I am told Dean is first.

Many Dean supporters will not, in good conscience, agree to support the Democratic presidential nominee next year.  They're promising write-in votes instead as political cover and to signify their ceremonial handwashing for the election.

I have a favor to ask if this is your plan.  1) Please write in candidate or former candidate Ron Paul, as opposed to a third party candidate, non-candidate, or other former candidate, as an expression of the preordained effect of your vote, namely, to steer the election towards the Republican candidate as in 2000, & 2) Please contact the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee to advise him of your plan.

Nice try at intimidation, Tom.

I will of course do none of the above. If the Dems are suicidal enough to nominate Hillary (or Obama), I'll write in Al Gore--or Dennis. I'll also vote indy or Green rather than support Carl Levin--the Senator from Israel.

If it takes another 4 or 8 years of Republican rule to convince Democrats that they have to listen to their base, so be it.

 Incidentally, Levin sent me a thoroughly disgusting and offensive email justifying his vote in favor of the Lieberputz anti-Iran resolution. AIPAC and White house talking points

John wrote "I will of course do none of the above. If the Dems are suicidal enough to nominate Hillary (or Obama), I'll write in Al Gore--or Dennis. I'll also vote indy or Green rather than support Carl Levin--the Senator from Israel."

Do what you like. It’s just a favor I was asking. If you can make the hard decision to help deliver the election to the Republicans next November, I hoped you would stand behind the courage of your convictions by writing in an actual Republican, not washing your hands by voting for a vanity campaign candidate.

You see, Pontius Pilate didn’t want to crucify Christ, he just didn’t want to do anything that would actually prevent others from doing it.

Mike Gravel is one of the 2 or 3 voices of reason among the Democratic wannabes. This is not small "d" democracy

Tom

You'll find there are a lot more of us this time who will not go the "lesser of evils" route

JIM KUNSTLER'S WEEKLY RANT

http://www.stepfour.com/xdem/wp-content/themes/default/images/xdemhead.jpg

The big Peak Oil conference of the year took place in Houston last week  It is hard to imagine a more horrifying urban construct than this anti-city in the malarial swamps just off the Gulf of Mexico.  And it is hard to conceive of a more desolate and depressing urban district, even of such an anti-city, than the utter wasteland around Houston’s convention center.  

It has often been stated that Houston’s ghastly development pattern comes from having no official zoning laws.  But all it really proves is that you can achieve the same miserable results of typical American boneheaded zoning with no zoning – as long as your don’t give a shit how people feel in their daily environments.

The convention center itself, though, demonstrated something beyond even that degree of thoughtlessness.  Its pharaonic hugeness was a metaphor for the fatal grandiosity at the heart of contemporary life in American today, the utter disregard for a scale of human activity consistent with what the planet has to offer within its ecological limits – and of course the oil issue was at the center of that story.

John wrote "You'll find there are a lot more of us this time who will not go the ‘lesser of evils’ route."

There would scarcely be any reason for my request if there weren’t. It’s the lesser of evils characterization that tends to bother me. As you know, Ralph Nader convinced all of the people who eventually cast a ballot for him that you could not do better as a liberal by voting for Gore than for Bush. I just think it took consummate courage, nearly insane courage in fact, to describe Gore as the lesser of evils in that situation.

But at least we became witness to what can happen when someone steps up and actually votes in support of a truly lost cause. It’s a feel good vote, about  which you can regale others for years afterwards.

SORRY, WRONG LINK ON 7.

http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary22.html

MORE ON PEAK OIL

While the price of oil ratcheted up hour by hour, the ASPO conference members heard from an impressive range of experts who have been leading the public conversation on the Peak Oil story – with no help from the mainstream media or the political sector.  Among them were Robert Hirsch, co-author of the now-famous 2005 Hirsch Report, commissioned by the US Department of Energy, which, much to the consternation of its sponsor, first told the nation in no uncertain terms that it was heading for a catastrophic set of disruptions in “normal” American life if we heedlessly continued energy business-as-usual.  Hirsch went a little further now, two years on, than he had in his famous report, predicting a future of “oil export withholding,” panicked markets, and allocation disturbances that would make the 1973 OPEC embargo look like a golden age.

Matt Simmons, the leading investment banker to the oil industry, who has worked tirelessly to lift public awareness of Peak Oil, also raised the specter of shortages, telling the audience that market allocation problems in the near future would almost certainly induce “hoarding behavior” among the public that would cripple the economy, lead to enforced rationing, and shock the nation. Simmons compared the current public mood over energy issues to a “fog of war.”  He also repeated his oft-stated opinion that the drilling rigs and other equipment used around the world to pump oil out of the ground are so uniformly old and decrepit that they pose a problem every bit as dire as peak oil itself.  In the meantime, he said, to offset climbing prices, the developed nations have lately dipped so deeply into their accumulated stocks of crude and “refined product” that some countries may breach what is called their “minimum operating levels.”  Offstage, he told me, “We’re too preoccupied trying to figure out the exact date of the peak.  Meanwhile, we’ll drain the gasoline pool and it will be gone forever.”

The other most significant contribution came from Texas geologist Jeffrey Brown who presented a full-blown version of his theory that world export rates from the countries with oil to sell are liable to decline so much more sharply than their actual production decline rates that the world would be thrust into an oil export crisis within the next five years – and that this export crisis would turn out to be the defining condition of the Peak Oil story.

