• Someone noted that the FireFournier domain name was available.

    Personally, I think FireRonFournier dot whatever is a stronger message -- but if it's a go, all variations and dot com-org-net permutations should be harvested.

    The only way we can break the GOP death grip on the MSM is by putting the fear of unemployment into them.

    Ron Fournier is the perfect target, and getting him fired would be a wake up call for all of the Beltway Gasbags that routinely trash Democrats and carry water for the GOP.

    Until the MSM is conditioned to break out in a cold sweat and pee their pants when they so much as think about trashing a Democrat, our team will be at a huge disadvantage.

    The FireRonFournier movement is a great place to start.

    No apologies, no mea culpas --

    Associated Press, Fire Ron Fournier.

  • comment on a post Hillary Going After Oil Companies in NH over 6 years ago

    Probably too little, and way too late -- it's good to see her make this case, but why didn't we see this kind of fire last year?

    Mark Penn helped the Clinton's get back on top after the 1994 election disaster, but his triangulation strategy had run it's useful course by the Spring of 1996. In June of that year, I saw a poll that showed generic Dems and GOP even with senior voters, which was a net loss of 7 points from December. My alarm bells went off, because I knew that if Bill Clinton didn't spend his political capital to elect a Democratic Congress, Ken Starr was going to be trouble. Little did I know  . . .

    At any rate, Clinton didn't roll out the coattails until October, and the GOP retained control of the House.

    The Clintons were ill served by Mark Penn then, and he's led Hillary into a do or die last stand now.

    Mark Penn -- screwing up the Democratic Party since 1996!

  • Despite the cronic ineptitude within the Democratic Party, and the MSM acting as a 24/7 propoganda organ for the GOP, it was encouraging in the last few election cycles that the electorate seemed to be evenly split.

    Now that the GOP has been revealed as the lying, corrupt, incompetent, hypocrites that they are, voters are migrating to the Democratic Party. Even though the Democrats don't know how to handle this vote of confidence, the American people understand that anything is better than the Republicans.

    It should also be noted that the electorate was evenly divided for most of the 20th Century. Even 60/40 advantage the Democrats enjoyed during the New Deal Era was dependent on the Solid South -- without the Dixiecrats, FDR would not have had a working majority.

    We might be witnessing an historic realignment -- if the Democrats don't blow it, by opting for DLC/Clintonesque GOP-lite charades.

  • comment on a post The Brand over 7 years ago

    The Democratic Brand needs to embrace the values and programs that FDR created -- we need to devote ourselves to expand and solidify extend those programs, so that no American suffers from the Social Darwinism that Republicans love. Universal Health Care is part of it, but the right to decent housing and a good education and a good job are just as important. FDR's Four Freedoms are as vital today as they were in 1944.

    The GOP fetish is hating FDR and destroying the New Deal -- Democrats should honor and embrace FDR, and pledge ourselves to a New Deal for the 21st Century.

  • comment on a post Why Turning Virginia "Blue" Matters to All of Us over 7 years ago

    Way to go, Raising Kaine and all of the Blue Virginia Netroots Activists!!!

    Arlington today, Richmond tomorrow -- winning the hearts and minds of Virginians who care more about their country than Republican hate and fear mongering.

    Keep up the good work!!!

  • comment on a post Dick Cheney's Contempt for America over 7 years ago

    Have lost the war on terror --

    They should all be damned to hell for all eternity --

    Meanwhile -- Democrats, and everyone who cares about this country, work to undo the damage these traitors have inflicted upon our country and planet.

    THAT -- and whatever variation you prefer -- should be the Democratic netroots mantra from now on . . .

    Bush, Cheney, the Republican Party -- Have LOST the War on Terror . . .

  • on a comment on Strategy on Iran, Anyone? over 7 years ago

    Iran's "Power of Deterrence" -- by Michel Chossudovsky

    The display of Iran's military capabilities is intended to deter US war plans (photos of missile test included)

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c ontext=viewArticle&code=CHO20061105& amp;articleId=3713

  • on a comment on Strategy on Iran, Anyone? over 7 years ago

    Moskit links

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22_Sun burn

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moski t

    Iran's November missile test -- "no one could have imagined . . ."

    https://www.kitcomm.com/archive/index.ph p?t-755.html

    U Sank My Carrier!

    http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war _nerd.html

    Iran: A Bridge too Far? -- by Mark Gaffney

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info /article7147.htm

    The Sunburn's amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese -- and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull's eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large "X" mounted on the ship's bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

    The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. ...

