The lesson here is that we need to keep funding the DNC. Those of us who signed on to support this election need to keep sending in whatever we can afford toward the next election. Those are today's realities. For tomorrow: I want to see some reform of election funding. I believe it should be done strictly from public money. Get special interest clout out of politics!

Our Darling Smart Governor Dean, It was your 50 state strategy that did the trick. Where would the Democrats be without you. Thank you again and we all love you even those that didn't know it was you that made the difference. Love, DVM a good Democrat.

Howard Dean fought when the rest of the Democrates layed down. He has carried the Democrates to a glorious victory and should be congratulated for that.
James Carvel is a good man whom sometimes should keep his mouth shut.

We cannot stop now. We have to keep the money coming. I have not stopped my Democracy Bond. And I will give more money as the year goes on. Just because we won this battle does not mean we have won the war. We can win the war if the people we help put in office do what they say they are going to do. If they sit back and collect there paycheck we will have the Republicans again. And this time they will really take us for ride.

Take that, Carville.You stanky drunken old fart.You make me sick. Get lost. I'm glad I never got around to buying your book.Looks like we "TOOK IT BACK" without your help and your stupid advice.All you got left is your little "appearances"on CNN.You know what that means? Your a HAS BEEN.Your so 1992 and outdated.

GFY WTH!

Howard Dean gets my kudo's for his efforts for all of the democratic party. I just hope he continues to fight for us now and in the future!

AL GORE, ALTHOUGH "LOSING" TO PRESIDENT BUSH IN 2000, STILL RECEIVED MORE POPULAR VOTES THAN BUSH DID AND DEFINITELY WOULD IMPROVE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE USA (THAT BUSH SEVERLEY DAMAGED) AND OUR ALLIES AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. AL GORE, AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, HAS CREDIBILITY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE "STIGMA" OF LOSING TO BUSH AS SENATOR KERRY DOES (MANY BELIEVE, AS I DO, THAT THE 2000 ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM HIM).

WHAT IS GOOD FOR SENATOR KERRY IS THAT THE ANTI-BUSH SENTIMENT IN THE WORLD AND EVER GROWING IN THE USA PROVES THAT HE WAS FAR MORE CORRECT THAN BUSH IN 2004 AND HIS MILITARY BACKGROUND.

WHOMEVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHOOSES, PUBLIC UNITY IS ESSENTIAL AND PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT IS MORE POPULAR WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS IT IS A NO-LOSE SITUATION. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GIVEN CREDIT OR BUSH VETOES AND THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD.

THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WILL LIKELY BE SENATOR MCCAIN (WHOM I PERSONALLY LIKE), YET HE IS ASSOCIATED WORLD-WIDE AS A REPUBLICAN (BUSH) AND THIS WILL DAMPER ALL INTERNATIONAL PEACE EFFORTS.

PRESIDENT CARTER SHOULD BE USED LATER ON AS WHICH PARTY (THE DEMOCRATS) INFLUENCED SOME LEVEL OF MID-EAST PEACE (CAMP DAVID, ISRAEL-EGYPT).

THE DEMOCRATS MUST REMAIN UNIFIED AND REALIZE THAT THE USA WILL LOOK FOR A STRONG, MALE LEADER

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO SENATOR CLINTON (WHOM I WOULD VOTE FOR AS PRESIDENT), I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD VOTE FOR A FEMALE, AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, A MINORITY, AND DEFINITELY A HOMOSEXUAL (I AM ONE, SO PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED) IN THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES:

1) IRAQ
2) OSAMA
3) ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, ETC...
4) IRAN
5) NORTH KOREA
6) SYRIA
7) CHINA
8) RUSSIA
9) TRADE
10) ENVIRONMENT (GOOD FOR GORE)

NATIONAL ISSUES:

1) MINIMUM WAGE/POLITICAL CENTER AND PERSONAL INTERESTS OF AMERICANS
2) CIVIL RIGHTS (THAT BUSH DESTROYED)
3) CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES (THAT BUSH DESTROYED)
4) IF THE "CHECKS AND BALANCES" ARE NOT RESTORED, THEN ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WILL HAVE THIS EXCESSIVE POWER.

THE USA CONSTITUTION DEMANDS JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND DUE PROCESS.

Here is a quote from Justice Arthur Goldberg that emphasizes that point:

"It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our Constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental Constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action."

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

ADOLF HITLER

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"Universal educational is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

Compare those quotes to some of the greatest leaders of the world: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (17

06-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.”

Senator Barry Goldwater. 1909-1998

“Don't be a fool and die for your country. Make the other fool die for his country.”

General George S. Patton. 1885-1945

“The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.”

“If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”

President James Madison. 1751-1836

November 14, 2006
Are Democrats Turning A Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?

by Paul Craig Roberts
Unless November's new blood improves the Democratic Party's civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.
In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.
The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.
With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.
The Bush regime perpetrated a coup d'état against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.
Judging by Democrats' statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention, and domestic spying.
If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of U.S. civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.
Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."
Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.
Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the U.S. Constitution? One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.
Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure. In other words, you are guilty if charged.
As the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these Gestapo police-state proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy combatant." He was held in a U.S. prison for three and one-half years with no charges and no warrant. He was kept in isolated confinement, tortured, and denied legal representation.
In order to avoid U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years of Padilla's life. However, the charges have no relationship to the Bush regime's original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American, was an al-Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in an American city. The U.S. government no longer designates Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge has disappeared, and U.S. Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has criticized the government's indictment as vague with sketchy evidence "weak on facts."
The reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely without evidence is that it has no evidence. The reason the Bush regime passed torture legislation is in order to produce the missing evidence by torturing a suspect into self-incrimination. "Evidence" procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices that now pass for U.S. justice, then they, too, have failed the American people.

www.alternet.org

AL GORE, ALTHOUGH "LOSING" TO PRESIDENT BUSH IN 2000, STILL RECEIVED MORE POPULAR VOTES THAN BUSH DID AND DEFINITELY WOULD IMPROVE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE USA (THAT BUSH SEVERLEY DAMAGED) AND OUR ALLIES AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. AL GORE, AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, HAS CREDIBILITY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE "STIGMA" OF LOSING TO BUSH AS SENATOR KERRY DOES (MANY BELIEVE, AS I DO, THAT THE 2000 ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM HIM).

WHAT IS GOOD FOR SENATOR KERRY IS THAT THE ANTI-BUSH SENTIMENT IN THE WORLD AND EVER GROWING IN THE USA PROVES THAT HE WAS FAR MORE CORRECT THAN BUSH IN 2004 AND HIS MILITARY BACKGROUND.

WHOMEVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHOOSES, PUBLIC UNITY IS ESSENTIAL AND PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT IS MORE POPULAR WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS IT IS A NO-LOSE SITUATION. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GIVEN CREDIT OR BUSH VETOES AND THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD.

THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WILL LIKELY BE SENATOR MCCAIN (WHOM I PERSONALLY LIKE), YET HE IS ASSOCIATED WORLD-WIDE AS A REPUBLICAN (BUSH) AND THIS WILL DAMPER ALL INTERNATIONAL PEACE EFFORTS.

PRESIDENT CARTER SHOULD BE USED LATER ON AS WHICH PARTY (THE DEMOCRATS) INFLUENCED SOME LEVEL OF MID-EAST PEACE (CAMP DAVID, ISRAEL-EGYPT).

THE DEMOCRATS MUST REMAIN UNIFIED AND REALIZE THAT THE USA WILL LOOK FOR A STRONG, MALE LEADER

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO SENATOR CLINTON (WHOM I WOULD VOTE FOR AS PRESIDENT), I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD VOTE FOR A FEMALE, AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, A MINORITY, AND DEFINITELY A HOMOSEXUAL (I AM ONE, SO PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED) IN THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES:

1) IRAQ
2) OSAMA
3) ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, ETC...
4) IRAN
5) NORTH KOREA
6) SYRIA
7) CHINA
8) RUSSIA
9) TRADE
10) ENVIRONMENT (GOOD FOR GORE)

NATIONAL ISSUES:

1) MINIMUM WAGE/POLITICAL CENTER AND PERSONAL INTERESTS OF AMERICANS
2) CIVIL RIGHTS (THAT BUSH DESTROYED)
3) CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES (THAT BUSH DESTROYED)
4) IF THE "CHECKS AND BALANCES" ARE NOT RESTORED, THEN ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WILL HAVE THIS EXCESSIVE POWER.

THE USA CONSTITUTION DEMANDS JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND DUE PROCESS.

Here is a quote from Justice Arthur Goldberg that emphasizes that point:

"It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our Constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental Constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action."

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

ADOLF HITLER

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"Universal educational is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

Compare those quotes to some of the greatest leaders of the world: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (17

06-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.”

Senator Barry Goldwater. 1909-1998

“Don't be a fool and die for your country. Make the other fool die for his country.”

General George S. Patton. 1885-1945

“The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.”

“If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”

President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”

President James Madison. 1751-1836

November 14, 2006
Are Democrats Turning A Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?

by Paul Craig Roberts
Unless November's new blood improves the Democratic Party's civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.
In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.
The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.
With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.
The Bush regime perpetrated a coup d'état against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.
Judging by Democrats' statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention, and domestic spying.
If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of U.S. civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.
Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."
Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.
Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the U.S. Constitution? One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.
Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure. In other words, you are guilty if charged.
As the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these Gestapo police-state proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy combatant." He was held in a U.S. prison for three and one-half years with no charges and no warrant. He was kept in isolated confinement, tortured, and denied legal representation.
In order to avoid U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years of Padilla's life. However, the charges have no relationship to the Bush regime's original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American, was an al-Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in an American city. The U.S. government no longer designates Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge has disappeared, and U.S. Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has criticized the government's indictment as vague with sketchy evidence "weak on facts."
The reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely without evidence is that it has no evidence. The reason the Bush regime passed torture legislation is in order to produce the missing evidence by torturing a suspect into self-incrimination. "Evidence" procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices that now pass for U.S. justice, then they, too, have failed the American people.

www.alternet.org

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GOVERNOR DEAN!!!!!!!!!

Happy Birthday Governor Dean. You may not get any support from DLC Republican-democrats, but you sure get plenty of support from the GRASS ROOTS MAJORITY of which I am a part of that 70%.

Governor Dean, YOU are the only leader of the GRASS ROOTS DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA MOVEMENT that represents the will of the people, the GRASS ROOTS BASE of the Democratic Party.

With Governor Howard Dean, M.D. as leader of the GRASS ROOTS BASE of the Democratic Party the Democratic Party is no longer out of power. Governor Dean has with the help of GOD miraculously led the Democratic Party BASE to MAJORITY CONTROL of the Government of the United States, a VICTORY that ONLY GOVERNOR DEAN DESERVES.

Others helped, but Governor Dean is the leader who made it happen. Without Governor Dean's LEADERSHIP the Democratic Party would still be kowtowing to the REPUBLICANS like the DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats continue to do.

VICTORY ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 FOR MAJORITY CONTROL IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BELONGS TO GOD, GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN, M.D. and WE THE PEOPLE.

WE THE PEOPLE, the GRASS ROOTS of the Democratic Party, the WORKING AND POOR CLASS AND CULTURE, must NOT let DLC REPUBLICAN-democratic traitors REFRAME Governor Dean's VICTORY as their victory since REPUBLICANS own and control all the media.

DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats are doing their best to get in front of the DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA MOVEMENT and take credit for victory as if the victory is theirs and the victory was not won for the people by any DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats.

DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats have fought against Governor Dean's Democracy Movement from the get go and they have fought hard as anyone who democratically blogs can attest. Prior to Governor Dean becoming Chairman of the DNC democratic bloggers were kicked off the DNC Blog regularly for voicing their democratic opposition to the DLC Conservative RIGHT-WING of the Democratic Party. After Governor Dean became Chairman of the DNC WE THE PEOPLE'S democratic voices were allowed to be heard on the DLC Blog.

DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats continue to fight hard against democracy by trying to take control of the DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA MOVEMENT that they had nothing to do with at all. NO WAY WILL I ROLL OVER AND GIVE THE VICTORY TO THE ENEMY.

THE DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats are RESPONSIBLE for complicit cooperation with the REPUBLICAN PARTY and it is at best unseemly for DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats to be making claims that THEY are the ones who brought the Democratic Party back into control.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D. is the man who made it happen for WE THE PEOPLE and WE THE PEOPLE had better not allow ourselves to be led astray back into the same hole WE THE PEOPLE was in before November 7, 2006.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D. is the LEADER OF THE PEOPLE and is responsible for the Democratic Party BASE, THE GRASS ROOTS.

DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats can in NO WAY take ANY CREDIT for the Democratic Party VICTORY of WE THE PEOPLE.