There are tens of millions who don't vote because they can't see a difference in the parties as it effects their lives. It doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between the parties just that the Republicans have effectively thwarted Democrats on issues that would matter, especially as they favor the ruling class.

no one will get the Democratic nomination that isn't a friend of Israel John the issue is subjugating the actual interests of our country to another, whomever

China as our banker comes to mind on this as well

Huron John
Mon, 10/22/07
9:17 am
___________________________________________________________________________

Agreed, Toms condescending posts have certainly cemented wirte in votes in 2008....................who said that __________________s are confined to the republican party?

The option in 1968 was the War Party or Richard Nixon, Tom.

if the option this cycle is the War Party or Mitt, a vote for a pig makes sense again

The Democratic party would do well to run a candidate who isn't a member of the War Party if they don't want mass defections.

Mike wrote "Agreed, Toms condescending posts have certainly cemented write in votes in 2008....................who said that __________________s are confined to the republican party?"

It was just a favor. I know some people aren’t willing to do it, because they consider voting a lark, not a matter of consequences. Their serious side only comes out during the primary battles. I just hoped you would tell the DNC Chair you’re part of DFA and let him know what you were doing.

Tom can I ask how old you were in 1968?

8. I've never voted for Nader--never will. I voted for Gore in 2000, and to my everlasting shame, for Kerry in 04.

What really gripes me, and a lot of others, is the sense of entitlement coming from establishment Democrats and their supporters.

Sure we didn't end the war, we confirmed some awful SCOTUS judges, we're about to confirm an attorney general who is if anything, worse than Gonzo, we're letting telecoms off the hook for facilitating Bush's illegal spying, which incidentally we're making legal, we're not even considering impeachment of the rankest criminals ever to occupy the executive branch, We deplored Move-on's courageous and accurate portrayal of "Betrayus",we excoriated Pete Stark for speaking truth to power, we regularly capitulate to the weakest, most hated president in more than a cenury, we're cheering him on to attack Iran, the list goes on.

But hey, better vote for us, or you'll be stuck with those awful Republicans!

Gimme a freakin' break Tom!

You can bet Howard wants a Democratic nominee that Democrats and progressives can vote for with good conscience and without holding their nose.

16.

couldn't agree more John

primary season is on!

2. Huron, well said, thank you. Ditto from me.

Phil wrote "Tom can I ask how old you were in 1968?"

I turned 15.

fence to build and I can leave with the blog in good hands

Tom might be getting paid to disrupt the blog and is just pretending to tell Democrats to get in line so people will turn against the party. who knows in e-ther space

could you smell the smoke when Detroit burned Tom?

10.

no one will get the Democratic nomination that isn't a friend of Israel John the issue is subjugating the actual interests of our country to another, whomever

Phil, I expect our leaders to be "Friends of Israel". What I abhor is their complicity in Israel's crimes against Arabs, particularly their blatant rape of Palestinian lands and people in their quest for "Lebensraum", and their belligerent attitude toward Iran, also in furtherance of Israeli (not American) goals.

LBJ was the President that ordered paratroopers into Detroit with orders to shoot to kill as I remember it.

turbulent times to grow up in were they not?

so maybe out of that chaos of youth you really do feel a need to follow a herd, herds are safer?

don't mean to make it personal

but when a citizen steps into a polling place to chose the "leader of the free world", no one else marks that ballot for you, and it is truly a personal decision

and I hope the everyone considers the Democratic nominee from a sense that making that one little mark is striking a blow to making the world a better place

Tom wrote: There would scarcely be any reason for my request if there weren’t. It’s the lesser of evils characterization that tends to bother me. As you know, Ralph Nader convinced all of the people who eventually cast a ballot for him that you could not do better as a liberal by voting for Gore than for Bush.


A false comparison, and the amount of Nader's votes prove that. Nader may have jumped on the theme of "lesser of evils", and some may have boughten it, but not many. And we are making a statement of fact of specific candidates. Even Nader friend, Michael Moore, is asking Al Gore to run.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GK2fzVa20rg

John wrote "I've never voted for Nader--never will. I voted for Gore in 2000, and to my everlasting shame, for Kerry in 04. What really gripes me, and a lot of others, is the sense of entitlement coming from establishment Democrats and their supporters."

That’s what I’m grappling with. You didn’t vote for Nader, but you’re encouraging a vote for his substantial equivalent next year. I mean Kerry said he wouldn’t change his vote knowing what he knows now, but a Nader voter shouldn’t go along with that sort of logic."

Like Nader, you confuse the acts of a docile Congress with the acts of a Democratic president. I need a more convincing argument than I’ve seen that Clinton was no better than Bush, that Gore would have been no improvement over Bush, that Kerry would have been no improvement over Bush, or that any Democrat in 2008 would be no improvement over any possible Republican. After 8 years of the Bush administration, witnessing the daily expressions of indignation and calls for impeaching half of the administration such as I see here, the idea to me is inconceivable.

Would you, at a minimum, advise the DNC Chair that you are voting for a vanity candidate in whom you truly believe, not some dirty Democrat, in 2008?

HQ's needs to show us what an IRV result would look like right now as I think this time best represents the old membership and I expect to see new members and would be curious to see how that changes over time.

