I've had it with DKos

[TayTay]

Evertime I see a bad thread about Kerry, I am going to comment on how it is a reminder to me to give him my monthly donation. (Which I can afford.)

That seems to piss people off but good.

So, DKos, thanks for the reminder

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/8/195842/3869
Bad, not good, horrible thread with a few good defenders.

[Mass]

1. Actually, more than one person was able to show how the poll was inane

That was surprising. Of course, there was the usual lot of Kerrybashing, but I would be surprised if this was not the case on kos.

[TayTay]

2. I don't care. I just want someone to post

'Thanks for the reminder, I'm giving him money now' everytime someone starts one of these dump on Kerry posts.

And I did just give Kerry $25. I have a receipt. It just pissed me off but good.

[karynnj]

3. They were overall more positive than I've seen them before

The defenses were good. I really don't understand their infatuation with macho type positioning - how would it look AGAINST a sitting President. Kerry's good manners let him say some pretty tough things (which they forget) about Bush's handling of Iraq and how he lied us into war.

There were likely some people he lost because they thought he went too far in describing how badly Bush messed up. But there were more who needed it pointed out before they would leave Bush. The balance had to be really tricky to figure out.

As far as the "in your face Howard Dean like moves" they would delight everyone who loves Michael Moore, while sharply diminishing a Kerry strength of being Presidential. Looks like a net loss to me.
There were polls of Bush/Dean or Bush/Clark in the Jan - mar time frame, Kerry did substantially better. Another thing, is this macho Howard Dean, who would respond so much better than Kerry, related to the Howard Dean who whined about not wanting to be a pin cushion after some tough but legit negative ads (mostly from Gephart) or the red faced bully who told an older man to "shut up and sit down?")

I actually think Kerry's temperament was perfect as a foil to the smears. He stayed reasonable, rational and graceful in the face of it. Kerry did eventually confront most of it. It had to take great strength and discipline not to go ballistic over it - which worked so badly when McCain did precisely that.

On the Purple Heart Band aids, the guy who felt that a complaint by Kerry would actually open him up because of the medal throwing - I never thought of that but I do think that Cleland, Kerrey and McGovern could have embarrassed the Republicans. (If ALL the vets stayed together it would have been better)

[TayTay]

4. They are aunable to see the forest, cuz the trees are in the way

Some hardcore supporters of Gov Dean claim that all Kerry had to do to win the election was come out strongly against the war. There is no statistical evidence to back this up. All the polling done shows that while people were uneasy about Iraq, they had not yet decided that withdrawal was the answer. The no's to withdrawal were above 50% and remain above 50% to this day. (Mea culpa, this is partly why I am so obsessed with finding out what Kerry is thinking about Iraq now, after his recent trip. The subject is under review for possible revision, I'm betting.)

These LFers people are clueless. They believe strongly that the war was wrong and that standing up and saying this would have won the election. There is simply no evidence of this at all.

[karynnj]

5. Well it worked for President McGovern in 1972

when over significantly over 50% wanted out of Asia. I think Kerry did say often enough Bush didn't go to war as a "last resort". He was clearly trying to avoid saying the obvious that it would have been better to leave the demonized (he was bad but so were at least 20 other dictators) Saddam in power, although there was one time he came close. He also listed Bush's stupid actions that were killing soldiers and he offered a logic plan to extricate ourselves. Doing all of this sounded complicated - because it was. But making things simple - the war was evil, the US shouldn't have done it, let's get out now - would have allowed Kerry to challange McGovern for worst race.

Your catch on "failed policies" may point that way, but I wonder what he can really say. It seems that the withdrawal plans that have been proposed range from the simple get out now ("on ships" as you quoted young Kerry), to Feingold's plan, to Kerry's plan that essentially seems to substitute for the US anywhere it can reasonably be done. I think that there are problems with setting a deadline for getting out even with the caveat of staying longer if actions don't occur.

If Kerry were President, setting a date would be unnecessary. I would trust him to have simultaneously worked on his 4 points and as things became more stable - two things could happen,fewer troops would be needed and multi-national and Iraqi forces would further reduce the number of American soldiers. Troops returning home would be the natural consequence.

