Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So now, it's Kerry;s fault

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 07:27 AM
Original message
So now, it's Kerry;s fault
To be honest, the lines that follow criticize this assertion, but it is interesting how some will blame anybody to avoid blaming Bush.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12576327.htm

Not everybody is hammering Bush and FEMA. Republican strategist Rich Galen said yesterday that most of the flak aimed at FEMA these days "is absolutely undeserved." Conservative commentator Shawn McComber, writing online yesterday, put the focus elsewhere, saying, "I don't recall candidate John Kerry arguing for a two- or three-tiered levee system to be built in New Orleans during the 2004 campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Weren't these the same type of people who thought Kerry
had too much focus on detail in his proposals which he rarely got more than 2 minutes to define. It also seems the commentator is trying to change the focus from the awful evacuation and rescue to the integrity of the levee system. Even if Kerry was elected, the levees wouldn't have been totally redone by now - even if he made it priority one, but he clearly wouldn't have played guitar (although HE can) or shared a birthday cake with McCain as the city flooded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is easy to refute
and is a nice talking point to explore. (And will make JK very mad, and I really like him when he is mad.)

Again, were any of these people paying attention last year? How many times did Kerry mention 'first-responders' last year. Did anyone else get the phrase, "They are opening fire-houses in Baghdad, and closing them in NYC." This is all relevent to who was on the ground and able to respond in an emergency. And Katrina was an emergency.

I would love to have a debate on the merits on this one. Love it. Bring it on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Just curious
Kerry appearance in LA this past spring - where the Globe reporter asked him about gay marriage - anyone have a record of his remarks that day?

Just wondering if he didn't at least give a passing mention to issues facing the state such as port protection and loss of wetlands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Times Picayune article 11/28/91
Edited on Wed Sep-07-05 09:44 AM by TayTay
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM MAY SOAK LANDOWNERS
New Orleans Times Picayune, THIRD, Sec. NATIONAL, p A34 11-28-1991
By GREGORY SPEARS Knight-Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON

Congress is quietly considering changes to the national flood-insurance program that could put the brakes on coastal development and pay some property owners to move away from eroding shorelines.

A wide-ranging reform bill would forbid new construction on land that could be washed away within 30 years at current erosion rates, and limit the size of new buildings that would be in danger within 60 years.

But the bill's most controversial feature would pressure some homeowners nearest the water to move or demolish structures within a "zone of imminent collapse" - buildings that could be expected to be undermined by erosion within 10 years.

If owners refuse to move, their flood-insurance coverage would be cut by 60 percent, and canceled after one damage claim.

In Louisiana, the rule would affect homes and businesses along the beach on Grand Isle, and along beaches on the western end of the state. In addition, it might affect homeowners living outside levees in parts of Plaquemines Parish, southern Jefferson Parish and other coastal parishes where high erosion rates are common.

The flood-insurance bill sailed through the House of Representatives by a vote of 388-18 May 1. The Senate is scheduled to take up the bill next year.

As many as 1,000 houses perched along the Great Lakes in Michigan could be within the zone of imminent collapse, according to state officials. Real estate agents say the proposed law could deflate land values in resort communities on barrier islands along the Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico.

"For me, it would be a catastrophe," said Helen Marshall, a 30-year resident of St. George Island, a popular resort community on Florida's west coast. "I have my townhouse for sale and I'm sure no one is going to pay me cash for it, and you can't get a loan without flood insurance."

"There will be a great deal of land in Florida in general that will no longer be buildable" because it is too close to an eroding shoreline, said Rose Drye, president of the Realtor Association of Franklin County, Fla., which includes St. George Island.

Drye said the bill calls for $5 million annually to help property owners move their houses or build new ones. But the law does not compensate them for the land they leave behind.

Congress created the national flood-insurance program in 1968 after widespread uninsured flood losses. But critics say that instead of helping hardship cases, the law spurred a development boom along the nation's shorelines, and exposed taxpayers to potentially immense losses from flood claims. There are more than 2.5 million policies in force.

The reform bill is supposed to correct what is perceived as an overly generous feature in the program. Under an amendment passed by Congress in 1988, people whose homes are destroyed by steady erosion can collect benefits even if the houses collapse on a sunny day.