Phil wrote "Tom might be getting paid to disrupt the blog and is just pretending to tell Democrats to get in line so people will turn against the party. who knows in e-ther space."

That's a little insulting from someone I've shared space here with since 2003.

Tom I'm pretty sure Howard is well aware of the dis-satisfaction of progressives, and the danger they may not vote Democratic in 2008 like they did in 2006.

That is why the party must choose wisely.

Tom what I meant (and I say this as a man who signs LTE as "proud to be a Democrat") was that your line of argument drives people away from the Party so if you are a loyal Democrat as you say you are (and I don't disbelieve) than take my advice and knock it off so such suspicions don't arise

Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
10:07 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You would be wise to tale a page out of Phils book when confronting disgruntled and discouraged Independents/Democrats......................I mean, if youre supposed to be so politically savvy...............

Phil wrote "could you smell the smoke when Detroit burned Tom?"

It’s strange that you should mention that, because I attended high school at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit from 1967 to 1970. My first semester was two months after the riots. There was a 130 foot gothic tower from which older seminarians told us you could see smoke rising from the city that summer. A blind pig on Twelfth Street, now Rosa Parks Boulevard, a distance of a few blocks from the school, was where the uprising is reported to have begun.

Phil wrote "Tom might be getting paid to disrupt the blog and is just pretending to tell Democrats to get in line so people will turn against the party. who knows in e-ther space."

That's a little insulting from someone I've shared space here with since 2003.

+++

Agreed.

Know thy enemy.  We are ALL in this together -- whether we like it or not (ugh, that sounds so syrupey this earlier in the morning, pancakes anyone ?)

22. I was 31 in 1968. My wife and I (then Canadians, and residents of London,ON) spent a blissful weekend in a motel on Woodward Avenue in 1967, together with another Canadian couple. We saw a couple of shows, shopped at Hudson's, visited Greenfield Village and the Ford Museum, then wended our way up Gratiot Avenue to Algonac, where we crossed back into Canada.

Perhaps in our naiivete, we foresaw nothing of what was to come.

Phil wrote "Tom what I meant (and I say this as a man who signs LTE as "proud to be a Democrat") was that your line of argument drives people away from the Party so if you are a loyal Democrat as you say you are (and I don't disbelieve) than take my advice and knock it off so such suspicions don't arise."

I’m no recruiter. I don’t want to tell anyone to do with their vote. I simply have one goal, which is to move this country more towards the progressive values that Dean espoused because I supported his candidacy and support his work in the party. It’s the single reason I’m here, for those who have yet to recognize it.

If you’re willing to send a message vote that helps cede the election to a Republican in the general election, please have the principles and political courage to stand behind your actions. Elections have consequences. Check them out for yourself.

I hear people like Mike talking, but I don’t hear them saying anything. The petty arguments, name-calling, the accusations regarding people’s motives and attempts to read into discussions with points that are simple on their face, which are endemic to this site, are beneath my attention.

I need a more convincing argument than I’ve seen that Clinton was no better than Bush, that Gore would have been no improvement over Bush, that Kerry would have been no improvement over Bush, or that any Democrat in 2008 would be no improvement over any possible Republican.

Tom, I know you hate the word "obtuse", but we're definitely not communicating. It's a given that a Democratic administration and congress would be an improvement over its Republican equivalent.

But if we elect them to do a job, and they spit in our faces (Pelosi: "they're advocates, we're leaders"), they have forfeited the right to govern. After the 06 elections, we all had high expectations from the new Congress. They (including Clinton and Obama) have consistently dashed those expectations, and fed us lies about why.

 Some time ago, I communicated to Chairman Dean, my profound disappointment and disgust with congressional Democrats, my unwillingness to contribute to the Part as it is now constituted, and my intention not to support DLC-inspired Democratic nominees.

I have as yet received no response.

He has yet to respon

I simply have one goal, which is to move this country more towards the progressive values that Dean espoused because I supported his candidacy and support his work in the party. It’s the single reason I’m here, for those who have yet to recognize

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmm Tom.............maybe you need to retire or consider another profession..............you have an odd way of recruiting...............a quick analogy would be an Army recruiter getting some young kid in his office and telling him the chances of him getitng killed or maimed in Iraq are pretty good these days, but at least he will have a roof over his head and 3 squares a day.........

I also saw that volney said she would willingly emigrate to Canada if the general election brings a Clinton vs. Thompson contest. This is putting real action behind your words, and it reminded me of Tom Toncredo’s debate point Sunday night that Michael Moore extolled the virtues of the Cuban health care system in Sicko, but returned to the United States after filming where he, presumably takes advantage of whatever benefits the American system offers.

I thought to myself at the time that I wouldn’t expect anyone who spelled out the benefits of nationalized health care for the Cubans or for the British, the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Irish, the Canadians, the Italians, the Israelis, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Norwegians, even the Costa Ricans, to simply emigrate to one of those countries because of those benefits. I would think it more likely that they would stay here and continue to fight on behalf of causes they believe in, regardless of whether they present an uphill struggle. Who knows, though? Tom Tancredo may be right.

Mike wrote "you have an odd way of recruiting."

I'm not recruiting.

34.  I think that Detroit visit was 1966. I emigrated to California in January, 1967, just in time for Ronaldus the Terrible's inauguration as Gov.

Well Huron I'm glad I'm not the only mature blogger lol. You guys quit picking on Tom Bearse. He's not a troll, he's one of us, he just doesn't toe the bloggie line all the time. He's also very witty.

On Masterpiece Theatre last night, the premise is that a supermarket manager, Mrs. Pritchard, gets ticked and decides to run for MP on a third party, the Purple Alliance. I guess the British system is such that the person with most votes (pardon my ignorance) becomes PM and that's what she does. Most of last night's episode was about that. Now she gets to face the world problems that face the leader of a country. She already made a decision based on her 'joint chiefs' that resulted in 2 Brits being tortured and killed. It's a great drama for a political junkie -- you folks should watch - Sunday evening at 9 pm.

There's a KOS diary about the Malibu fires. The diarist sounds like me last summer when the fire came so close to my house in FL. I'm so sorry for the horses -- they are running out of places to put them - sounds like a horrible situation. The Barrynet has many comments on is Barry's house OK as Suzanne Somers's is apparently threatened and we guess they are near since they are 'best buds.'

I looked at the SE US radar a moment ago and it looks like some good rain is headed for the ATL area so someone's prayers are perhaps working today. I'm really starting to wonder if Armageddon is happening before our eyes (and I'm not religious).

Oh -- Monica -- Sadies -- how about Perino and Fran Townsend?

John wrote "Tom, I know you hate the word ‘obtuse’, but we're definitely not communicating. It's a given that a Democratic administration and congress would be an improvement over its Republican equivalent."

I read every word you wrote. If it’s a given that a Democratic administration would be an improvement over a Republican administration, and I am racking my brain thinking how it could not be, I am discussing the value of electing such an administration into power. The subsequent recriminations about administration actions you don’t agree with can continue, will continue, and should continue. Remember "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"? I share that view which, it just so happens, does not imply or encourage a vote for another party candidate in 2008.

APROPOS OF THIS MORNING'S COLLOQUY

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_071021_invertebrate_dems__c.htm

The invertebrate Democrat congress is doing more than failing at their mandate to bring the troops home. Their repeated failures have driven their poll ratings down to pathetic lows and this is now affecting, adversely, their potential to maximize any hopes for victory they will have next year.

The NY Times reports that the DNC has less money now, than at about the same time four years ago. "In a disclosure report filed Saturday, the D.N.C. said it had $3.25 million in the bank, compared with $9.71 million heading into the presidential race four years ago."

The good news is, Republicans are down even more, compared to four years ago. Democratic candidates are kicking major right wing butt, fundraising-wise.

But the DNC-- they're hurting. That's not surprising.


It's no wonder. Pelosi and Reid are such dismal leaders. If they had the guts to cut the funding for the war back in the spring, the DNC's coffers would be overflowing.

If Pelosi put impeachment back on the table, the blogosphere would be filling the DNC's bank accounts.

The DNC has less money because the Dems are blowing the majority power they have in congress.

Every person I know has decided to tell callers seeking funds for the DNC to pound sand until they either bring the troops home or start impeachment proceedings on Cheney. They must be fully accustomed to the negative response. When they called me and I started to say why I wouldn't contribute, the DNC hung up on me.

The sad thing is, right now, local dems running in races for municipal, township and county positions could really use the help of the DNC right now. The DNC's failure to raise funds is a devastating blow to the potential use it could be put NOW.

Oct 22

National Nurses Movement Lauds Al Gore For Leadership On Single-Payer Healthcare

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee thanks Al Gore for his forceful new words in support of the kind of universal, non-profit, single-payer healthcare that this country desperately needs-and that is succeeding in nearly every other industrialized democracy.

The statement reflects a growing national consensus that a national, non-profit insurance system would clearly out-perform the private insurance corporations that spend up to one-third of their overhead on overhead and profits … and that it is long past time to put an end to the nation’s healthcare crisis.

On this issue, however, the public is far ahead of most of the political class. A March New York Times/CBS poll found that the vast majority of Americans want a total restructuring of the healthcare system, and preferred a single-payer system to the current private insurance system 47% to 38%. Unfortunately, many politicians continue to accept money from health insurance corporations, and push plans that mandate Americans to purchase expensive and inefficient private insurance products.

“Al Gore has long been a champion of the environment-and now he’s a champion of America’s patients. There is only one solution to our healthcare crisis, and that is the kind of guaranteed, non-profit, single-payer health insurance that we know works,” said Zenei Cortez, RN, a member of CNA/NNOC’s Council of Presidents.

Called “Healthcare Is A Right,” Gore released the following statement on his Current television channel :

I strongly support universal, single-payer, government-provided-or, government-funded-healthcare. It doesn’t mean the government runs it, it has competition among the different providers. But I just think that we’ve long since reached the stage that its immoral to put people in a situation where they cannot get the medical care they need because their incomes aren’t high enough. I think it ought to be a matter of right and our current system just doesn’t work, its way too expensive. The quality of healthcare is excellent for those who have enough money to buy the very best, but lower-income and low middle-income Americans are not getting good healthcare and so many now can’t afford the private health insurance that they’re going without insurance, millions and millions of people. And I think that to eliminate the incredibly ridiculous cost of all this unnecessary paperwork and different standards for different companies, it is time to have universal health insurance.

http://google-sina.com/category/health-i...



bbl....off for more Oral Surgery

 If it’s a given that a Democratic administration would be an improvement over a Republican administration, and I am racking my brain thinking how it could not be, I am discussing the value of electing such an administration into power.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom,

Its a very simple equation actually..........many of us are ready to take that next step beyond the Democratic Party.......thats all.  Maybe we have simply grown up, or hav reached the logical conclusion that, even IF we dont know how to accomplish it, we WILL make a differance.........