With Bush as President, a plan that calls for both political events to happen and a date that can be waived if the events fail to happen is a disaster. Bush will probably not opt to push the things that would cause the events to happen, then what will Feingold do. He can slip the date - but as he has no control over what Bush does, picking a new date is just a game. Slipping the date will go over like a lead balloon with the LW freepers. The alternative, to say withdraw now anyway when a Sen from MN has no authority to withdraw the troops, accomplishes little.

I hope there are other alternatives that I can't think of. It would be nice if Kerry or Kerry and Hagel can push Bush to accept a plan that is better than what they are doing. I think the percent favoring withdrawal might go up if someone like Kerry (or better yet Kerry and Hagel) proposed it and explained how it could be done - because I don't think he would propose it unless he could defend it. The problem is even if Jesus himself came down and told Bush he was wrong, I am not sure he would listen because he is so pig-headed.

[TayTay]

6. Oh, I forgot to mention why I am so interested just lately

The game in Iraq has changed. We (or at least the US-led coalition) lost a city last week. And I read somewhere, I think on Juan Cole's excellent blog, Informed Comment, that the Bushies are going to cede teritory to the Sunni's. (I have to go look this up again.)

The Bushies are leaving Iraq slowly. I don't think Bush has any plans on being in Iraq next Dec. which was Feingold's date for withdrawal. I think plans have changed and that the US is going to leave, but this is not necessarily good news. The Iraqis left behind have to guard Al Sistani against assasination and if he goes, OMFG!

Things have been changing in Iraq while we have been paying (necessarily) attention to the damge done by Katrina. And I think Kerry saw this last week. And I think he's been talking to other Senators about this. (Maybe Hagel, who knows a military screwup when he sees one.) And I think he is up to something and that is why he and McCain have been gesturing so emphatically on opposite sides. I have a feeling on this one, just a feeling.

[karynnj]

7. I had read about the loss of the city

and of the UN's disgust with our involvement in the constitution. They were unhappy that we apparently wrote one of the drafts.

It seems reading through the lines that all the worse things discussed in the SFRC hearings on the Constitution happened and they don't really have a constitution that can be approved. It also has all the bad features that were feared. (Kerry's January MTP comments and his comments to Rice, seem as usual on target )

If they cede territory to the Sunnis, wouldn't that lead to 3 states. Or does he mean the Sunnis get more land within the federation. Would it have oil? There seems no logical reason to combine the Kurds and Shiites if the Sunnis in the middle are gone. (I think I should read the blog - I saw it a few times during the campaign).

OMFG is right. Bush has come close to the worst nightmare. In this context, what on earth was Biden talking about - even comparing Bush to a JFK with a different accent (for his inaugural address) and talking positively about "reforming" nations? Has he joined the dark side?

[TayTay]

10. I found it, it was Juan Cole's blog

I searched his site using 'Sistani' as the keyword and found:

http://www.juancole.com/

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

4 US Troops Dead
Constitutional Talks End

The US military has withdrawn from the Shiite holy city of Najaf, seat of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Although the Lt. Col. James Oliver maintained that the Iraqi army is operating successfully throughout the region, it is more likely the case that the Badr Corps is providing what security there is. The Badr Corps is the paramilitary of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the party that rules Najaf Province (population: about 800,000). We see here the beginnings of the Bush administration exit strategy for Iraq, which is that the south will be turned over to SCIRI and Badr. The US military must be convinced that Badr can now handle the Mahdi Army and can protect Grand Ayatollah Sistani from assassination (both are tall orders).

Al-Hayat: A source in the Iraqi parliament said that further negotiations on the issue of the identity of Iraq (as an Arab state) had proved inconclusive, and that the draft would be printed and voted on as is. The Sunni Arabs had wanted an acknowledgment that Iraq is an Arab country, but the draft constitution says only that it forms part of the Muslim world and that its Arabs form part of the Arab world. This issue has also been important to Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors, including the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League. It may be that the new text identifies Iraq as a founder of the Arab League, but a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party (Sunni) said that the amendment was not sufficient to mollify Sunni Arab concerns.