While sunny-day claims have not topped more than $6 million annually, there is a potential for immense losses as natural forces such as wind and water move barrier islands. Insuring homes built on shifting sands is like issuing life insurance policies to 80-year-olds, a program official told a House subcommittee.

But the threatened withdrawal of flood insurance for those who stay has angered some coastal homeowners, as was evident in Washington last week at the National Flood Insurance Program's annual conference.

Ken Smith, a lobbyist for property owners in New Jersey, said the law "would end up in a ton of litigation" if passed. He said the bill is part of a "hidden agenda" of environmentalists, who favor "the critters in the dunes" over property owners.

But supporters insist that the bill would protect homeowners from hurricanes and damaging storms. "This is not just an insurance program," said Kerry Kehoe, who works for the Coastal States Organization, an association of coastal state governments. "This legislation could be renamed the 'no dead bodies on the beaches act.' "

However, sudden second thoughts after criticism by the powerful housing lobby have slowed the bill in the Senate, where it is sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"When we picked the bill up, we thought it was going to sail through the Senate" as it had through the House, said Marlene Broutman, Kerry's legislative aide. "We're picking up heat, and we're taking another look."


One bill supporter, Rutherford Platt, a professor of geology at the University of Massachusetts, said getting the bill passed in its current form will be difficult if coastal property owners organize against it.

"We're generally dealing with pretty affluent property owners," Platt said. "They're very powerful in terms of political influence."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. And so it goes 3/18/94
Edited on Wed Sep-07-05 09:45 AM by TayTay
VOTE OKS FLOOD REFORM PACT CLOSES LOOPHOLES, TACKLES REPEAT CLAIMS
St. Louis Post Dispatch, FIVE STAR, Sec. NEWS, p 01A 03-18-1994
By Kathleen Best, and Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON

The Senate approved a federal flood insurance reform plan Thursday that could return the troubled program to solvency and close loopholes that left thousands of Midwesterners unprotected when rivers rose last summer.

The Senate approved the plan on a voice vote late Thursday after a day of behind-the-scenes maneuvering that ended years of deadlock on reform efforts.

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the architects of the compromise, said the reform package would:

Crack down on repeated losses, which have drained the insurance fund. A new form of coverage would be offered that would give homeowners money to elevate or move their homes if they are damaged extensively or suffer repeated damage from floods.

Increase participation in the program by tightening lax oversight by lenders. Homeowners who take out mortgages to buy flood-prone property are now required to buy flood insurance.

But lenders often fail to enforce that mandate, allowing homeowners to skip the requirement or drop their policies after a year. As a result, only about one in 10 Midwesterners at risk of flooding carried insurance to protect their homes against last summer's rising rivers.

Provide $20 million in loans to local governments to pay for projects to reduce the risk of flooding. Such "mitigation" money could be used to build or repair levees but only if levees are deemed the most cost-effective method of reducing flood risk.

"While this certainly isn't a perfect bill . . . it puts the National Flood Insurance Program on a sound financial footing," Bond said. "It is a workable compromise."

The flood insurance program was forced to borrow money from the federal treasury late last year because premiums did not cover losses suffered by victims of last year's hurricances and floods.

The reform agreement, which breaks a four-year deadlock, emerged late Thursday after a flurry of behind-the-scenes negotiations among Bond and Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass.; Connie Mack, R-Fla.; and Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y.

The maneuvering started Thursday afternoon, when Kerry, in a surprise move, offered his own flood insurance reform proposal that would have denied coverage for new homes built on beaches subject to erosion.

Kerry's proposal was backed by environmental groups but vehemently opposed by D'Amato, Mack and coastal developers, who worried that it would force property values to plummet. Kerry's move sent senators back to the bargaining table.

"It brought things to a head," said one source familiar with the negotiations. "They weren't that far apart, and it forced them to compromise."


The resulting agreement would continue to offer insurance for beach-front construction. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees the flood insurance program, would be given $5 million to study erosion zones and determine within two years whether coverage of homes built there jeopardizes the program's financial soundness.

"Is this the bill Kerry would have wanted? No," said a Democrat familiar with the negotiations. "But we were facing a filibuster. We would not have had the support of the leadership. And before today, we had gotten no concessions. I think the environmental groups feel this will be a reasonable alternative."

Kerry said Thursday night that the study "guarantees progress" on the erosion issue and at the same time allows reforms of other parts of the insurance program to move forward.

One of the key reforms would allow homeowners for the first time to buy additional insurance to cover elevating or otherwise flood-proofing homes damaged by high water.

The government would offer up to $35,000 for such repairs for up to $50 in additional premiums.

Homeowners today often cannot afford to pay for such floodproofing, so they build back to pre-flood conditions, only to be flooded again.

Nationwide, only 2 percent of all policyholders file claims for repeat flood damage, but those claims account for 47 percent of the $4.4 billion the flood insurance program has paid out since 1969.

St. Charles County is infamous for such repeat claims. Some residents there view flood insurance payouts as extra income, the Post-Dispatch found in an examination of the flood insurance program last year.

Under the compromise, agricultural buildings heavily damaged by floods would not have to be elevated. But farmers who did not floodproof outbuildings would not be allowed to insure them against future damage.

"We didn't want barns with ladders for cows to walk up," Bond said.

Jonathan Winer, an aide to Kerry, said the compromise would increase participation for all flood-plain residents by bringing the farm credit and credit union systems under the National Flood Insurance umbrella. Now, mortgages offered by those systems did not require borrowers to take out flood insurance.

The legislation also increases federal oversight of all lenders and allows lenders to force-place flood insurance for mortgage holders who do not buy the insurance voluntarily.

The Senate attached the compromise to legislation dealing with community banking that already has been approved by the House. The action makes it likely that Congress will approve the flood insurance reforms this spring.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. And goes and goes 4/30/2004
Edited on Wed Sep-07-05 09:43 AM by TayTay
Parish gains ally in MR-GO battle N.O. port chief fears environmental harm
New Orleans Times Picayune, Sec. NATIONAL, p 01 04-30-2004
By Karen Turni Bazile St. Bernard/Plaquemines bureau

St. Bernard Parish has a new ally in its fight to protect itself from the erosion and saltwater intrusion caused by the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet.

Port of New Orleans President and Chief Executive Officer Gary LaGrange has promised to help locals lobby for federal money to address environmental damage the channel is causing.

"I am trying to find a compromise or solution that will make St. Bernard a better place from an ecological and environmental standpoint," LaGrange said Thursday.

The Gulf Outlet and the debate about whether it should be closed has gotten a lot of attention lately.

Last week, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry toured the outlet with an entourage of state officials. More state officials, including Gov. Kathleen Blanco, have asked to tour the channel in coming weeks.

This month, St. Bernard officials challenged an economic impact report about the channel issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. They disputed its accuracy, and St. Bernard Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez has commissioned an economist to do the study for St. Bernard Parish. That study is due to be released in a few weeks.

The corps economic report justifies the shipping channel, but parish officials said the waterway -- dug in the 1960s as a shipping shortcut -- continues to destroy the protective wetlands of St. Bernard Parish, making residents more vulnerable to flooding during hurricanes.

LaGrange, who took a boating tour of the Gulf Outlet two weeks ago with Rodriguez, said the excursion was an eye-opener.

"This reminded me of home," he said, explaining that his first job in the port industry was as the director of the Port of West St. Mary, a rural shallow-draft port on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway that also suffered from erosion that, over the decades, has seen the channel double in width, from 600 to 1,200 feet.

Since that trip, LaGrange has offered to help Rodriguez fight for federal money to lessen erosion and saltwater intrusion caused by the channel, a waterway that is needed to support some of the local shipping businesses until the deeper Industrial Canal locks can be built.

"It is a priority as a Louisiana citizen to try to preserve one of the last frontiers we have in St. Bernard," said LaGrange, who has briefed the Dock Board for the Port of New Orleans on his trip. "I feel as though we have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain our economy and deep-draft traffic, but also to restore our wetlands."

In addition, LaGrange said he plans to lobby the federal government to restore money to hasten construction of the Industrial Canal locks -- a vital part of solving the problem.

LaGrange said he wants to push to have the locks built in seven years, which was the original timetable before money was slashed. The port s official stance is that it needs the Gulf Outlet as a deep-draft channel to support about a half-dozen businesses until the deep-draft locks are completed.

Rodriguez also said he is advocating a control structure on the channel that would open and close for boat traffic, similar to one in the Vermilion Bay area that is financed and operated 24 hours a day by the Corps of Engineers. A control structure could curb saltwater intrusion and lessen the impact of a storm surge up the channel.

LaGrange said he is looking into that idea.

Both LaGrange and Rodriguez acknowledge the channel is a threat to both St. Bernard and Orleans parishes.

While St. Bernard has a higher levee, about 17 feet tall, in most places along the channel, it is much lower in New Orleans. It appears to be less than 10 feet high on the eastern New Orleans side of the channel.

Although St. Bernard has long bemoaned the flooding that could result from a hurricane storm surge up the channel, the low levees could mean flooding for New Orleans as well.

"Outside of St. Bernard Parish, the people who have the most to lose in this situation are the residents of the city of New Orleans," Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said he sees LaGrange s support as a positive sign.

"The whole attitude is a remarkable difference between the previous (port) administration and Mr. LaGrange. In the past, the biggest opponent to the closure of the Gulf Outlet was the Port of New Orleans. Obviously, the new administration feel that there is a problem, and they are aware of the problems."

LaGrange wouldn t comment on the stance of his predecessor, Ron Brinson, but said his plan is to help St. Bernard.

"If we take an adversarial position with the parish, nobody wins. I m looking to work hand in hand with St. Bernard to solve any problems that need to be solved," LaGrange said.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. BTW, the floor speeches are on the record
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r103query.html

103rd Congress (1993-1994)

Enter Flood Insurance as the word search term
Kerry is the Senator (obviously)

The Bill was the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT OF 1993
KERRY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1541
KERRY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1537

And that's a fact, Jack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Thanks....but I was thinking of the ...irony?
that whatever Kerry actually said in his speech when he visited LA in the spring, was drowned out by the wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain purists about an almost offhand remark to a Boston reporter.

I'd think that even the most callous of those purists would recognize how out of perspective their complaints look right now. (or am I the only one here who thinks at these strange angles?)

I'd really love to have a transcript of that speech, particularly if it covers the relevant subjects.

(but thanks for the CR stuff... I'm pretty good at CR myself but you saved me some steps.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. None.
Edited on Wed Sep-07-05 12:23 PM by TayTay
I looked at the Globe article and it was a pure 'gotcha.' No mention of pretty much anything but the non story that Kerry didn't think Gay Marriage should be a plank in the MA Dem's platform and that he wasn't going to lift a finger on it either way. (No change since Kerry obviously hid his opinion on Gay Marriage by only stating it publicly in front of 58 million Americans in the third debate. How could he hide like that?)

That story barely mentioned the fact that Kerry's purpose in going to Baton Rouge was to push health care coverage for kids. Because he didn't say it in Massachusetts.

Okay, that said, I would still like to see him at home. Montana got a listening tour. I want one. I'll listen, I promise. (Or speak or something. I would like that.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. Plain and simple,
I think most people realize Kerry would have put two and two together quicker, got the first responders in there, activated the corps, and saved LIVES.

AND he wouldn't be taking a vacation and ignore life around him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whometense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. And that realization
is exactly what's driving the trolls and wingnuts.

They can't handle the fact that their boy has been utterly exposed for the callous prick he is, and in front of a watching world. It's pathetic that they are so desperate that they'd try this tactic - tearing down Kerry?????? - lame as it is. I mean, Kerry never once mentioned the plight of the African hummingbird during his campaign. He must be anti-hummingbird.

TayTay's right. Maybe Kerry didn't say the word "levee" (though I'd bet he did, at least during visits to Louisiana, where it was relevant). But national security was something he talked about constantly, through the entire campaign. If the majority of people in the country now wish Kerry was in charge, that's not Kerry's fault. Bush cheated for it; now he's got it. This is ALL on his head, and they can't spin their way out of it. Look what I just read this morning; an interview with Christopher Hitchens, of all people, on Australian TV on Sunday:

Voters will remember disaster response, Hitchens says
Reporter: Tony Jones

. . . . TONY JONES: What does this disaster and the ramshackle and often pathetic response to it tell us about the world's last superpower?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, you remember the distinction between imminent threat and non-imminent threat, or permanent threat? The argument like that in the case of Iraq, which has already begun to intrude into this case too? With New Orleans the threat from flooding from the ocean, or from Lake Pontchartrain is permanent. It always could happen. But the really extraordinary thing about this is that we knew it was also imminent. And don't forget, as a third observation, that this is the lenient version of Hurricane Katrina. It was expected to be much worse, or predicted certainly that it could have been much worse. In fact, as you will remember, the real disaster only happened just as people were beginning to relax. They thought they'd got away with it again. So in these circumstances, it's really unpardonable that there should have been such little preparation.

TONY JONES: Even more astonishing, wouldn't you think, that President Bush himself claimed only last Thursday that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" - when of course that's what was being anticipated by the disaster planners all over the country.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Absolutely. It's one of the two or three best-known risks to the United States, is that the levees protecting New Orleans could break. I know that and I live in Washington. It's also, I'm afraid to say, the only thing the President has said about this that anyone can remember. I mean, he didn't get there - it isn't that they didn't fly to the city beforehand, which he could easily have done on that kind of warning, and say, "Look, I'm the President of the United States, we can't lose or even risk losing one of our great historic cities. I have come to make sure that all the state and city officials have got everything they could possibly want in advance." For example, a few piles of bottled water wouldn't have come amiss if there's going to be suddenly too much water but none of it drinkable. Elementary things like that. He didn't do that. Then he did a fly-by from his holiday retreat, and then he got there too late and then he said something completely idiotic. So I really can't see there is any forgiveness for that. And remember also, that he did interrupt his holiday not very long ago to pay attention to something that was none of his business at all as President. Namely, the alleged living condition of an actually dead woman named Terri Schiavo. . . .

. . . .TONY JONES: Pitch ahead for us, if you can. What lasting effect do you think this will have on the Bush presidency?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, in terms of political psyche, shall we say, it's good for the Democrats in about five different ways. One, it reminds people of the existence of the underclass, which tends to be downplayed, shall we say, by the Republican Party. Second it reminds people of the importance of government spending and government services, again, I think the same intuitive or subliminal point applies. Third it makes it at a populous level anyway harder to make a solid case for Iraq, though it doesn't really alter the case about whether you think the war is a just or necessary one. And then fourthly, it reflects very badly on the personality of the President himself. So this is not, I think, a transient story. This is not something that is going to be confined to the Weather Channel, shall we say. I think it will be remembered as a hinge event in the second term.

TONY JONES: If it is a hinge event, is there any way he can use it to his advantage, as he ultimately did after a very shaky start immediately after September 11?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, no, I think people forgave him for blundering around on that day, and not quite knowing what to do and making what must have been one of the worst speeches ever given by any politician. That could, as it were, be forgiven because everyone felt I'm sure, my God, how would I have held up on a day like that? This is worse because, a) it could be seen coming and b), I might just add, by the way, I mean, these States that have been devastated, Louisiana and Mississippi and Somerset and Alabama, they're all in the Republican column. The President is supposed to care about and nurturing the South, so is Karl Rove. What were they thinking? What were they thinking? I have no answer to that question that doesn't come up with a revelation of the most, really, catastrophic incompetence and insouciance. . . .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. it is indeed all on his head!
And that is my one consolation this whole year--well, ten months now--since the election. * is having to deal with his messes for once in his life. He can't just hit-and-run this time. The little man has to deal with it.

If Kerry had been elected, we can be sure that the RW attack machine would have immediately geared up and turned the responsibility for all of *'s failures onto Kerry if he had not gotten everything turned around in, say, three months or so! The standard they would have held him to would have been so different than the huge pass they are giving the current administration! Kerry probably accepted that into the bargain from the start, after having seen what they did to Clinton. But he would have had the powers of the office anyway, and would have willingly cleaned up those messes for the sake of America. It's what real patriots do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. I recall "Underfunding First Responders"
being argued during the 2004 campaign. I also recall a pledge to restore Louisiana's wetlands.

I hate these people. Hate them hate them hate them. Nothing is ever more important than protecting George Bush. It's sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. But it's demostrably not true
Easily not true. Easy to disprove. I found stuff to disprove it in 5 minutes. I found all the Congressional record stuff (and have only posted one.)

This is easy to refute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I agree
He not only called for Louisiana wetlands work which would have helped reduce the impact of the hurricane, but he also campaigned on first responder issues as well. That's off the top of my head, I figured there was other stuff too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC