The DLC declares that Deanism is finally dead

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - When the once-mighty Democratic Leadership Council holds its annual "national conversation" Friday and Saturday in Phoenix, the highlight is unlikely to be the seminars about new ways of running government or the showcasing of centrist candidates.
http://tinylink.com/?AxxTksUZH5
-------------------------------------------

If Kerry loses I will hold two people responsable John Kerry and these morons. You notice how they have to keep repeating Deanism is dead. Deanism is dead, it was all just a stupid phase, voters rejected it, get over it. I think some people are pretty damn afraid that the message Dean was sending to the party and the nation will not go away.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The courtship of John Kerry is all part of a public-relations makeover for a group whose influence, after a great run of success in the Bill Clinton years, has ebbed, according to political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.
"Democrats are frustrated," he said, "and they're not in the mood for the kind of nuance this group offers."

DLC loyalists and officials strongly disagree, saying Kerry is making all the right moves so far.

"Victory will be in the center, and therefore I'm pleased at the kind of campaign John Kerry is running," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., former DLC chairman.

"He hasn't bought into the Deaniac myth that you only energize your base," said policy director Ed Kilgore, referring to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and what Kilgore regards as Dean's limited, partisan appeal.

Lieberman and Kilgore list several points where Kerry has positioned himself like a DLC champion: strong on national security, on fiscally responsible budgeting and talking openly about the importance of cultural values.

Remember, said Lieberman, "voters rejected a candidate who took on the DLC approach, Howard Dean. In choosing John Kerry they chose a course much closer to the New Democratic approach."

And what cancer wouldn't be afraid of a Doctor?

FUCK the DLC! :grr:

Of course, Howard Dean was a DLC Democrat for his entire political life, up until the moment he releazed that his chances of getting the nomination were exactly zero unless he completely changed his political ideology. In the end, he finished a distant third in Iowa.

news to me.

No... DLC is a group of Democrats but not "Democrats". I am all for a big tent. But that includes non-DLC liberals as well as DLC moderates.

and I would personally contend the Bill Clinton won elections... not the DLC. But we are discussing the statement "the DLC is the party."
The party is much more than the DLC.

What do Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry have in common? In addition to being Democratic presidential nominees, they were members of the DLC. John Kerry is currently a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. Personally, I find Kerry too liberal for my tastes, but then again, the DLC is a pretty big tent -- far bigger than the highly exclusionary group of fringe liberals who claim that the DLC are a buch of DINOs. The fact is, the Democratic rank and file have chosen DLC members to be the party's standard bearer in 1992, 1996, 2000 and once again in 2004. If the DLC is a cancer on the party, then apparently the Democratic primary voters are carcinogens.

I suppose I should let the cancer line slip. Despite the fact that I wasn't the one who used it to begin with. But frankly I reserve the right to consider myself the party too, and I'm NOT DLC.

There are many DU'ers who go out of the way to brand the DLC as a bunch of DINOs. Never mind the fact that DLC members have been elected to office in all regions of the country and at all levels of the government. Never mind the fact that rank and file Democrats have nominated DLC members for president in each of the last for presidential primary seasons. None of that matters to these people, who apparently believe that time stopped in 1972 and that everything that happened in the Democratic Party since is some unholy abberation. (Apparently, these same people must believe that time started in 1972 also, because they conveniently forget all the great Democrats before then who wouldn't pass their ideological litmus tests.) I don't have a problem with these people claiming to be Democrats, although I wish they would actually support Democratic elected officials one in a while rather than repeatedly trashing them. But my biggest problem is their repeated efforts to define what a Democrat is so narrowly that only a left-winger gets included. I find this arrogant, not to mention counterfactual.

Gloating factionalism is not good for a diverse Party.

Kerry did not run in the primary as a friend of the DLC. If Deanism is dead then why did all the other candidates steal his message in the primary.

NT

Despite his candidacy being declared dead which also dried up his fundraising, Kerry TOUGHED THEM OUT and pulled through.

That's what real winners do.

And that's good! They understood that you have to get in position and politically negotiate in every single caucus location. You have to have a strong focus on the detailed tactics and then execute them well.

I was a Dean supporter and what he brought us is what we need for the long run. Unfortunately, the Dean operation just wasn't as politically shrewd. I think that if they were, they would have won.