I think that the US is slowly bowing to the inevitable. We cannot win this war. We cannot win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi's while so many of them are dying in attacks. I think Bush wants out and that he will do it in a haphazard way and then declare victory. That's what the whole idiotic thing about comparing the Iraq Constitutional process to America's Constitutional beginnings was all about. It doesn't matter that there are few parrellels, it matters that the seed get planted, the Bushies get enough cover to say, we can hand it over to the Iraqi's and then get out.

America's treasury just took an enormous hit with Katrina. The War in IRaq, as Sen. Kerry has pointed out numerous times, is being fought off of the fiscal books. All that money and it doesn't count against the budget of the US. (Holy shit!) Now Katrina is going to cost $150-200 billion dollars, so far, with off the books money. We are so screwed.

This gives the Bushies even more of a reason to get out, pretend they did so reasonably and with cause and then use other means to control Iraq. (Or to have influence in Iraq. It doesn't take a lot of bribe money to corrupt a system on the brink.)

Kerry was there last week. He no doubt saw this stuff up close and personal. He knows this shit like the back of his hand and he knows the score. I think the Bushies are doing an end-run around the 'withdrawal' people and will try and play them off against his real plans and then try and screw the withdrawal people by saying that their plan was idiotic and unpatriotic and his was 'the only way.' (He does this all the time. The Rethugs always try to use your best things against you.) And I think Kerry sees this and has something up his sleeve to announce or go to. I really do. Not a solution, per se, but a means of pointing out what we will actually get in Iraq as opposed to what we set out to get and what the real cost of this will be in terms of money, support for human rights and the reality of having created an Islamic client state of Iran. Ahm, we didn't sign up for that, as I recall. Someone needs to continually point this out, especially when the Bushies start to loudly yeall about how they are 'withdrawing' ahead of schedule.

[karynnj]

19. Kerry in his traditional role as the truth teller!

The situation there is an unmitigated mess. I can see the Bushies trying to declare day night and scapegoating the withdrawal people. It's actually a minor variation on last year, where they repeated ad nausium that Kerry was the same as Bush on Iraq - same intelligence, voted for the war, same plan. Too bad the LW fell for it, probably more than the right. My first inclination was to say they can't abandon their "idealistic " plan to spread democracy, but then I remember this is Bush who can deny straight faced saying something he said a month, a week or even a day before. He will try to re-write history. (it wasn't his fault Saddam was involved in 911 and wouldn't let the inspectors in.)

If it weren't for the large number of people who mow believe the anti-war movement lost a war our government knew for at least the last 4 years of war couldn't be won, I would scoff at the chance that anyone but Bush could be blamed for the disaster that is Iraq. Kerry has been so on target this year on everything, I really hope he has something up his sleeve on this. If he really does find a means to bring the country to a realization of what we've done, it will be remarkable. I hope he can do it without sacrificing forever the chance to be President.

What's weird is how it could be a striking parallel to 1971 where his goal was to make America turn. Again, he would be stating truths that the administration was attempting to hide under a veil of patriotism and people's certainty that the US was a uniquely blessed, morally superior country that would never to bad things.
Again, he would be acknowledging that bad things could and probably will happen when we leave. There's also an echo in saying we can't fix it and people are dying for no reason. The difference is he would be stating it as the leader of half of this country and he won't need an invitation to the Senate. No wonder it's Kerry, that Cheney mumbles about - who didn't after all say friend of Howard.

[JanusAscending]

8. Hi Tay Tay!

In regards to Iraq, I read somewhere on DU tonight , that they've (we've)run out of money for reconstruction, and the private contractors have stopped working on the Infrastructure. I hear that Halliburton has already been given the contract to rebuild NOLA?? If this is true, do you think there is any connection? Guess they weren't able to "steal" enough money in Iraq, so they're going to come get some more of the taxpayers money in the "Big Easy!!! :grr: Think this might have been part of the Kerry /McCain "discussion"?:hi: :grouphug: DC

[TayTay]

11. This is all true and it is very troubling

The Iraqi 'reconstruction' plan was bad from the beginning. Instead of mandating that as much reconstruction work as possible be done by Iraqis (it's their country after all) the US passed laws saying it had to go through US firms. This was so awful and such a missed opportunity to put Iraqi's back to work and give a boost to the economy. But Bush needed to feed his fat friends. Sigh!