I call it simply ...........courage of ones convictions.  2004 was the last time we lowered ourselves and we are simply holding to our core values as people, thats all...........

Good luck with your surgery, Linda.

ON the debate, maybe they ought to have a stand-in for AL Gore or "other"!

Don't jump all over me, it's a joke.

FOUND HORSE TRAILER...going to get it, am sure the roads are gridlocked. Hope we have a place to move him. Wish me luck, keep us in your prayers. Thank you. Damn it...I have to get my horse out NOW. My trailer is 50 miles away and all horse trailers are being used. Am going to have someone take me there and will ride him out...bring him to my home if necessary.

OMG, I have never been this fucking terrified. The sky over us is blackish orange. They are evacuating in Rancho Santa Fe now....I am panicking....


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/22...

Phil Specht
Mon, 10/22/07
10:09 am

The "party" doesn't choose. People do. Specifically, a few people in Iowa will choose who our nominee is this year. Keep up the good, hard work. Edwards / Obama in 2008.

I would like a breakdown of how many who have voted in the "pulse" poll are NEW MEMBERS.

This is a good way perhaps to harvest email addresses, but not a good way to determine an endorsement - or not.

DFA should endorse in this election. To stay on the sidelines because it might be devisive is a cop-out. We are adults. We can live with it.

Mike wrote "Its a very simple equation actually..........many of us are ready to take that next step beyond the Democratic Party.......thats all. Maybe we have simply grown up, or hav reached the logical conclusion that, even IF we dont know how to accomplish it, we WILL make a differance......... call it simply ...........courage of ones convictions. 2004 was the last time we lowered ourselves and we are simply holding to our core values as people, thats all..........."

Thank you for this honest post. This illustrates exactly what I’m talking about with regard to courage of convictions. This coming election, November 2008, is rigged. It’s rigged in favor of one of the two major party candidates. A third party candidate, a non-candidate, or a former candidate helps push the results towards one or the other. If, for example, you are Republican who simply won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, please, please, please write in Ron Paul, because you will doing us the generous favor of helping screw a pro-war, laissez-faire free market candidate, either pro-choice or pro-life, out of victory.

Voting for someone on principle, because it’s radical, fashionable, or tells dumb DLC Democrats to shove it up their ass, is not having the courage of your convictions. It’s the opposite. It’s wimping out, because you have washed your hands of the whole affair, not wishing to stain them with your support for an unpalatable Democrat. At the same time, you’re completely blase about helping deliver the election to a totally flawed excuse for a Republican candidate a la 2000.

All I said was have the courage of your conviction by making your message vote for an actual Republican and telling the head of the Democratic Party you were willing to do it despite having supported his candidacy in 2004. Do you see the kind of courage that would take?

Voting for Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, or a pig? Shit, that’s like voting for Donald Duck. People get drunk and do that every election. Where is the courage in that?

I am really ticked that the Gravel is not being included in this debate, especially since it's sponsored partly by the DNC. What he adds to the debate is invaluable in that he speaks his mind and much of it is what is on mine.

The others could benefit from his honesty and intelligence.

Michael Ellis
Mon, 10/22/07
10:57 am

Agree...for now, I'm a Progressive Democrat, but I'm more Progressive than Democrat.

If I am forced to choose because of a spineless Democratic party, then i will choose Progressive and part ways. I'm still funding a Democracy Bond for the DNC, but even that is under consideration.

Talk here is that Evan Bayh will very likely be Clinton's VP. The DLC wins bigtime if that happens. Bayh and the Clintons are good friends. Bayh will be a good wallflower for the Clintons.

We need a Progressive People's party if it comes to that.

52. Me too. I'm also bothered by reports that people who are phone polled don't get ALL the choices to choose from-no wonder Hill is winning by a landslide.

Denise
Mon, 10/22/07
11:11 am

I'm not a Gravel fan, but I agree. As long as he is out there campaigning and he's getting on ballots, he should be on the stage. This is outrageous....what the heck has gotten into Howard? What about Kucinich?

Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
11:10 am

Pig? What a bad analogy. We do not have to fall in line with whomever the nominee is just because you say so. Who people vote for is their decision. And let's respect the decision, even if they decide not to vote.

I'll cross the bridge when I come to it as to whether to vote for Clinton. Because she hasn't won anything yet! Let's focus on getting a progressive nominated.

OK I just spoke to an assistant in Howard's office at the DNC. This is the NETWORK'S doing, not the DNC, so that's good to know. They based the decision on Gravel not having raised enough campaign donations to qualify (this is out in an article somewhere and not having read all of the comments on this thread, sorry if this is duplicative).

Not raising enough money to debate??

I asked her to call Howard, and she is going to let him know, but it seems to be out of the DNC's hands. Well at least that is comforting.

Indy wrote "Pig? What a bad analogy. We do not have to fall in line with whomever the nominee is just because you say so."

This is a really dumb post. 1) Phil has already amused us with the story of his vote for a pig many times, most recently this morning, and 2) I did not tell anyone to vote for anybody, much less to fall in line because I said so, anywhere at anytime.

Indy Steve
Mon, 10/22/07
11:15 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only because I like many here, I wont comment on Howard these days................

OK, new diary on KOS

Seems like it took me forever.  I kept getting side-tracked by google.  LOL 

Mike wrote "Only because I like many here, I wont comment on Howard these days................"

I know you won’t. That’s the long and the short of it. I’m asking you to do it.

Voting for someone on principle, because it’s radical, fashionable, or tells dumb DLC Democrats to shove it up their ass, is not having the courage of your convictions. It’s the opposite. It’s wimping out, because you have washed your hands of the whole affair, not wishing to stain them with your support for an unpalatable Democrat. At the same time, you’re completely blase about helping deliver the election to a totally flawed excuse for a Republican candidate a la 2000.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That pretty much sums it up. Fall in line. Insulting. And saying people who vote on principle does not have conviction, are "wimping out" and "blase" about the election here is pretty funny.

Ah, yes.  The viability meme.  It assumes that candidates must be well advertised, like soap flakes, for the public to "buy" them; what it really means is that the media will promote those candidates who send lots of dollars their way.

Indy wrote "That pretty much sums it up. Fall in line. Insulting. And saying people who vote on principle does not have conviction, are "wimping out" and "blase" about the election here is pretty funny."

Why don't you confront the argument on the merits?

Denise
Mon, 10/22/07
11:18 am

Thanks for the update and getting on the phone. We ought to be able to turn this around.

Money a qualification for the debate? Sheesh. It's a Catch-22 again. What about Kucinich?

It isn't like Gravel gets a lot of air time when he's on stage anyway.

You're welcome, Indy. Trying to find a phone number for MSNBC. The Sicilian in me wants to do more than just send an email LOL

Hmmm...don't see any deceased horses or birds nearby (sorry all you nature lovers)

Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
11:27 am

I did....I respect people's decisions on their own votes. If the nominee can't earn their vote, then they don't deserve it. We have choices, thank god. That's what democracy is all about.

Denise
Mon, 10/22/07
11:30 am

The media loves its role as gatekeeper. Which is why we need to crash the gates....remember they literally gave Howard a shirt saying, "WE have the power" after Iowa. They thought it was cute. We got the message.

from a previous thread

"Huckabee came across as a GOP Jimmy Carter (open, honet and saintly), and the evangelicals loved Jimmy until Reagan turned their heads four years later (how, I will never understand).

-- volney"

Under Carter's DOJ/IRS Bob Jones University had their tax exempt status taken away for racial discrimination against AAs, the SCOTUS upheld. The wingnuts went nuts then joined Satan and the Republican party.
Oddly, their god Bob Jones III struck the rules that discriminated to regain the tax exempt status. By then the lust for power and vengence on the Supreme Court kept the fundies in Hell's camp.

MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Phone: (201) 583-5000
Fax: (201) 583-5453

Time to get on the phone! If we can't crash the gates, we can crash their ears.

Indy wrote "I did....I respect people's decisions on their own votes."

You didn’t. You did what you just did in this post, which is to say you did something, having convinced yourself that’s the case.

Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
11:36 am

People make up their own adult minds. Intimidation and harrassment rarely works. Even those who voted for Nader in 2000 had the right to do so. He spoke to their beliefs better than Gore did.

I didn't vote for Nader, but they had every right to do so and I don't begrudge them for that. Neither does Al Gore. He never to my knowledge criticized people for voting for someone who they believed in. Again, that's democracy. Democrats support democracy.

Also, I think that people who NOW pledge to support the Democrat no matter what are rather foolish. They will be taken for granted. But it is their right to do it.

It is far more empowering to withhold any pledges and make whoever wins the nomination earn the vote. Keep them working for it.

Indy wrote "People make up their own adult minds. Intimidation and harassment rarely works."

I don’t know what you’re undertaking here, but no one said anything contrary to anything you said in your post. Are you feeling okay?

The switchboard guy (that's his name) won't put you through to anyone unless you have a name. Can you believe this?

I hate big media.

New thread, too. Jeez.....

New thread, folks. Vote for Ron Paul??????

Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
11:24 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well Tom, youve pissed off enough people here today.......we dont ned to fuel the fire anymore..you are doing fine by yourself..........

I asked her to call Howard, and she is going to let him know, but it seems to be out of the DNC's hands. Well at least that is comforting.

I don't find it comforting to learn that a corporation is telling the DNC would can be in its debate and the DNC is going along. 

Denise
Mon, 10/22/07
11:44 am

Ask for Keith O. He should have a special comment on this...

Howard should prohibit the other nominee candidates from this debate, or strip their delegetes. period.

67.

Look it's really not possible for a candidate to "earn" people's votes.  At least not the first time out.  Voters make decisions on what they expect to happen.  It's a crap shoot.  Nobody knows the future.  Which is why the "values" voters actually have a point.  But, the problem is "values" is what's being valued.  Republicans are honest about assigning a high value to "making" money.  They recognize that there's a widely shared appreciation for the possibility of becoming rich.  Less appreciation of everyone being equal, especially if equality is perceived as a quantity and there's the prospect of some people having to give up what they've already got.

How does one present equality as a quality?  That everyone is valued but not measured the same? 

now it's the GOP's turn to play strip poker:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_el_pr/gop_primaries_1;_ylt=Asxs3EtpNwPnOPxo2oSv02lh24cA

5 states could lose half GOP delegates

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican Party leaders on Monday recommended punishing five states for shifting their nomination contests earlier, moving to strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates.

Iowa, which plans to hold Republican caucuses on Jan. 3, would not be penalized because, technically, the caucuses are not binding on convention delegates. Nevada, which plans to hold its caucuses on Jan. 19, would not be penalized for the same reason.

"It's very important that our party uphold and enforce the rules that we unanimously voted into place at the Republican National Convention in 2004," said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The rules ban holding votes before Feb. 5.

...

HJ: you've got me beat, but not by much!

***************
I can't believe that a DNC-sponsored debate will not include ALL the declared candidates ... and Gravel is a declared candidate until he undeclares. That's the truth.

***************
What is really sickening though is seeing how the Rethug candidates cannot wait to tout their worst aspects as virtues. I'm with Tom on this one. There is no way this side of Hell I will ever vote in such a way as one of them would become Prez because of my vote.

And sorry, but Hubert Humphrey might have been Johnson's Veep, but I disagree that he was ever the *War Party.* He would have gotten MY vote in 1968 (against Nixon, for sure), but I was an American Abroad without a voting place. Since I joined the Peace Corps when I was 20, meaning that I left the country, and the voting age was 21 at the time, I missed being able to vote in the 1964 election. Since I had no voting registration by 1968, having lived abroad until then, I was not allowed to vote then either.

Humphrey, by the way, was the originator of the Peace Corps idea, even though JFK got the credit, so as a former PCV, I believe that his "war" reputation is undeserved. He is the man who SHOULD have been President. If he had been, the whole history of the latter years of the 20th century would have been much different. He would have beat Nixon too, if it hadn't been for a) his ties to the Johnson Administration and b) George Wallace, the original *Southern Democrat* (i.e., the group that later was known as *Reagan Democrats*).

So yes, having been disenfranchised in spite of myself in two Presidential elections due to accidents of birth and location, I have a real appreciation for my vote now. So long as I am drawing breath in 2008, I WILL vote ... and I sincerely hope that a candidate I can in good conscience support will be my option because I will NEVER vote for a Republican, either directly or indirectly.

Let's start with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as amended, and go from there! A candidate DOES have to ask for and earn a vote. Based upon their values, experience, past decisions and stated goals for the future (as specific as possible). That is how.

Good idea Indy - I got as far as the political news desk and she had to hang up for a breaking news story. LOL...crazy industry.

Guess I'm on a quest this morning - must be Burlington inspired!

To remain even semi-sane in today's world, it is with great joy that I look forward to the Monday morning post of DU's EarlG: The Top Ten Conservatives Eedjits.

Even the semi-sane state is getting harder to hold to, but if I do manage to, it will be because of EarlG and all those others who can make passable lemonade from the very sour lemons we are afflicted with.

======================
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 311
October 22, 2007
Larry The Liar Edition

This week Larry Craig (1) cracks up, George W. Bush (2) cracks wise, and Joe Barton (4) is on crack. Meanwhile Fred Thompson (7) has a shady past, and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (9) compete to see who can flip-flop the hardest. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!

[...]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...

An extra *s* crept in on the last: mea culpa!

**********
The. Great. Paul. Krugman.

===============
October 22, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Gone Baby Gone
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It pains me to say this, but this time Alan Greenspan is right about housing.

Mr. Greenspan was wrong in 2004, when he sang the praises of adjustable-rate mortgages. He was wrong in 2005, when he dismissed the idea that there was a national housing bubble, suggesting that at most there was some “froth” in the market. He was wrong last fall, when he suggested that the worst of the housing slump was behind us. (Housing starts have fallen 30 percent since then.)

But his latest pronouncement — that the market rescue plan being pushed by Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, is likely to make things worse rather than better — looks all too accurate.

To understand why, we need to talk about the nature of the mess.

First of all, as I could have told you — actually, I did — there was indeed a huge national housing bubble.

What even those of us who realized that there was a bubble didn’t appreciate, however, was how much of a threat the bursting of that bubble would pose to financial markets.

Today, when a bank makes a home loan, it doesn’t hold on to it. Instead, it quickly sells the mortgage off to financial engineers, who chop up, repackage and resell home loans pretty much the way supermarkets chop up, repackage and resell meat.

It’s a business model that depends on trust. You don’t know anything about the cows that contributed body parts to your package of ground beef, so you have to trust the supermarket when it assures you that the beef is U.S.D.A. prime. You don’t know anything about the subprime mortgage loans that were sliced, diced and pureed to produce that mortgage-backed security, so you have to trust the seller — and the rating agency — when they assure you that it’s a AAA investment.

But in the case of housing-related investments, investors’ trust was betrayed. Supposedly safe investments suddenly turned into junk bonds when the housing bubble burst. High profits reported by hedge funds — profits that were reflected in huge payments to the fund managers — turn out to have been based on wishful thinking.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/opinio...

Yeah, well, like the Turks (or I) believe any of these assurances.

===================
Iraq says Kurdish rebels will announce ceasefire
Michael Howard in Saleheddin, Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday October 22, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Kurdish rebels will announce a ceasefire tonight, the Iraqi president said today, with the news coming amid hectic diplomatic efforts to avert a Turkish attack on northern Iraq.

"We confirm that President [Jalal] Talabani said at Sulaimaniya airport that the PKK [the outlawed Kurdistan Workers party] will announce a ceasefire this evening," an aide to Mr Talabani told Reuters.

The Turkish foreign minister, Ali Babacan, today stressed Ankara would continue with "diplomatic efforts" to deal with the crisis.

However, he said the possibility of a military incursion remained if US and Iraqi leaders failed to clamp down on cross-border attacks by PKK fighters based in northern Iraq.

Eight Turkish soldiers were still missing after a deadly ambush, blamed on Kurdish rebels, in which at least 12 troops died. The developments have intensified pressure on the Turkish government to order an invasion of northern Iraq to crush the rebels.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33103...

We have met the enemy and he is US.

****************
Two US sailors shot dead in Bahrain
Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday October 22, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

A US sailor allegedly killed two female sailors in their barracks in the Gulf state of Bahrain.

The alleged shooter, a male, was critically wounded in the incident in the barracks on the US Naval Support Activity Bahrain base.

An official did not say if the alleged killer had shot himself or if anyone else was involved in the incident, which was under investigation.

But the navy said the incident was not terror-related and only involved US military personnel.

The US navy's Fifth Fleet is based on the island state of Bahrain, which is a staunch ally of Washington.

The two victims died at the scene and the third was taken to hospital for emergency treatment.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33102...

Judy, you're posting on an old thread.

Well, there's bad news and good news from yesterday's elections here. The RW UDC party has won the most seats.

But the Greens did quite well and the coalition of the leftists is not really in tatters.

There are lots of Al Gore fans here.

******************
Rightwing SVP tightens grip in Swiss election
Ian Traynor
Monday October 22, 2007
Guardian

Switzerland's rightwing People's party, accused of racism and fanning Islamophobia, strengthened its position as the country's leading political force yesterday, gaining more than 2 percentage points to win a general election for the second time in a row, according to projections.

Led by the populist industrialist Christoph Blocher, the People's party, or SVP, was projected to have taken almost 29% of the vote, securing six more seats in parliament and two seats in the seven-strong cabinet that is always a coalition of the four strongest parties.

In a country where the glaciers are melting and concern about global warming is intense, the other big winner yesterday was the Green party which took 10% of the vote, according to the projections

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33102...

the Holy Trinity (Clinton, Bayh and Bauer) ? --

-- if so, they sound like they've been annoited:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/News01/710220322

Bauer: Endorsing Clinton could make it possible.

MIKE SMITH
Associated Press Writer

INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana House Speaker Patrick Bauer said he endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president at the request of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and because he believes it could lead to Bayh becoming the vice presidential nominee.

When asked whether Bayh told him that Clinton's nomination would help him become her running mate, Bauer said, "I can't say he said that exactly, but I know that's the case."

When asked exactly what he did say, Bauer said, "I think he says she's going to win and that he is very close to her and they work well together and hope to work very well together in the future."

Bayh endorsed Clinton last month, saying she was a "seasoned, experienced leader who will be ready to lead this country on day one." But he dismissed speculation that part of his motivation for endorsing Clinton was to enhance his odds of being chosen running mate.

...

Several political analysts and observers say Bayh is likely to be considered as Clinton's running mate if she gets the nomination. It would give the ticket a centrist Democrat and a former, popular governor from a Republican-leaning state.

The Clinton campaign announced Oct. 15 that Bauer, former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg, former Indiana first lady Judy O'Bannon and four other big-name Democrats in Indiana had signed up to become co-chairs of her campaign in the state.

...

rd: a new thread sneaked in ... and but for Tom, we'd both be left languishing here.

It's at http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22656...

52. Denise: 

I agree with you.  I think that the DNC and the DFA should show courage and call off the MSNBC supposed  debate if all candidates are not invited. 

I am of the opinion that the subjunct DLC head of the Democratic Party's donkey being painted red, means that the EXTREME far right feel that the subjunct DLC component of the Democratic Party is in complete control of the head of the DNC and the Democratic Party. It does appear like  the  DLC,  is in charge, otherwise there would be NO DEBATE to discuss; since all candidates aren't allowed to attend.  

 Whenever I see the Democratic Party's donkey proudly painted with a blue, green or yellow head,  and a blue, green or yellow body;  then I will know that the subjunct DLC appendage in the Democratic Party has been weeded out.  Whenever the subjunct  DLC component has been weeded out of the DNC,  no candidate will be blackballed by the DNC or will blackballing of DNC candidates be condoned by the DNC; this is all a product of the subjunct component of the Democratic Party, the DLC. 

All DNC candidates must be treated with equality -- there is NO LAW that says it is legal to blackball candidates that do not grovel for corporate money, so if MSNBC wants to blackball Gravel, then no candidate should show up for the MSNBC supposed debate.  The proposed propaganda display should be called off account MSNBC's lack of interest in any real debate.