However, Kerry is our candidate now and outside of DU, I never mention that I had another preference (still do) because I don't want anyone to think that Kerry isn't a good candidate.

Meanwhile I am watching and analyzing and planning to get Dean and more people like Dean in position to win next time we have elections.

If Dean was too hot-tempered and Kucinich is just too progressive, then Kerry is an excellent consolation prize. And if Dean was so easily destroyed by Kerry, just imagine what *s team of evil henchmen would have done to him...

It would have been a good idea because Kucinich had the best message, but all I ever saw out of Dean was centrism with populist rhetoric thrown in, closer to Gore than anyone else. I think Kucinich could have gone farther if people weren't so worried about * that they picked the safest candidate to go up against him with. And Clark didn't have much of a message that I ever heard, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The only thing I'm bitching about is the extreme disrespect holy Joe is showing to former Dean supporters. If he's saying that voters endorsed the DLC in the primaries, then why didn't he win? He was the one who ran on the DLC, on moderatism, wasn't he. Hell, he's still running on it, how many times can one Democratic Senator come to the aid of a repuke resident. Kerry didn't run on how moderate he was, he saw where the wind was blowing and adopted Dean's strong rhetoric. He billed himself as the Dean who wasn't a loose canon. In an inclusive Party, after you win the primary you're not supposed to have your surrogates attack the factions you still wish to vote for you in he general election. It's bad politicking.

forgot where I saw it) is that Dean supported Biden/Lugar on the Iraq war and was running for prez mostly because he wanted to bring to the forefront some issues he cared about, like early childhood ed.

Then Trippi got hold of him and convinced him that there was a huge antiwar contingent out there just ripe for the picking.

So Dean decides to co-op--in the minds of his less rational followers, anyway--both Kooch's "no war/no matter" stance, plus his erstwhile foreign policy advisor Wes Clark's "no war except as a last resort" position.

Old Joe was at least elected to something besides Gov of VT. And his first way of getting his office wasn't a selection.

I don't want Lieberman to run as PTOUS, but i know many who would vote for him over Dean in a heartbeat. Luckly we had Kerry Edwards and Clark, so we didn't have to chose between the two worst.

And was second in most others before dropping out. Joementum got what 8%, 12%, in a few states. I remember how sad it when his mother came out and said, "I wonder why noone likes my boy", or something to that effect. I'm glad your rethug friends like Lieberman, but quite frankly I'm more concerned with Democratic interests.

SNIP

"Victory will be in the center, and therefore I'm pleased at the kind of campaign John Kerry is running," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., former DLC chairman.

SNIP

Well good, Joe, we're glad you're pleased.

For Joe, center means sucking the right off.

The Dems have been so damned far to the right in the last decade, it would be a refreshing change if they actual moved toward the center-- which is actually several steps to their LEFT.

When I look at the whole political spectrum, from state socialism to laissez-faire capitalism, I put myself somewhere in the center. That puts me a couple steps left of the Democratic party.

There IS no left in the US these days. Marxists don't exist. Left-wing populists don't exist. Anarchists seem to be on some other continent even if their demonstrating on American streets. Not even Social Democrats are part of the mix. I just don't recognize the political landscape these days.

It is coming. Building up power. Beware the Joementum. Do not cross the Joementum, or at least do so at your own conscious peril.

Long live the Deanism.

and the PPi.

In that film, starring Michael Caine, the "third way" refers to the South Vietnamese thugs the CIA used to counter the Viet Minh during the French Occupation of Indochina.

putting lipstick on a pig...

switch parties already

While I would be reluctant to generalize that all the people who bash Lieberman on DU are idiots, I can confidently claim that they are some of the worst spellers I have ever seen.

... for war crimes in Abu Gharib?

He just said something along the lines of, "Well, nobody apologized for the dead Americans on 9/11," in response to calls for an official apology to the Iraqis for what happened in Abu Gharib.

Joe never fails to disgust me.

:puke:

Only this time it's the thugs the GOP used to counter real Democrats during the fascist occupation of Washington DC

other Dean inspired groups are proof. We're engaged in a long term struggle to promote progressive, democratic ideas in the country and in the democratic party; to energize the 50% of people who don't vote because the two parties do not speak to their interest and who are the natural base of a real, progressive party. Kerry is going to compromise and move more and more to the right in search of the illusive, muddled middle, while a real leader with progressive ideas ready to take up the mantle of the disenfranchised, the working and just plain poor, etc. could energize millions to vote. If Kerry loses (and if he keeps up with the present campaign, he will) I am going to be real pissed off, because I know a real, decisive leader who would provide a real contrast to Bush could energize the country and win handily. I'm with Arianna -- Kerry needs to think BIG and offer a real alternative vision. While the RFKs would speak in ghettos, Kerry panders for votes among the rapid right wing Cuban exiled nuts by slamming Chavez. GOD what did we do wrong to deserve this???

These right-wing corporate imperialists poison us. They have infected the very heart of the Democratic party.

Allowed - or, astonishingly, encouraged - to define our direction, they will spell the end of Democratic ideals.

They verge on treason, and in some cases - like Lieberman - enable and applaud it.

THE DLC MUST BE DESTROYED - BEFORE IT DESTROYS US.

They cleaned the infection and cut off the offending limb in time.

too bad it was the head that they cut off.... but thats not really a limb is it?

It could be, its an extension from the torso. Except you need this limb to keep the body alive. Without it, the body becomes limp, substanceless and boring, kind of like Captain Courageous.


Captain Courageous, the courage to fight for corporate tax cuts during a time of huge deficits.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...a RIGHT wing.

Here we go again with Dean being the salvation of the party...

Pretty much Deans record as Governor of Vermont made him the most right wing candidate running for the nomination. So conservative that almost half of Vermont Democrats abandoned the Vermont Democratic Party under Deans leadership in order to join the Vermont Progressive Party, which is now the third party which has elected half of all third party candidates to state legislature jobs that exist in all fifty states. One of the reasons that Republicans have a hammer lock on state elected positions is thaat Democrats can now only muster about 34 percent of the vote, while Progressive get about 25 percent. Republicans keep taking stte level positions with 40 or 41 percent of the vote. Dean's conservatism is cited as the primary reason for people dropping the Democratic Party in Vermont. The total percent of Vermonters who lean towrds liberal or progressive politics and votings is about 60 percent, yet they can longer win office as the Progressives will have no truck with Dean.

is that the DLC is the hand...and the limb with the infection being cut off is the rest of the body....

You uppity rank and file members.....how dare you rebuild the grass roots of the Party after we spent good money buying the Dem Party elites....

Be quite or we will go off and cry some more about it......



Really, the pathology of the insider wanna bees would be funny of we weren't talking about the future of this Republic....

Every few decades or so the people have to beat back the rich and influentials strangle hold on the government of this country.....I don't blame them, they have an interest in doing it...

Who I blame is the enablers...the people who see the greed and buying of American politics and say "hooray" and rub their greedy little hands together in the lame belief that they are some part of the bigger power grab...

It's sad really...they are just weak willed little enablers who cost all of us a brighter future in the mistaken belief that they somehow are power brokers themselves...

All together now.....hooray for the DLC

but I understand that Kerry needs their support too. I really hope we can drive these fuckwads into another party someday.

Somebody ought to shut them up.

This is the time for Party unification, and Lieberman and a handful of DUers are basically telling everyone if you don't like the DLC, vote Nader. If the DLC was so damn popular, then why did noone who won run on it? Kerry and Gore never mentioned the DLC in public, and Clinton himself said he didn't feel that the Party had to be so beholden to groups like the DLC now that there are more Democrats than rethugs again. It's almost enough to make me say fuck it and go to Canada, where real progressives are still allowed in politics.

Perhaps somebody should remind them that, in an election where we need to be united their posturing divisivness is tantamount to giving succour to the enemy.


The Enemy.

These were, no doubt, the same 'Democrats' who were glad that it was Bush who was in charge after 9/11 rather than Gore.

thinking that Kerry was more electible.

Kerry *did* run a better campaign. I don't recall *Kerry* praising the confederate flag, yelling like a maniac, being rude to hecklers, etc.

Which Democratic candidate, that is?

I cannot understand these folks' fascination with failure. Would they rather I quit donating to candidates? Should I blow off blockwalking? Do they want me to not show up tomorrow to register new voters? Why are they so goddamned afraid of me?

:puke:

When he was spouting centrist platitudes early in the campaign, he was floundering. It wasn't until he took a "message to the people" that his campaign took off.