WE THE PEOPLE, the base of the Democratic Party, choose Governor Howard Dean, M.D to lead the Democratic Party and choose the leaders that will best represent the interests of WE THE PEOPLE, the GRASS ROOTS BASE.

WE THE PEOPLE, the base of the Democratic Party, choose Governor Howard Dean, M.D to make his choice of LEADERS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and NO ONE ELSE because Governor Howard Dean, M.D. will choose leaders that will represent the interests of WE THE PEOPLE, the GRASS ROOTS BASE in the best interest of WE THE PEOPLE, the GRASS ROOTS BASE.

GOVERNOR DEAN is not responsible for party members that are doing their best to subvert the party and take the party away from WE THE PEOPLE.

GOD BLESS GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN, M.D. and in the NAME OF JESUS, whose NAME is above ALL names, GOVERNOR DEAN WILL NOT LET THE DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats steal his JOY, his RIGHT and his LOVE that projected a VICTORY for WE THE PEOPLE. DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats had NO PART AT ALL in the GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT of the Democratic Party and tried to fight it ALL THE WAY; now, they are trying to get in front of Governor Howard Dean's Winning Movement in order to take control away from WE THE PEOPLE and WE THE PEOPLE must rise up and not allow our winning and victorious movement to be subverted by DLC traitors of WE THE PEOPLE.

PINKY AND THE BRAIN GOVERNMENT AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

DLC Republican-democrats are metaphorically represented by "Pinky", and the REPUBLICAN PARTY is metaphorically represented by "The Brain"; politics of the DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats and the REPUBLICAN PARTY that has involved the United States in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and a culture of corruption and incompetence is metaphorically represented by Stephen Spielberg's Cartoon Series, "Pinky and the Brain".

The whole gang of complicit cooperators with the REPUBLICAN PARTY that are DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats are a gang of EVIL "Pinkys" and the REPUBLICAN PARTY is a lock step gang of EVIL "Brains".

The exploits of the DLC REPUBLICAN-democrats and the REPUBLICAN PARTY are extrapolated from scripts of "Pinky and the Brain", and would be funny if the American people had not taken their agenda seriously, as it is the results are tragic and all of the American public, men, women and children will be paying for what these " EVIL" REPUBLICAN-Democratic Party Pinkys and REPUBLICAN PARTY "Brains" have committed the American people to for generations to come.

It is tragic irony that the American people let "Pinky and the Brain" rule as the government of the United States and try to "take over the world" with the Satanic New World Order.

**************STAR CHAMBER***************

Because the DLC REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP of the Democratic Party is complicit with the REPUBLICAN PARTY and both National and Global Commercial Interests in the creation of first a National and secondarily, a "Star Chamber", I will be making some post on this "Star Chamber" topic, and as a prologue, a precursor to posts on the topic of the "Star Chamber", this post as follows is a brief tutorial on the history of what a "Star Chamber" is, so that there will be better understanding of future posts on the topic of the development of a New World Order "STAR CHAMBER" by global commercial interests:

STAR CHAMBER was the name of an OLD English Court of Law. It included a chancellor, a treasurer, the keeper of the privy seal, several justices, and a lord. Its trials were without jury and it could pass any sentence except death.

As time went on, the Star Chamber developed many abuses, among them the torturing of prisoners in order to get confessions. Its procedure did not follow the rules of Common Law which protected the accused. During the reign of Charles I (1625-1649), the Star Chamber became notorious for its support of the despotic actions of the king. By means of secret trials and arbitrary judgments it suppressed the opponents of Charles, and aroused popular fury. In 1641, the Long Parliament abolished the Star Chamber.

The term star chamber now refers to arbitrary and secret meetings or other actions by any tribunal or authoritative body.

Charles I (1600-1649) became king in 1625. During the next four years, he called three parliments and dissolved each one because the members would not submit to his demands. In 1628, he accepted the Petition of Right drawn up by the third Parliment. But he violated it by raising money through unlawful taxes and loans.

From 1629 to 1640, Charles ruled without Parliment. In 1639, he tried to force Scotland to use English forms of worship, and the Scots rebelled. Charles had to call Parliament to obtain the money he needed to fight the rebels. He dismissed one Parliament after three weeks, but had to summon another, the Long Parliament. It met from 1640 to 1653, and held its last session in 1660. When the king tried to seize five Parliamentary leaders in 1642, civil war broke out. Charles had the support of most of the nobility, gentry, and clergy. The Puritans and the Merchant Class supported Parliament. Oliver Cromwell became the leader of the Parliamentary Army. His victories at Marston Moor in 1644 and at Naseby in 1645 brought the war to an end. Charles fled to Scotland, but the Scottish leaders turned him over to Parliament. In 1649, Charles was convicted of treason and was beheaded. He met his death bravely. England became a commonwealth, and later a protectorate.

(Above information from the World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1962, U.S.A. by Field Enterprises Educational Corporation.)
Rea

Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked
By Rob Kall
OpEd News

Friday 17 November 2006

Results skewed nationwide in favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes.

A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in US House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

"We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.

"The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is a nothing less than a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!"

"The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few weeks before the election. It looks for all the world that they'd already figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't enough," Castleman commented.

Election Defense Alliance data analysis team leader Bruce O'Dell, whose expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions, stated, "The logistics of mass software distribution to tens or even hundreds of thousands of voting machines in the field would demand advance planning - at least several weeks - for anyone attempting very large-scale, systematic e-voting fraud, particularly in those counties that allow election equipment to be taken home by poll workers prior to the election.

"The voting equipment seems to be designed to support two types of vote count manipulation - techniques accessible to those with hands-on access to the machines in a county or jurisdiction, and wholesale vulnerabilities in the underlying behavior of the systems which are most readily available to the vendors themselves. Malicious insiders at any of the vendors would be in a position to alter the behavior of literally thousands of machines by infecting or corrupting the master copy of the software that's cloned out to the machines in the field. And the groundwork could be laid well in advance. For this election, it appears that such changes would have to have been done by early October at the latest," O'Dell explained.

In a reprise of his efforts on Election Night 2004, Jonathan Simon captured the unadjusted National Election pool (NEP) data as posted on CNN.com, before it was later "adjusted" to match the actual vote counts. The exit poll data that is seen now on the CNN site has been adjusted already. But Simon points out that both adjusted and unadjusted data were instrumental to exposing the gross miscount.