The Halliburton reconstruction effort in the Gulfport area will be the same. This is an opportunity to engage in training and jobs programs so that whatever money is spent goes back into those communities and creates some opportunity for folks who have lost everything. But Bush has suspended the prevailing wage law so that Halliburton can hire at much lower wages in the area. IT won't cost any less to rebuild Gulfport, but the direct benefits will accrue to the upper management and stockholders of Halliburton, not the destitute people of the area. Sigh! How many times do we have to dance to this rancid tune?

[karynnj]

14. Totally agree - That greed won out over what could have

been one of the strongest levers for success in both cases is dumbfounding. If a large group of Iraqis had received these construction job, they and all the Iraqis who would then have gotten jobs providing goods and services to the construction workers would have had a stake in the new Iraq. They would have been far less tempted to join the insurgency. It also would have been far cheaper than importing contractors and paying them enough to warrant living in a war zone. This is so basic that I can't believe they hired Halliburton.

How can Bush and Cheney possibly get enough from Halliburton to justify putting Iraq at additional risk, risking the stability of the world? These are the people that Americans wanted to have a beer with? They are already extremely rich. Bush, as an ex-President could command a fortune for "writing" his autobiography. I also wonder how they controlled most of the press to not comment on the stupidity of this. (Although maybe it's because economics is a boring subject to many people.)

It is exactly the same in NO. Beyond the basic immorality of the federal government undercutting the minimum wage laws to take advantage of the fact that there will be an enormous group of people who are unemployed because of the hurricane, it is stupid economics. This would be the biggest economic stimulus they could give to the area. Everything these workers get, would likely be immediately used to buy much needed goods and services. The multiplier effect of this money would cause it to have a huge impact. This is a case where basic Keynesian economics actually predicts the result.

Then as your Senator predicted, they will insist on repealing the estate tax to stimulate the economy. The fact that tax cuts to the wealthy have never been good at stimulating the economy is beyond the point.

What I don't get is unless you are totally insensitive, life is better for the affluent when poverty is less. Aside from the obvious decrease in crime, any person with a heart reacts to seeing homeless or hungry people in the streets. Not to mention pure economics, if a large group of people have little or no money, they can't buy the products companies make.

[Mass]

15. Ideological issue.

"What I don't get is unless you are totally insensitive, life is better for the affluent when poverty is less. Aside from the obvious decrease in crime, any person with a heart reacts to seeing homeless or hungry people in the streets. Not to mention pure economics, if a large group of people have little or no money, they can't buy the products companies make."

They would agree with you except for the question of how you do that:

- we think that the govt should be involved in solving this issue,
- they think that private initiatives will resolve that.

This is a purely ideological issue at this level.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss

"To Norquist, who loves being called a revolutionary, hardly an agency of government is not worth abolishing, from the Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration to the Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts. "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

I think it says it all.

[TayTay]

16. Yes, yes, yes. But the people don't hear this

The people and the voters have heard that the Democratic Party was captured by it's left-wing social issues and has abandoned it's core economic issues. This is so sad. And so not true. So, instead of voters getting an airing of the issues of economic fairness and the continuing viability of the 'American dream' we get, Guns, Gays and God. These are false choices.

We have to play the populist card next election and play it ruthlessly and constantly. (And there are risks involved in playing the populist card. It can become xenophobic.) The next election turns on the phrase, "Think about what happened to people in Hurricane Katrina. How do you know that, if a disaster happened to you, you wouldn't be treated the same. Who is watching out for you?"

BTW, the game plan for '06 was supposed to be 'illegal immigration.' The Rove beast was going to plant the notion that the Democrats wanted to allow all the illegals into the US, sign them up for welfare and benefits and allow 'them,' the awful 'them,' to cut real Americans out of their jobs, homes and fair taxes. This is the push for '06 because Gay Marriage is pretty much played out.

[whometense]

20. I've hesitated to write this,

lest it make me look like a real jerk, but to me this is one of the really bad cynical side effects of their policy.

I think I am a reasonably generous person, but their ideology makes me think twice before I donate. Isn't that horrible? I don't want my money propping up their theory that the private sector can take care of all the needs of the people. I really hate them for that.

The government should not be in the business of causing people to second guess their generous impulses. Am I alone? Or have any of you thought this too?

By the way, I donated even before Kerry asked, and am planning to give more. Just so you know. ;-)

[karynnj]

25. No you are not alone

I would prefer the goverment provide the money and assistance and I think they can do it more efficiently. I do contribute as well - this time waiting only because my husband knew his company would match it.

I think in the case of NO, it goes beyond charity/government, because if you hire local people at reasonable wages - especially if you train those who don't already have the construction skills, you give them the means to be self-sufficient. Bush wonldn't consider it, but a set of FDR like works program might be necessary to really rebuild NO.

[karynnj]

22. You're right

Like most people, I see both government and charities having their purpose in addressing problems. But when we get rid of the subsidies for the poor, can't we elininate them for the rich too.

[whometense]

27. Very good point. n/t

[saracat]

32. My standard response is , number one, initially Dean took "exactly the

same position on the war as Kerry and nuber two, it was very easy foe him to talk as he DIDN"T HAVE A VOTE! His opinion was moot. He wasn't an anti war candidate anyway. They made him one. He STILL isn't an anti war candidate. He is against pulling out the troops!He still has the same position as Kerry.
Bah! This is like the mutation into a liberal that some did with him. Howard Dean is not and has never been a "liberal". I said it themn and I will say it now, the only liberal in the 2004 Presidential Primary was Kerry!

[TayTay]

33. I knew people from Vermont who lived with Gov Dean

He was an okay guy, but he was not what he became in the 2003. I had some problems with Dean because he was too conservative for me. And I had hard feelings over the Monsanto, rGBH additive thing in Vermont. I thought that was a clear bait-and-switch for the dairy farmers in VT. That stuck in my craw as something that was just too accomodationist to big business.

That said, I want him to succeed. If Dean can preside over a DNC that gains lots of seats in Congress, Then I'm happy. That's his job, to elect Democrats and that's all I want him focused on. He has to be the 'atta boy' guy for all Democrats and get them money, support and votes.

[saracat]

35. I agree one hundred percent Tay ! Tay!

I want him to suceed too! And I had exactly the same doubts. But that being said, I promoted him for Chair. I just get irked when his record is distiorted by some in an attempt to make him appear to be what he is not in an effort to smear Kerry!

[sandnsea]

9. The effectiveness of the noise machine

I don't understand why these people don't get it with these numbers. Look at Carter's numbers and look at the reality of his election numbers and numbers for years afterwards. They obviously don't understand what the slander campaigns did to McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. They weren't all Massachusetts liberals either. The real question is what will it take for OUR people to understand that they will destroy anybody and that WE help them.

[beachmom]

12. I'm not sure if I trust Juan Cole. Any other source?

Juan Cole is very biased, and in the past has said outrageous things that have not come true. He has also been right, so I'm not saying this isn't true, but I will remain skeptical until this information comes out from a more legitimate source. (I am referring to Bush already starting a withdrawal, not the Constitution stuff which is indeed a fact).

When I think the most rationally about all of this is when I think with the point of view of the Iraqis. And it breaks my heart to think that they have suffered so needlessly these last 2 1/2 years, simply because of the incompetence of the * administration. Katrina blew the whole thing open for me. That the equivalent to FEMA has been blundering in Iraq since the moment tanks rolled into Baghdad, and failed to get law and order. The only reason why it's better here than there was that the mayor of NO had a major temper tantrum on talk radio, sending an SOS to * to get off his ass!!!! That and the media's own outrage that they could not contain. But the Iraqi people are the "other", not understood at all, so there was no political pressure to fix things back in April 2003 (which, by the way, meant sending an additional 200,000 troops, in my view).

As far as Bush and some master plan in Iraq, my thinking is not of a conspiratorial nature. I think there IS no plan. He doesn't even KNOW there's a problem there. So if there's no problem, then there's no plan to solve it. As much as the conspiracy theories are a comfort -- the oil angle, the Halliburton angle, any other angles? -- they are too complex an answer to what can be a simple explanation. The simple explanation is that the * administration is completely, unequivocally incompetent. They don't know what the HELL they're doing. The ONLY thing they're good at is political hardball. But we mustn't confuse the brilliant Karl Rove 2004 campaign extravaganza (come on, admit it, they were nearly flawless) and *'s campaigning skills to have ANY relation to their ability to govern. That's BORING, and NO FUN. Notice how * was a complete failure dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and things didn't get into stride until Rove decided they were going to attack local and state officials. That's what they're good at (esp. with the help of Fox News, the RW blogosphere, and talk radio). Of course, that's got to be the most useless set of skills a WH should have when ACTION, not a "blame game", is what is needed!!!

Oh, and one more thing. Anyone else disheartened by the fact that * STILL has a 41% approval rating? The only people who are as clueless as the president are his followers. They must be a disciplined bunch of "folks" being careful to only watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh. I'm sure they're throwing away their local papers, "those liberal rags", when bad news is all that comes out. I'm more discouraged by that poll than anything else, because in a worst case scenario, Allen (yeah, my Senator Barfbag), gets elected pres. in 2008 by these idiots, and then we're stuck AGAIN with a clueless, dimwitted neo-con!!

Okay, somebody cheer me up NOW.

[TayTay]

13. Well, the numbers for Bush are not good

Here is the independent comfirmation of Juan Cole's stuff: http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5600093.html

Bush's numbers are much worse than what you cited above. He is in deep, deep trouble. And the Rethugs are starting to pull away from him in droves. He has lost the mantle of 'strong leader' that carried him through the election last year. It's gone. It was the single foundation that held up his Admin. Not social security, not health care, not jobs, not the economy and not judicial activism. He is not a 'strong leader' and there is no way to spin that back.

Remember, we will never get all the voters back who have 'drunk the Kool-aid.' We don't need to to affect change at the ballot box. We need to get back 1 in 15. That, believe it or not, is an electoral tsunami. So, don't be discouraged that all Rethugs are not screaming that they were lied to. Enough are screaming that they were lied to. Remember, the independent voters have turned against Bush. Now we need just 1 in 15 or 1 in 20 Rethugs to do so. And it is happening.

[beachmom]

17. Thanks for the 2nd source, Tay Tay!

Somehow Juan Cole turns good news into bad news, though. This is a good development, although it originally would not be what we would have wanted, but beggars can't be choosers. Kerry talked about this in his speech in the Senate in June -- using local militias to maintain order. It made me nervous, since it strengthens the possibility of a civil war, but it is perhaps the least worst option.

On the polls, I thought he HAS been in the low 40s for months. I want to see the 30s. And across the board in all polls ranging from 32 to 36% approval rating. THEN, I will be satisfied. For me, 41% is too high. His approval ratings have not been great except for after 9/11. I consider myself to be a bit of a "Kerry Kool Aid Drinker", but I parted my way with him on gay marriage and that religious freedom (so that pharmacists could not fill birth control pill prescrips) bill co-sponsored with Santorum. I hope that if Kerry had blundered this badly, I would be in the disapproval rating number, too. Intellectual honesty will ALWAYS come before candidate or party for me. So I guess I am a card carrying member of the "reality based community". In regards to Independents, I come from an Independent family who all (except one member) voted for Kerry. He won that group, although he needed a larger margin to have won the whole election.

Anyway, if you have a link to how his approval ratings are so bad, that would be great, but if it's too much trouble, don't worry. I was just curious.

[TayTay]

18. Pew Center poll

http://people-press.org/

Wow! These are horrible numbers.