Dean lost not because of specific positions, he lost because he wasn't a very polished candidate. His greatest strength early on -- his "straight talk" and gruff demeanor -- also turned out to be his greatest liability. Plus, the attack dogs in the press jumped all over him as soon as they smelled blood.

If the DLC really wants to see how their strategies are viewed, they must look no further than the autopsy of the Joe Lieberman campaign -- which despite an influx of big bucks from big donors early on, along with name recognition, was essentially dead before it even got to NH.

Kilgore, From, Reed and Marshall can all go collectively piss up a rope.

His subsequent win in New Hampshire was no surprised -- he had the best political organization of any candidate. After wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it was all over. The fact that even Democrats knew very little about Kerry during the campaign, other than the fact that he was "electable," pretty much shoots your "Kerry's populist surge" theory to hell.

I thought that Dean was the candidate with the big funds going into IA and NH. I haven't heard that Kerry was.

Care to cite some links to support your assertion, dolstein?

From Time Magazine:

<<How John Kerry Won Iowa
Inside the last week of the Senator's surprising caucus surge
By DOUGLAS WALLER

...

With his poll numbers in New Hampshire free-falling, Kerry decided to “bet the house on Iowa” to resuscitate his campaign. He blanketed the state with about $2 million worth of television ads. Campaign workers were rushed into the state during December, along with a crack field team headed by Michael Whouley, who ran Al Gore’s ground game. Kerry, who had already raised some $20 million, pumped another $6.5 million from his own fortune into the campaign, much of it going to Iowa, where he eventually assembled close to 120 paid operatives.>>

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,579103,00.html

... why didn't Dean win, considering the substantial fundraising advantage that he had, and the amount of money he spent on ads (which was much more than Kerry's $2 million)?

Dean squandered millions of dollars on shitty ads and a new fangled internet-based grass roots organization that, in the end, failed to deliver. If Dean had spend his money wisely and built a more traditional organization, who knows what might have happened?

Besides, the question we were dealing with isn't why Dean lost, but why Kerry surged. And I stand by my claim that the Kerry surged was triggered not by populist rhetoric, but by a massive infusion of $$$$. The ads which boosted him, by the way, featured a Vietnam war veteran, not a bunch of populst bromides. I don't think Kerry started ripping off Edwards' stump speech (which WAS unabashedly populist and far better than anything Kerry has delivered before or since) until after Iowa.

The voters are more comfortable with the furthest LEFT member of the DLC - John Kerry. From had to be dragged kicking and screaming to line up behind Kerry.

For one thing, Kerry's a member of the DLC. Yes, he's liberal. But the DLC is a far more diverse organization than anyone around here is willing to recognize.

Second, the "centrist" Dean doesn't exist any more. Dean threw away his centrist credentials in a desperate bid to generate momentum for his candidacy, which of course crashed and burned the moment the voters actually got a chance to weigh in.

The fact is, the most stridently liberals candidates -- Dean and Kucinich -- were soundly rejected by Democratic voters.

Let's stick to the facts and not just the rhetoric.

Sorry, but saying that what a candidate actually SAYS on the campaign trail and in his advertisements DOESN'T MATTER is a bunch of crap. I wholeheatedly agree that Howard Dean governed Vermont as a centrist. If he had chosen to campaign as a centrist, I would have respected him. I wouldn't have voted for him, since I don't believe that even a Vermont centrist could win the general election. And I think Dean realized this as well -- if he ran as a centrist, he'd lose, since (a) there were far better known centrists out there for voters to choose (namely, Joe Lieberman) and (b) the presidential primaries, especially the early ones, are dominated by more liberal voters.

So Dean didn't run as a centrist. He distanced himself from past statements about reducing entitlement spending. He tailored his message to former Nader voters and anti-war activists. He started cribbing lines from Paul Wellstone. He attacked the DLC, and organization he once belonged to as governor. In short, he shed his centrist clothing and put on the costume of a left-winger.

"Victory will be in the center, and therefore I'm pleased at the kind of campaign John Kerry is running," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., former DLC chairman.
Then why didn't you win the nomination??

As someone else basically said, the problem is that "the center" has moved so far to the right.

The DLC is dangerous to our health. What is their track record?
2000 & 2002. Yeah, they did good.

Dean did not only go for the base, he said repeatedly that we need to reach out to those who haven't been involved, which is a much larger percentage of possible voters, than is the swing vote.

Kerry did well when the establishment decided that Dean should/could not be the candidate, and Kerry co-opted much of Dean's msg. and style. Which he promptly dropped, once he had the nomination.

Play it safe, and lose!

if they were they would stop with the attacks on Dean afterall he is working hard for Kerry.

The Republican wing of the demos? You guys mocked us, and we beat you. NOw you want a truce? No Deanism is dead, don't hit the DLC and the DLC won't hit back. In poltics you have to hit back.

The DLC was afraid when he took the lead in the polls last summer that they might have a fighting democrat as the nominee and not some packaged tuna. "Now you want a truce" you say? you better hope you get a truce or Kerry is going to lose in November--and nowhere in your post do you acknowledge the work that Dean and many of his supporters are doing for Kerry today--instead you want to follow the DLC course and continue to attack. If Kerry loses it will be because anti-war Independents who are passionate against the war will vote for Nader rather than Kerry. You can call them names all you want but it is a reality. NBC had a poll out yesterday that while Nader is getting 5% overall he is pulling 9% among anti-war independent "swing" voters who don't think Kerry has yet proven to be a viable alternative to Bush. So we got alot of work to do and instead of you and the DLC attacking Dean and his supporters perhaps you should try to work with us to elect John Kerry.

Learn what the DLC is, they give the party its leadership. Its like a Republican attacking a libertarian think-tank for not helping Bush. Its not our job! Deanism was a challenge to the DLC, and the DLC won. God forbid our party’s leadership examine the failed Dean challenge! Oh no that amounts to gloating? Get real.

Republicans posing as Democrats to destroy the party from within and convert America into a one party fascist corporatist state. And as long as the illusion of two parties is maintained, millions won't know the difference.

Which is exactly why Howard Dean is too dangerous. Because he's not afraid to call these bastards out. And neither am I.

Their stance on the war was completely fucked up and wrong.

Republican neo-con fascist trash.

Until he ran for President, and did what all moderates who run for President do: run to the left to try and energize the base in the primary.

I'm suspicious of anything that has a name of a leader: Deanism, Bushism, Rumsfeldism, etc.

Dean qualified on the pole, but stuffed it into the wall after the first lap, and deservedly lost. I'm so glad he didn't win the nomination.

And no, the DLC has never run a third party candidate that undermined the Democratic Party and contributed to a hard-right conservative winning the presidency. And no, once the nominee is chosen, the DLC doesn't criticize that person. They didn't do what Dean did and claim that there was no difference between Kerry and Bush. If Dean actually believes the crap he was saying, why isn't he Ralph Nader's runningmate?

so they can be supsicious of what that person stands for.
It is also dishonest to talk about Dean and then talk about something Nader did without mentioning Nader's name. It is also fair to point out that Dean never said there was no difference between Kerry and Bush. If you have an exact quote of Dean saying that, that wasn't taken out of context, I would like to see it and a working link to such a quote.
Remember, Dean hasn't done anything to undermine Kerry since he stopped campaigning for the nomination. Since then Dean and most of the people who supported him have worked very hard to make sure Kerry is elected President. And if you really believe in Democratic Party unity, you will stop trying to take down Dean and the people who supported him. Unless party unity is crap to you of course, then by all means keep doing what you are doing. :hi:

But when it was already clear he wasn't going to win, he was going around saying, "John Kerry and George Bush have the same foriegn policy." They don't.

And I don't buy that Dean is some sort of populist hero that revived a moribound Democratic Party. The anger was already there--he didn't create. People were already worked up--he just took advantage of it.

I think Dean's campaign was disingenious from the beginning, and I am not a fan. Therefore, I get tired when people who are fans of his continually blame the DLC for his defeat. The fact is Dean defeated himself. See an article written by a high-level Dean oprative in the Atlantic Monthly for confirmation of that fact.

in the heat of a campaigns things get said, even by people who have no chance of winning.
I think Dean did put some fight back into the party. The anger was there, but it needed to be focused and that is what he did.
Sure Dean contributed to his own defeat, but he had alot of help in this regard. And if the DLC doesn't want people blaming it for Dean's defeat, then it should not be crowing about "Deanism" being dead. People can jump to the silliest conclusions based on events like this.

Israel.

they were the ones that called for Clinton's impeachment over the Monica bullshit. Furhtermore if Dean had won they would all be starting Democrats for Bush organizations just like their friend Zell Miller.

opposing a war where the leaders of this country lied to the American people to involve us in? if that is Deanism, then I'm all for it.

standing up for fiscal responsibility and condemning the fiscal policies of this administration? if that is Deanism, I'm all for it.

Standing up for civil unions and equal rights for all people under the law--if that is Deanism, I'm for that too.

Condemning programs like "No Child Left Behind" which is nothing but a Trojan horse? if that is Deanism I'm for that too.

Opposing the policies of GW Bush with strength and determination--if that is Deanism then maybe more Democrats need it.

even though i thought dean was conservative (not as much as kerry though)i think that his populist driven grass roots bottom up network is way cool and i also liked it that he actually went after bush

I could see where they might claim that Deanism isn't very good for the party, but I don't see anything to indicate Deanism = communism.

Could you be more specific?

-C

taking all the right steps to winning the nomination, but then crashing and burning.

Maybe it's having a bunch of out of touch liberals rally around you to the point where you could bite someone onstage and they'd defend you.

Maybe it's having a big group of people threatening the Democratic party with the "my vote is not transferrable" tripe.

I might be wrong.

-C

...made a deal with Kerry and Torricelli (with the full blessing of the DLC) to slander Dean by comparing him to Osama Fucking Bin Laden. And let's not forget the 3 AM robocalls.

Isn't this what they call an ad hominem attack in most circles?

My criticism is directly related to Dean. Dick Gephardt has nothing to do with this at all, although your bringing him up does highllight your bad form in debate. I would ask that you stay on topic and either address my criticism or start a separate thread.

Love,
-C

If you really believe that, I got a beachfront condo in Tucson with your name on it.

Unless you take the philosophy of Bill Hicks and assume that everyone is really just one consciousness or something.

As far as I can tell, the only relevance you've been able to attach to Gephardt is that he's my avatar. This is true -- my avatar is in fact a picture of Dick Gephardt. However, the discussion -- and my criticism -- centers more around Howard Dean, who is not Dick Gephardt.

-C

For a quarter of a million.
Must not be too dead yet.

Hippothanatological Certainty Principle - the only way to make sure that the horse is dead is to keep beating it.

Good job, guys! :toast:

Perhaps my memory isn't too good, but traditional Democratic voters didn't exactly embrace Howard Dean.

The fact is that the last three nominees of the Democratic Party have all been members of the DLC. So they much be doing something right to keep getting the votes of rank and file Democrats.

He said they left him. And they did. They left him hanging on hanging chads instead of getting behind him.

Don't try to pin Gore's loss on the DLC. Moderate Democrats voters for Gore in 2000. The real backstabbers were the ones who voted for Nader -- many of whom are now attacking the DLC.

The leading Democrats in Florida sort of backed off during the recount, the party sort of backed off instead of really jumping in on the recount.

Nader had an influence, but so so many votes never got counted.

The fact is that the last three nominees of the Democratic Party have all been members of the DLC.

You have your conclusions based on that, and I have mine.

you have to come up with some explanation for why Democratic primary voters, who polls have shown to be substantially more liberal than Democratic voters as a whole, keep choosing DLC Democrats over left-wing Democrats. It certainly isn't money -- Dean wasn't outspent. The Democratic primary voters of Iowa -- again, more liberal than Democratic voters generally -- took a long hard look at Dean and found him wanting.

we have all branches of government. LOL!

If Kerry aligns himself with them, he will lose.

Use your head, Kerry.

HE SAID YOU START WITH THE BASE...

I WAS FINE WITH THE DLC BEFORE THIS ELECTION, IT IS MY DESIRE TO SEE THEM DESTROYED AFTER THIS ELECTION ... DESTROYED! :grr:

And I'll be right next to you stomping on the pieces

GRRR!!!

....and Joe Lieberman. Dean put life into the race.

Fucking A....someone needs to smack these LOSERS upside the head.

of people who knew the war sucked."

and one entitled "Why Activists are Wrong."

Carper, Bayh, Mann....talk about Bush-lite!

Home page statement lists "bipartisanship" as a goal...what ever happened to having your values FIRST, and using bipartisanship as an occasional tool???

After all that has gone on in this country in the past couple of years, they STILL don't get it! Are they secretly on the RW payroll, or what?

Hekate
:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: