin American countries, including one of our major oil suppliers, shift to an attitude distinctly antagonistic to the US.

10. Spending a massive amount of US money and people to oust a dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11 and was in no way a threat to the US. A change much more likely to be to the advantage of our self defined enemy Iran than to us.

EXACTLY WHY IS IT THE DEMOCRAT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COME UP WITH A PLAN BEYOND JUST STOPPING DOING ALL THE WRONG THINGS???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats no longer hold the house or the senate because they have lost their monopoly on the media. Further, never represented the common person. No longer can they lie and get away with it. With no more Dan Rather, attempting to influence election out comes by declaring winners when they were not. If the liberals speak for the common person then tell me why they have to resort to attacks on the very issues they supported in the pasted. If Democrats are so sure that they speak for the public at large then why are they paying hundred or thousands to such organization as the Pew Charitable Trusts to push for censorship on the internet, and want to re-establish the fairness in broadcasting rules? Funny the Liberals and the democrats were the very ones pushing to get the fairness in broadcasting rules abolished. While liberals speak of, warm fuzzy fairness, and equality for all. They berate, insult, threaten, lie, and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Anyone who challenges are accused of bigotry, hatred, or worse. If truth is offered, it is ignored. As far as the comment about the “Progressives” and their own network, Guess what you have it and it is rapidly dieing. It is called CBS, NBC, and NPR just for starters. These Media outlets loose ground everyday. Liberal based production are and have been broadcasted, they fail miserably. Why you ask? It is not reality. It is not entertaining; it is the same old propaganda, not to mention embarrassing. People want the truth. What is missed is the average American, contrary to the Hollywood limousine liberals, Kennedy, Boxer, and the rest liberal elite are not dumb. The truth is filtering through. The middle class is waking up. They are sick of working so hard and forced to support a corrupt government. They are sick of giving up their rights because liberals do not like them, and feel they know best. The people do not want what the liberals are selling. We want our constitutional rights, we want our freedom. In addition, Lovers of liberty should expose calls to restore the Fairness Doctrine for the fraudulent power-grab that they plainly are. And the right, in particular, needs to understand how much it has benefited from a deregulated media universe. It should be confident that it has the right ideas, and that when it gets the chance to present them directly to the American people--as the new media have allowed it to do--it will win the debate. This though scares the hell out of the left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the Democrats were serious they would have chosen Al Gore to debate. Al has become a real rabble rouser and they should be looking for him as presidential candidate in 2008. His speech was the most magnificent attack on the culture of corruption that I have ever heard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelievable! With our democracy and rights right now being eliminated by King Terror War George, the Democrats give us "Look at My Crazy Eyebrow" as their official response! What an embarrassing, pathetic party I belong to.

I think now that my Democrats are throwing the fight, that they just don't really care. A club full of rich folks just like the Republicans, I guess they love the big tax breaks for the upper 1%, King George's only accomplishment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]