Even so, we have to get the people to turn toward the Dems. It's not enough to have them pissed at Rethugs. We have to give them an alternative.

[beachmom]

23. Thanks, Tay Tay

I think you are one of the most resourceful internet friends I know!! I agree with you on the Dems, but as I posted in another thread, I don't see how they can overcome the power vaccuum and decide on one voice. I think it has to be done in '06, district by district, candidate by candidate. To scream from the top down probably won't work, although it would make us all feel better. Then the RW attack dogs would erase anything that had been gained. Pelosi and Reid are staying within their jurisdictions (Congressional oversight), and although it doesn't feel like enough, it's really all they can do without turning into demagogues. But liberal pundits need to step up to the plate with the Dem message. Like how about this one:

If Republicans think that government is the problem, not the solution, then they'll NEVER be able to run it!!!!! The Democrats RESPECT government's place in our lives, and will restore a government that WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE!!!

or

The Democrats believe that government is there for national security. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats will do everything in their power to protect the American people from bodily harm, poverty in retirement, and financial catastrophe in sickness. They will be THERE for you, in sickness AND in good health. The Republicans only reward those who are already healthy and wealthy, leaving the poor and sick behind.

Hey, maybe they can use the wedding vow as a slogan. We will be there for you in sickness AND in health. National Security, Social Security, Health Security. The 3 S's.

[karynnj]

26. From what I read, the religious freedom amendment

didn't do that. Rather it allowed a pharamasist to refuse to fill a prescription ONLY if there was another pharmasist on the premises who would fill it. This was designed to balance the two needs and in fact gave more weight to filling the perscription. (This is what I remember from a Kerry/Santorum LTE to the NYT on the issue. Even writing those 2 names together is yucky! From the description of the legislation, it seemed that Kerry was using Santorum not the other way around - and that it was a bill he has pushed since the 90s)

[sandnsea]

21. 2nd look at the 41%

The poll that had the 11 categories yesterday... take out the 53% for the "war on terror", calculate the remaining ten categories and you get an approval of 31%. Whatever the hell the "war on terror" means to people, it's the only thing that's keeping his numbers anywhere near good. If we continue to connect the complete lack of response in New Orleans to a terrorist attack, then I would imagine those numbers will go down to.

I'll have to think about the rest of your post, I'm only on my first cup. I've went back and forth between thinking they'll bail on Iraq as soon as they can to they'll stay there until the last person in this country is dead to make their point, whatever the point is.

[whometense]

24. Don't fret.

Jenna and Not-Jenna will still be here to repopulate the planet. :sarcasm:

[ginnyinWI]

28. thanks for the interesting thread, everyone

I've been down with a bad cold (flu?) this week and have not had the brain cells available to post very much, but I've been reading. Feeling a little better today.

I'm glad to hear that Kerry seems to be trying to mitigate the damage to the Iraqi people as we lose and pull out of Iraq. If there is any way to make the situation any worse, you can bet * and Co. will find a way! I'm glad Kerry is on this.

The whole subject of the invasion of Iraq is so complex! It doesn't fit into a soundbite or 30 second commercial. Its complexities seem to sail over the heads of most people at DU--with them it's either "full-out support" of * and his war, or "pull out right now", consequences be damned! Just as Kerry said of the start of the war, "There was a right way and a wrong way. George Bush chose the wrong way." Likewise there is a "right way" and "wrong way" to leave Iraq. Trust * to choose the wrong, selfish way if it is politically expedient.

Each mistake that *co. makes piles on the last, until sooner or later a lot of his supporters (not the religious right wing though) will finally say "enough!". They they will recall all of the previous stuff which they had given him a pass on and change their minds on the whole ball of wax. I only hope it translates to a deep suspicion of all Republicans and their basic small-government ideology--which has been shown plainly to have failed.

[whometense]

29. I missed you.

Glad you're feeling better!

[ginnyinWI]

30. aw, thanks!

:pals:

[TayTay]

31. I hope you feel better.

Summer colds are the worst.

Virtual chicken soup for you, with matzo balls.

[karynnj]

34. Hope you're feeling better now