    Springing the Trap

    At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal's soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives...

    Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

    Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is "able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers were not disclosed...

  • comment on a post Nominee, Movement Leader, or Both over 7 years ago

    Read The Progressive Presidents --

    Read it, and understand -- the limits on the window of opportunity for Progressive reform . . .

    John Edwards has what it takes -- does he have the gravitas and vision and wisdom -- to do what needs to be done?

  • comment on a post Thank You over 7 years ago

    Late to comment, but not for lack of interest.

    The description of the 1950's as Neo-Victorian in the first thread is not accurate -- the Kinsey Reports came out in 1949 and 1953, and they described what Americans were doing, not what they were wanting to do. During WWII, the personal hygine kits issued to GIs included condoms; when they got home, they moved to the suburbs and dealt with PTSD by breeding the baby boomers. The 50's were more about Frank Sinatra and modernity than Victorian mores -- although the Neo-Puritan reactionaries are the beginning of todays wingnut culture warriors.

    It should be remembered that Ike was promoted by FDR ahead of more than 50 more senior officers. FDR recognized Ike's political and diplomatic skills, and his confidence was not misplaced. Both parties courted Ike, who was a self professed Liberal.

    In 1957, Ike sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock -- he didn't mess around with the National Guard. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed on his watch, and while not as sweeping as the 1964 act, it was a step in the right direction.

    Two books I highly recommend:

    * The Progressive Presidents by John Blum

    The Progressive Presidents details the progressive accomplishments of Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson -- it's a great read, for understanding how the modern American Government was created.

    * The Autobiography of Malcom X -- this book offers a look inside the other America; the one that is ignored by the veneer of 50's civility.

    Another thing to consider -- it was FDR that brought the Progressives and Polulists together into the New Deal Liberal Coalition. FDR called himself a Liberal, specifically because the Progressive Movement (even the word Progressive)
     had been discredited by the betrayals of Woodrow Wilson.

    The New Deal coalition held together until Truman and Johnson (not Kennedy) pushed the civil rights agenda, which led to the Dixiecrat Populist migration to the Grand Old (Confederate) Party.

    Our great opportunity as Liberals and Progressives is to craft an agenda that has a strong Economic Populist crossover appeal.

  • comment on a post Holiday Shopping Thread over 7 years ago

    It starts with Chairman Murtha, holding hearings with General Abizaid and the Joint Chiefs -- make them spell out just why they oppose escalation.

    Then, approve the supplemental appropriation for Iraq operations, with riders that require redeployment of troops away from Baghdad and other hot zones, and prohibit the Pentagon from sending additional troops.

  • All of John McCain's passionate support comes from the Beltway Kewl Kidz -- the more he straps on the golden kneepads to service the Talibangelists, the harder it becomes for him to maintain his centerist charade.

  • comment on a post Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi over 7 years ago

    Great Post, Matt -- minor correction. You wrote:

    The people of New Jersey elected both Menendez and Hastings

    It should read:

    The people of New Jersey elected Menendez and the people of Florida HD-23 elected Hastings . . .

  • comment on a post Register to Vote if you Live in One of These States! over 7 years ago

    In Colorado, our Katherine Harris/Ken Blackwell wannabe SoS Gigi Dennis revised the voter registration form at the last minute, so she could throw out the applications that didn't help out the corrupt GOP candidates.

  • comment on a post The White Truck Delivering Ballots over 7 years ago

    Throw out ALL ballots that fell out of the chain of custody -- there are many precedents, including an election in Miami.

    I've experienced it first hand -- the first time I voted was for George McGovern, in Tucson. ALL of the Presidential votes were thrown out, because there was a problem with how the electoral college electors were identified on the ballot.

    But the Miami case is the best precedent I know of -- a judge overturned election results because of massive fraud, and these few precincts are small potatoes in comparison.


Advertise Blogads