Simon, surprised that unadjusted polling data was publicly revealed, given the concerns after the 2004 election about the use of exit polls, downloaded as much of the data as he could in real time. Scheduled and planned revisions on the CNN site took place throughout the evening and by the following morning, the unadjusted exit poll data had been replaced with data that conformed with the reported, official vote totals. This was the planned procedure as indicated by the NEP's methodology.

Adjusting the exit poll data is, by itself, not a troublesome act. Simon explained, "Their advertised reason to do the exit polls is to enable analysis of the results by academic researchers - they study the election dynamics and demographics so they can understand which demographic groups voted what ways. As an analytic tool, the exit poll is considered more serviceable if it matches the vote count. Since the vote count is assumed to be gospel, congruence with that count is therefore assumed to give the most accurate picture of the behavior of the electorate and its subgroups.

"In 2004 they had to weight it very heavily, to the point that the party turnout was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican, which has never been the case - leading to the claim that Rove turned out the Republican vote. This was nowhere witnessed, no lines in Republican voting places were reported. As ridiculous as that was, the distortion of actual turnout was even greater in 2006. The adjusted poll's sample, to match the vote count, had to consist of 49% 2004 Bush voters and only 43% 2004 Kerry voters, more than twice the actual margin of 2.8%. This may not seem like that much, but it translates into more than a 3,000,000 vote shift nationwide, which, depending on targeting, was enough to have altered the outcome of dozens of federal races.

"It should be very clear that weighting by a variety of carefully selected demographic categories, which yields the pre-adjustment exit polls, presents a truly representative electorate by every available standard except the vote count in the present election. So you have a choice: you can believe in an electorate composed of the correct proportions of men and women, young and old, rural and urban, ethnic and income groups, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - or you can believe the machines. Anyone who has ever wondered what is really in a hot dog should be aware that the machines are designed, programmed, deployed, and serviced by avowedly partisan vendors, and can easily be set up to generate entirely false counts with no one the wiser, least of all the voters."

Simon concluded, "These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately - that, first and foremost, has to change."

Election Defense Alliance issued the following statement:

As in 2004, the exit polling data and the reported election results don't add up. "But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology which establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and challenges the accuracy of the election returns," said Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance. The Exit Poll findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA website.

The 2006 Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll was commissioned by a consortium of major news organizations. Its conclusions were based on the responses of a very large sample, of over ten thousand voters nationwide*, and posted at 7:07 p.m. Election Night, on the CNN website. That Exit Poll showed Democratic House candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent - an 11.5 percent margin - in the total vote for the US House, sometimes referred to as the "generic" vote.

By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. House ... 3.9 percent less than the Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll's +/- 1 percent margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by chance.

By Wednesday afternoon the Edison-Mitofsky poll had been adjusted, by a process known as "forcing," to match the reported vote totals for the election. This forcing process is done to supply data for future demographic analysis, the main purpose of the Exit Poll. It involved re-weighting every response so that the sum of those responses matched the reported election results. The final result, posted at 1:00 p.m. November 8, showed the adjusted Democratic vote at 52.6 percent and the Republican vote at 45.0 percent, a 7.6 percent margin exactly mirroring the reported vote totals.

The forcing process in this instance reveals a great deal. The Party affiliation of the respondents in the original 7:07 p.m. election night Exit Poll closely reflected the 2004 Bush-Kerry election margin. After the forcing process, 49-percent of respondents reported voting for Republican George W. Bush in 2004, while only 43-percent reported voting for Democrat John Kerry. This 6-percent gap is more than twice the size of the actual 2004 Bush margin of 2.8 percent, and a clear distortion of the 2006 electorate.

There is a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 Exit Poll. It simply does not reflect the actual turnout on Election Day 2006.

EDA's Simon says, "It required some incredible distortions of the demographic data within the poll to bring about the match with reported vote totals. It not only makes the adjusted Exit Poll inaccurate, it also reveals the corresponding inaccuracy of the reported election returns which it was forced to equal. The Democratic margin of victory in US House races was substantially larger than indicated by the election returns."

"Many will fall into the trap of using this adjusted poll to justify inaccurate official vote counts, and vice versa," adds Bruce O'Dell, EDA's Data Analysis Coordinator, "but that's just arguing in circles. The adjusted exit poll is a statistical illusion. The weighted but unadjusted 7 pm exit poll, which sampled the correct proportion of Kerry and Bush voters and also indicated a much larger Democratic margin, got it right." O'Dell and Simon's paper, detailing their analysis of the exit polls and related data, is now posted on the EDA website.

The Election Defense Alliance continues to work with other election integrity groups around the country to analyze the results of specific House and Senate races. That data and any evidence of election fraud, malicious attacks on election systems, or other malfunctions that may shed more light on the discrepancy between exit polls and election results will be reported on EDA's website.

This controversy comes amid growing public concern about the security and accuracy of electronic voting machines, used to count approximately 80 percent of the votes cast in the 2006 election. The Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy, in a September 2006 study, was the latest respected institution to expose significant flaws in the design and software of one of the most popular electronic touch-screen voting machines, the AccuVote-TS, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. The Princeton report described the machine as "vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." These particular machines were used to count an estimated 10 percent of votes on Election Day 2006.

A separate "Security Assessment of the Diebold Optical Scan Voting Terminal," released by the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center and Department of Computer Science and Engineering last month, concluded that Diebold's Accuvote-OS machines, optical scanners which tabulate votes cast on paper ballots, are also vulnerable to "a devastating array of attacks." Accuvote-OS machines are even more widely used than the AccuVote-TS.

Similar vulnerabilities affect other voting equipment manufacturers, as revealed last summer in a study by the Brennan Center at New York University which noted all of America's computerized voting systems "have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections."

The most prudent response to this controversy is a moratorium on the further implementation of computerized voting systems. EDA's O'Dell cautioned, "It is so abundantly clear that these machines are not secure, there's no justification for blind confidence in the election system given such dramatic indications of problems with the official vote tally." And EDA's Simon summarized, "There has been a rush by some to celebrate 2006 as a fair election, but a Democratic victory does not equate with a fair election. It's wishful thinking at best to believe that the danger of massive election rigging is somehow past."

EDA continues to call for a moratorium on the deployment of electronic voting machines in US elections; passage of H.R. 6200, which would require hand-counted paper ballots for presidential elections beginning in 2008; and adoption of the Universal Precinct Sample (UPS) handcount sampling protocol for verification of federal elections as long as electronic election equipment remains in use.

The Exit Poll analysis is a part of Election Defense Alliance's six-point strategy to defend the accuracy and transparency of the 2006 elections. In addition to extensive analysis of polling data, EDA has been engaged in independent exit polling, election monitoring, legal interventions, and documentation of election irregularities.

*The sample was a national sample of all voters who voted in House races. It was drawn just like the 2004 sample of the presidential popular vote. That is, precincts were chosen to yield a representative (once stratified) sample of all voters wherever they lived/voted - including early and absentee voters and voters in districts where House candidates ran unopposed but were listed on the ballot and therefore could receive votes. As such, the national sample EDA worked with is exactly comparable to the total aggregate vote for the House that we derived from reported vote totals and from close estimates in cases of the few unopposed candidates where 2006 figures were unavailable but prior elections could be used as proxy. It is a very large sampling of the national total, with a correspondingly small (+/-1%) MOE. There were four individual districts sampled for reasons known only to Edison/Mitofsky

About Election Defense Alliance

The purpose of EDA is to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the election integrity movement, in order to regain public control of the voting process in the United States. Its goal is to insure that the election process is transparent, secure, verifiable, and worthy of the public trust. EDA fosters coordination, resource-sharing, and cohesive strategic planning for a nationwide grassroots network of citizen election integrity advocates.

Jonathan Simon, Co-founder, Election Defense Alliance. He is an attorney whose prior work as a polling analyst with Peter D. Hart Research Associates helped persuade him of the importance of an exit poll-based election "alarm system." 617.538.6012 jonathan@electiondefensealliance.org

Bruce O'Dell is head of the Election Defense Alliance Data Analysis Team. His expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions. 612.309.1330 bodell@electiondefensealliance.org

Sally Castleman, National Chairperson, Election Defense Alliance. She has worked to recruit and train attorneys and scientists for election integrity roles. She has a long career in grassroots political activism and comes to EDA from Boston-based Coalition Against Election Fraud. 781.454.8700 sallyc@electiondefensealliance.org

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.

-------

In 2008 the REPUBLICANS won't make the same mistake, WE THE PEOPLE had better get rid of those Diebold Voting Machines NOW and forever while we are in power, so that fraud can not be perpetrated so easily against WE THE PEOPLE. It would seem to me, since there is clear evidence, heads should be rolling or at least prison sentences being prepared.

Way to go Howard! I think Dean has the Democratic Party on the right track. Keep up the good work.

As commented above, the RNC tampered with the electronic boxes. Investigators were quizzical since no Democratic incumbent lost.

Well, guess what they found out on further inspection?

In typical Republican fashion, the RNC screwed up and gave the rigged votes to the wrong candidate - the democratic one! Way to go RNC! :-)

My viewpoint? We cant win this war, but we help to SUPPRESS the terrorists. We cant pull out, we must reduce our troops and become elite effective troops, that can quickly, pull in and make a difference and then leave.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: Pentagon panels sees three options in Iraq: report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon panels sees three options in Iraq: report Mon Nov 20, 12:49 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon panel has outlined three basic options for improving the situation in Iraq -- pull out, send more U.S. troops or reduce the size of the force but stay longer, The Washington Post reported on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The group was likely to recommend a combination of a small short-term increase of U.S. troops and long-term training for Iraqi forces, the newspaper reported, citing senior defense officials.

The options have been dubbed "Go Home," "Go Big" and "Go Longer" by insiders.

Sources who have been briefed on the review, led by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the group had concluded there were not enough U.S. forces to "Go Big," sending in thousands more troops, the Post said.

"Go Home," the quick pullout option, was rejected as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown civil war, the Post said.

The Pentagon group devised a hybrid plan, "Go Long," which calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence combined with a long-term expansion of the training and advising of Iraqi forces, the newspaper said.

The officials said that under the mixture of options, the U.S. presence in Iraq would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the newspaper said. Currently there are around 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress this month, have vowed to push for a withdrawal from Iraq in the next few months.

President George W. Bush has insisted U.S. troops would not leave until Iraqis can take over security and has repeatedly rejected setting a timetable for withdrawal. However, the White House has said that Bush is open to new ideas.

In addition to the Pentagon, other U.S. national security agencies will review Iraq strategy. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group is considering alternative approaches as well.

With the vote rigging that went on it may have made a difference on some elections?The Democrats may have a bigger majority than we think!This is something that must be corrected right away!These machines need to be made tamper proof or trashed!This cannot be allowed!

Published on Sunday, November 19, 2006 by the New York Times

It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided by Frank Rich

Elections may come and go, but Washington remains incorrigible. Not even voters delivering a clear message can topple the town's conventional wisdom once it has been set in the stone of punditry.

Right now the capital is entranced by a fictional story line about the Democrats. As this narrative goes, the party’s sweep of Congress was more or less an accident. The victory had little to do with the Democrats’ actual beliefs and was instead solely the result of President Bush’s unpopularity and a cunning backroom stunt by the campaign Machiavellis, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, to enlist a smattering of “conservative” candidates to run in red states. In this retelling of the 2006 election, the signature race took place in Montana, where the victor was a gun-toting farmer with a flattop haircut: i.e., a Democrat in Republican drag. And now the party is deeply divided as its old liberals and new conservatives converge on Capitol Hill to slug it out.

The only problem with this version of events is that it’s not true. The overwhelming majority of the Democratic winners, including Jon Tester of Montana, are to the left of most Republicans, whether on economic policy or abortion. For all of the hyperventilation devoted to the Steny Hoyer-John Murtha bout for the House leadership, the final count was lopsided next to the one-vote margin in the G.O.P. Senate intramural that yielded that paragon of “unity,” Trent Lott. But the most telling barometer is the election’s defining issue: there is far more unanimity among Democrats about Iraq than there is among Republicans. Disengaging America from that war is what the country voted for overwhelmingly on Nov. 7, and that’s what the Democrats almost uniformly promised to speed up, whatever their vague, often inchoate notions about how to do it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1119-22.htm

A fantasy-based reality... by Rick Diamond
Published Sunday, 11/19/06 @ 12:57 pm

President Clinton has been traveling the country delivering a wonderful speech that draws the distinction between philosophy and ideology. Democrats employ the former. Republicans follow the latter. This distinction is the key to understanding the polarization in America.

Philosophies are written on paper. Ideologies are written in stone Philosophies are written by human beings dealing with the real world and searching for better ways to deal with that world. Ideologies are written by invisible, unknowable "beings" who can't be questioned (or who don't actually answer when they are--key word: "actually".)

After nearly six years of living under an ideology-following leadership, ninety-five per cent of us are less wealthy, less free, and less safe. The governing "principles" of our administration were not assembled using thousands of years of human precedence; they were pulled from the stars, the heavens, the ether, the campfire stories of unschooled, scared nomads living thousands of years ago. Governing by ideals doesn't work: "Everyone should pull his or her own weight" Well, some can't. "Abortion is murder". Well, sometimes it's self-defense. Life is messy, and nuanced, and a thousand shades of gray.

Democrats deal with facts. Republicans deal with fantasy. Why can Republicans frame their messages in sharp, short phrases? Because each phrase has no actual meaning in the real world. It's a sharp, short phrase, and only a phrase. It has ideological meaning. It speaks to an ideal that can't exist in reality. Democrats are scolded for their nuance, their lack of succinct clarity. Real life and real situations are nuanced and usually lack clarity. There's the rub.

So, what can we do? Learning to frame better is helpful, but reality is nebulous and harder to frame than fantasy. Should we just wait until the population wakes up by itself? Looking at the election results, has that already happened? No, and no.

First, we can continue to speak reality to Independents who have been going along with our fantasy-based administration. Independents aren't fantasy-based. (They're not even philosophy-based. They can be persuaded to change their minds. Do it.)

Second, the population hasn't yet awakened. The election results show that 3% of the voting population changed their position. Ten per cent of the 30%, Independent, soft center, shifted to the left. That's all that's happened--until investigations begin. Our majority is at about 53%. The goal is 77%. (Twenty-three per cent will follow their ideology even if they witness a hundred in-your-face contradictions to that ideology. That's what precedence has taught us.) Our fantasy-based goal would be 100%. Reality dictates 77%.

I think Chairman Dean's efforts and stragedy are fantastic. Instead of collection all the money and paying it out to a few high profile professional political hit men like Carvile and Begala, now the money goes down the chain of command to the troops in the trenches were the battles are really won. If Chairman Dean can keep this up we will run the Republicans into the sea.

Remember what speaker elect Pelosi said? She was going to preside over the most corruption free congress ever?

Didn't take too long for that to go up in smoak. Try to get Mr. Murtha (ABSCAM, Brother is a Defense Lobbyest) elected majority leader. Now Hastings over Jane Harman for Intelligence comittee chair. She is proving the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the name.

We need to practice what we preach. Pick the best for the job and lay off those that smell with the rot of corruption.

This is directed at the "50 State Stratagey". It failed unlesws you consider we Southerners not worth considering.

We gained no Senate seats in the south and won house seats only with the aide of things like "Foley's Folly".

If Mr. Rangel's views about the South reflect Leadership then we have serious problems.

Remember the much derided Zel Miller of GA. He is the sort of Democrats that make it down here. He is a loyal Democrat that cannot stomach the way Party Leadership behaves especially toward the South. He is like his fellow Georgian and Governor of the Sate of Georgia Sonny Perude who was a Democrat until 6 years ago. He didn't leave the Democrat party, it left him.

This election should have been an eye-opener for the DNC and the leadership in the legislature. Unfortunately, some of the "good 'ol boys" in the party are still business as usual.
They're coming up for re-election in 2008. If the Democrats don't wake up and smell the coffee, there'll be more changes not just in the Republicans side of the legislature, but in the Democrats as well.
Enough is too much!
Rural and southern Democrats need a bigger voice, the senior legislators had better listen to their junior colleagues, especially from the under-represented rural areas, simply because they are the current voice of the people.
In addition, there needs to be some big changes in the way Congress operates.
Legislation to control K-street, and prohibit last-minute additions to bills to slip in pork or poison pills is a priority.
Bringing back oversight of legislative ethics and give them teeth.
Support a GAO investigation into military-industry contracts.
Push the investigation and prosecution of the Abramoff scandals.
Stop the bills which are selling off our public land.
Look into re-negotiating the very expensive "free" trade agreements.
And, for cat's sake, fix the military pay system so these lower enlisted kids can afford to have a family without having to moonlight, go on food stamps, and/or fall into the hands of loan sharks!!!
You-all won, now prove you deserved our confidence!

Homeland Security: Clean air, clean water, the National Guard home in this country, the Coast Guard budget increased, more funding for Day Care, "No Child Left Behind" programs actually funded by the Feds, After School programs reestablished, more free food programs at school for children who don't have a decent breakfast.... What else?

WE ALL MUST KEEP STANDING UP AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ONE BOBY AN STOP BUSH AN HIS GOP KKK PARTY PEOPLES OF HATE MUST BE STOP AN PUT AN END TO WAR AN POVERTY LIES FOR BUSH AN HIS GOP SO STAND UP AN KEEP STANDING UP

YES WE NEED THE DRAFT SO WE ALL CAN GO TO THE FRONT LINE TOGETHER THE RICH PEOPLES AN THE POOR PEOPLES ON THE FRONT LINE TOGETHER THIS WILL IN END ALL WARS FOR LOVE IS THE KEY

Personally,I don`t think it could to a nicer group of people!However,on another subject,I wish the in fighting inside the Democratic Party would cease!We need to be about getting the country back to where it needs to be!Don`t fool yourselves into thinking this is a free pass.The people in this country will be watching us hard to see what we do.This drunk with power routine doesn`t flush well!

Right-Wing Media Not Representative of Working America

Media Disconnect from America: It’s the Geography, Stupid

By David Sirota

Resting at home in Montana for the last few weeks, I’ve been marveling at the slew of stories from Washington pundits demanding Democrats sell out their own voters and the majority of public opinion. Now, with a bit of time off here for Thanksgiving break with my family here in another “red” state, Indiana, I’ve had some time to really ponder the propaganda, and think about an important question: How is it that there is this fake “center” defined by Washington that is totally and completely different from the actual center of American public opinion? I mean, really: How does that actually happen? What are the mechanics of it?

I thought about this question for a long time. Some of it clearly has to do with the major media conglomerates having a financial/corporate interest in making sure the political debate in this country stays within boundaries that do not challenge the status quo. A media company, for instance, doesn’t want anyone talking about reevaluating telecom deregulation. But financial self-interest cannot be the only reason for the media’s opinion being so disconnected from public opinion - it has to be something more simple. And after surveying the people who are actually making this opinion, it suddenly occurred to me: a lot of it is simple geography.

By any honest definition, America’s political opinion/propaganda machine is comprised primarily of the Washington Post Writers Group, the New York Times columnists, the LA Times columnists, and Creator’s Syndicate. There are certainly others who contribute to opinion making. But looking at these institutions is a good way to survey the world that is the Punditocracy, especially because through media consolidation, the Sunday/cable chat shows that nationalize these pundits’ message, and the modern wonders of syndication into local papers, these opinion makers’ tentacles now reach into almost every community in America.

These companies, because they claim to represent “national” opinion, could choose to present diverse voices. But when you look at this large group of pundits, what do you know, almost every single one of these columnists lives in Washington, D.C. or New York City.

This is no exaggeration, and unlike most of the commentary in the news, it is not a fact-free opinion: it is cold, hard truth. By my informal count, every single Washington Post Writers Group columnist covering domestic politics lives inside the Beltway or in the Big Apple, except for Ellen Goodman who lives in Boston and Ruben Narvarette who lives in San Diego. Similarly, at least six out of the 8 New York Times columnists live in Washington D.C. or New York. LA Times? Same thing. Every single one of their national political columnists except Meghan Daum and Niall Furgeson live in Washington, D.C. Then take a gander at one of the biggest syndicates - Creators. By my count - which is only an eyeball count - roughly half of their entire stable of columnists lives in Washington or New York. In all, I can find almost none of these people who actually lives somewhere other than one of the coasts of the country - real-life proof that the media Establishment really does see the heartland as “flyover country” to be ignored.

Some may claim that of course the opinion making machine draws almost all of their writers from just two cities because that’s where all the smart people live, that’s where all the political action is, and at least for the Post and Times, those are the only locales they say they cover.

The first argument about New York and Washington being the center of the universe drowns in its own arrogance. Last I checked, there are 50 state capitols, and countless other major cities where much of the real political decisions that affect ordinary people’s lives are made. The self-described Gang of 500 in Washington and New York can keep telling each other reassuring fairy tales about how they are supremely important and that the world cannot turn without their input. But the Washington cocktail party circuit and Upper West Side’s self-therapy is an embarrassingly transparent justification for laziness, cultural elitism and dearth of geographic diversity.

The second argument about New York and Washington being the place where all the smart people are - yeah, right, there’s no other smart people in America. And yeah, right, we’ve gotten so much smarts out of the traditional Washington-New York conventional wisdom these days. All those smart people pushed the Iraq War and trumpeted trade policies now gutting the American economy. Yeah, America needs more “smart” people like that.

On the final argument about the Post and Times being based in D.C. and New York and thus having an excuse for their geographic uniformity - come on, are you serious? These two papers brag about being “national” papers, have various bureaus all over the country, and syndicate their material to publications throughout America. Put another way, they may be based in those two cities, but they brag to the world about speaking for this country - when clearly their pervasive opinion machine does not.

This doesn’t mean all of these columnists who live in the Washington-New York corridor are bad, dishonest or misguided - not at all. For instance, one of them, Bob Herbert, consistently tries to raise questions about taboo subjects like economic inequality and race in his writing. A few others write valuable stuff as well. But that’s not really the point, because while there are some decent opinion-setting pieces from this group, occasional examples cannot overcome the overwhelming geographic uniformity and what naturally comes with that uniformity: a strong, consistent stream of destructive, unrepresentative biases against the rest of America.

That’s right folks, the stereotype is, by and large, factually true: coastal elites are trying to impose a very narrow world view on the rest of the country - and people sense it because the opinion making machine is so uniform, and the media so consolidated, that this very narrow world view is being jammed down our throats everywhere. Hell, I can see it right there in my face when I sit down for a bagel at my local coffee shop in Helena, Montana, and open the local paper’s commentary section, which - like many local papers’ opinion pages these days - is now dominated by “national” pundits. On any given day, I see pieces from George Will trumpeting a New York City billionaire for his Wall Street conservatism. Or, I see right-wing Washington nobody Mona Charen and her latest screed demanding that all Jews adhere to neoconservatism as proof of their religious devotion. At best, if I’m lucky, I get a David Broder piece telling me how anyone who thinks our economic policies should serve middle America is a “protectionist” worthy of being tarred and feathered.

These professional political pontificators have barely ever bothered to even visit the middle of the country. Worse, the very top topics they address are way beyond merely unreflective of opinion in small towns like Helena: they have absolutely nothing to do even with what is important to our community. The people who spew these views are, in short, trying to impose their warped opinions and priorities on the rest of us.

This narrow world view, mind you, spans the partisan divide. Remember, conservative columnists like John Stossel, Bill O’Reilly, Max Boot and George Will are among this group of coastal elites. The world view, in other words, is not really partisan: it is about power. Almost all of these columnists, with a few exceptions, worship power rather than challenge it, and disdain the very concept of change coming from ordinary Americans, who they see as the “great unwashed” (by the way, this explains why these people so often use their platforms to attack the netroots). Almost all of them, with few exceptions, believe America’s great source of wisdom comes from inside the Beltway from what Duncan Black calls The Serious People - no matter how many times the Serious People hurt the country, no matter how far out of touch these Serious People are with what the vast majority of the country wants and voted for. And worst of all, almost all of them, with few exceptions, push a definition of the political “center” that has nothing to do with the actual political “center” in the country.

Think about how unrepresentative this situation really is. There are about 10 million people in Washington and New York City combined. There are roughly 300 million people in the United States. Thus, upwards of 90 percent of the major political opinion in the national media is coming from people that represent a whopping 3 percent of the total population.

Are we actually to believe that it is simply impossible for the major national media to find more opinion from the other 290 million Americans in the rest of the country? Of course not - the geographic divide is not an accident and is not due to a lack of able voices in the heartland. It is motivated by the obvious factors: insiderism, cronyism, a love of conformity and a view of the heartland as an uncivilized place that offends a punditocracy which sees itself as above the so-called “bewildered herd” who are supposedly the rest of us out here in America. It explains not only why there are so few media voices from the rest of America, but all the rest of it. Want to know why it was perfectly acceptable for Washington creatures like James Carville to attack someone like Howard Dean for having the nerve to invest Democratic Party resources in the heartland? Because the DNA of the Washington-New York political elite is coded to applaud disdain for the rest of the country and champion a person like Carville whose current claim to relevance is being friends with fellow Washingtonian Tim Russert rather than a person like Dean whose claim to relevance is having built a massive outside-the-Beltway grassroots constituency.

To understand how this geographic and consequently cultural divide plays out on the key political decisions of the day, consider this excerpt from a piece by Howard Kurtz in 1993 right after NAFTA passed:

“From George Will and Rush Limbaugh on the right, to Anthony Lewis and Michael Kinsley on the left, most of the nation’s brand-name commentators led the cheerleading for NAFTA. Meg Greenfield, The Washington Post’s editorial page editor, said her op-ed page reflected the fact that most of her regular columnists supported the agreement. ‘On this rare occasion when columnists of the left, right and middle are all in agreement . . . I don’t believe it is right to create an artificial balance where none exists.’…Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), a NAFTA critic, said The Post had published 63 feet worth of pro-NAFTA editorials and columns since January, compared with 11 feet of anti-NAFTA commentary.”

As economist Jeff Faux notes in his book The Global Class War, the punditocracy’s blackout came at the very time polls showed the public had serious reservations about NAFTA. Yet people like Greenfield justified the blackout by claiming she would have had “to create an artificial balance where none existed.” She was probably right, at least when it came to the columnists she dealt with because the class of professional political pontificators comes primarily from elite Washington, the place where lobbyist-written trade pacts are seen as just swell, no matter how many jobs they kill, how much they hurt wages or destroy pension/health care benefits. As columnist Mark Shields admitted to Kurtz at the time: “One reason for the press unanimity is that there are no $35-a-week Tijuana bureau chiefs” to steal their jobs. Most pundits, he said, “are more worried about whether they’re going to the Vineyard next year.”

That same thing can be said today. Want to know why the media portrays national opinion as opposed to putting serious labor, wage and human rights provisions into trade deals at the same time the public supports these provisions? Because that media portrayal is coming from New York and Washington. As fair trade leader Senator-elect Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said, “Reporters and editors in Washington have always hated my position on trade [but] out here, they don’t feel that way.” That’s the divide - the New York-Washington elite vs. “out here.”

It’s the same on the other issues. Want to know why the political opinion making industry almost uniformly opposes a national, universal health care system at the same time polls have long shown the public would support such a concept? Want to know why the professional pontificators almost uniformly attack as crazy those who raise questions about inequality and overconcentration of corporate power? In Mark Shields’ words, it has something to do with the fact that most political opinion makers personally “are more worried about whether they’re going to the Vineyard next year.” They all talk to each other, they are all friends with the same politicians, they all go to the same parties, they all vacation at the same elite locales, they all look down on those not part of their clique - and above all else, they all feel threatened by anyone who challenges their arrogance and their power-worshiping orthodoxies, because such fact-based challenges humiliate them.

So the next time you, one of the other 97 percent of the non-Washington/New York population read something outrageous from a national columnist or see some pundit arrogantly bloviating on television in a way that would get them a knuckle sandwich in your local bar, ask yourself: Are you really surprised? Is it any wonder that the Establishment’s definition of the “center” is so totally and completely divorced from America’s? Is it really a shock that when one of these columnists wrote that “voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics” none of his fellow opinion makers said anything, and in fact, many probably agreed? Are you really stunned that one of these columnists recently wrote with a straight face that the recent election means Democrats must shed all of their ties to pro-choice voters, unions and minorities?

And perhaps most important of all, ask yourself: are the majority of Americans really wrong when they say the media does not actually represent this country’s mainstream and, in fact, has, through its leading opinion voices, shown a severe disdain for the very “national” perspective it purports to represent?

I've always admired James Carville, which is why it surprised and saddened me to hear about his attack on Howard Dean. I think James and the pragmatists are wrong on this one, and Howard Dean's idealism of being a 50-state party of the whole country is absolutely right. Howard said it best in recent TV interviews where he stated that 'it is a sign of respect to ask for someone's vote'. Democrats should not give up on winning the respect of the entire American populace, including the South.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

Embracing The Era of Populism

By David Sirota

It is a blissful yet bewildering feeling. You fight so long, endure so much establishment belittlement, and suddenly you win. That’s what happened on Nov. 7: We the populists won.

After our fully warranted victory laps and back patting, we must review Nov. 7’s lessons. If Democrats want to hold a governing majority, they must see the election for what it was: a mandate for economic populism and a battle cry against Big Money’s war on middle-class Americans.

Candidates all over the country talked about how corporate lobbyists have manipulated our trade policy to crush workers, our energy policy to harm consumers and our health care policy to hurt families. Polls show populism (a.k.a.,challenging corporate economic power) is the “center” position for the voting public, even though it may not be the “center” position in a K-Street-owned Washington, D.C.

Since the election, Washington’s elite have tried to deny progressives credit and to downplay a mandate that threatens their agenda. These revisionists say the election was about Democrats pretending to be Republicans, billing people like Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb as a “conservative.” Yet here is what this “conservative” wrote in a Nov. 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Class Struggle”:

The most important—and unfortunately the least debated—issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. … The top 1 percent now takes in an astounding 16 percent of national income, up from 8 percent in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

If that is, the new “conservative,” progressives won an even bigger victory than we thought.

This is a difficult time for Beltway lobbyists and corporate front-groups like the Democratic Leadership Council. It hurts them to see how populism was the Democrats’ ticket. But the elite are not contrite, rather they babble —"Vital dynamic center! Vital dynamic center!” We can understand their outbursts—it hurts to be rejected—but they are just going to have to deal. As winning candidates from Virginia to Kansas to Montana proved, the strategy of repeating lobbyist-written talking points to win red states belongs in the historical scrap heap. It’s the Era of Populism now.

This election, we also saw the potency of the Internet as a weapon. There is the myth circulating that Ned Lamont’s loss to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut was a loss for Internet organizing. This is utterly silly. The Lamont campaign, on which I worked as a political strategist, raised millions of dollars online and brought in thousands of volunteers through the Internet. Without the netroots, the Lamont candidacy never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.

Finally, movement progressives need to continue to see the Democratic Party as a means to an end —not an end unto itself. We need more candidates like Lamont—leaders who challenge lobbyists-in-Senator’s-clothing like Lieberman and consequently change the national debate on major issues like Iraq.

We must also understand that in fighting these fights, we are going to lose more than we win. That is what happens when you challenge incumbents. But both the wins and the losses are important, because they all help build a movement that transcends any one election cycle.

The major fight in American politics did not end on Nov. 7. All that ended was the beginning of our struggle. Now, the hard work starts—the work that must conclude with more than just a different set of politicians having plum offices in the U.S. Capitol. We must achieve results that affect ordinary Americans’ lives and change the course of this country for the long haul. That is what America voted for—and that is what our country deserves.

-----------------------------------------------

All praise be to Governor Howard Dean and his "50 State Strategy".

WE THE PEOPLE must continue to follow Governor Howard Dean's democratic leadership toward a fair and equitable DEMOCRACY for ALL.