I adore you, Molly.  What you said has been whirling in my head for months, maybe even years.  Remember when the blood-bath in Iraq was an insurgency?  It seemed to me that if the objects, us, of the insurgents left there would be no insurgency.  Is that muddled thinking?  Well now the insurgency has become wall-paper, replaced by sectarian violence.  Wonder what's next?  Every day I wonder what's next.  Apparently Dems in Washington don't wonder.

I love Molly; I just wish she wouldn't hold back about how she really feels about things.  A great read.  Thanks for pointing it out.

 We need to rebuild the Democratic Party.  We already have a Republican party so building a clone and calling it the Democratic Party never was a good idea, even if the "leaders" of our party thought so.  But, if I have learned anything over the past 4 years it is that the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is a minority, and a pretty small one.  Sad.

Hoppy in Sacramento

We need to rebuild the Democratic Party.  We already have a Republican party so building a clone and calling it the Democratic Party never was a good idea ...

Oi vey. there goes the sloganeering again...

So, where exactly are the constituents for this brave new party being envisioned? Let's see, there are several TPMC posters, some other net-roots types... ok, maybe that’s about the percentage that voted for Nader. Ooooh. The halls of government are quaking. They’re really going to listen to a miniscule percentage of the population, of web surfing political junkies who are chronically idealistic, notoriously difficult and negative, and don’t agree much with anyone else in the coalition or themselves half the time.

Right. That’s how democracy works. Rule of the tiniest, most difficult, fractious, and uncompromising minority. Basic US Gov 101. Sure…

Reality check… any day now…

Waiting for somebody here to notice that Feingold pandered to a few net-roots types, didn't have the basic sense to inform anyone else in the party, and suprise suprise, nobody followed his lead. Gee, maybe pissing on the coalition and refusing advice isn't working for Feingold any better than it's working for Bush? Huh, maybe there's a moral there that transcends partisan politics? Something about leaders needing to compromise to bring people along with them maybe… that whole democracy thing…

Nick; "attitude" is fine -- down in the schoolyard.  But are you ever going to say anything substantive?

I've heard John Edwards / Bobby comparisons before.

It simply isn't possible to reply to NickDoe.

Notice his phrasing:  "pissing on the coalition" and "refusing advice."  What "coalition"?  He doesn't say.  Whose "advice" was refused.  Again, he doesn't say.

A "conversation" with Nick is an oxymoron. 

that the cesspool of corruption in Washington needs to be cleaned up, that a solution for health care is a critical issue.  So why are our "leaders" in DC so afraid of leading on these issues? 

You know,cwr, I have been pondering this question and is it possible, that no one wants to take a stand, because if they get elected they already know that the answers are far more complex than the issues make them appear to be?

Corvid

I'm not sure what "pet issues" NickDoe is driving at here. The Ivins piece mentions 3 issues: Iraq, public financing of campaigns and universal health care. I don't think these fall into the "pet" category.  Also don't see any "triangulation" here, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Nick can explain.

I agree with what Ivins is saying (at least to the extent that it's a good idea to prioritize one's issues and stay focused). But I'll inject something into the discussion that she probably hoped to avoid. By focusing on these three items, we obviously steer around some hot-button stuff--all the usual suspects, such as abortion, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, eminent domain, etc.

Now, permit me to address my pet issue (such as it is), which is the notion that progressives are poisoning their own well by remaining on the eternally unacceptable side of most these hot buttons in the eyes of the general public. If progressives REALLY wanted to effectively prioritize, they'd not only follow Ivins' advice but they'd also 1) uncompromisingly oppose illegal immigration and any amnesty for lawbreakers (this could also serve as part of a security package in combination with a big drive toward energy independence), 2) "mend" affirmative action by making it open and voluntary rather than imposing it on individuals who can ill afford to lose their chances in life because of some institutional drive for racial balance, 3) forever drop any effort at further gun control, 4) aggressively back efforts to either do away with eminent domain or greatly restrict it. As for abortion, they're on the right side on this one.

Once they've openly taken these positions on these issues, they decontaminate themselves, clearing the way to proceed to the bigger, more important stuff.  Now that's triangulation--of a sort. But it's also good sense. Most of these things progressives stick with more out of habit than as a result of any evidence that they accomplish much. But even if these were all wonderful ideas, there's no way to have a decent discussion and convince the larger public as long as they're constantly subject to mega-bamboozlement (under our money-driven politics) and mega-threats (unending war). Hence Ivins' priorities.

(One aside: On immigration, for instance, doesn't anyone understand how utterly silly--not to mention two-faced--it looks for Dems to--justifiably--whack Bush for stirring up a hornet's nest of terror in the Middle East and for his fecklessness on the ports deal while at the same time Dems rush to offer amnesty to millions of  immigrants who entered the country without anyone having the slightest notion of who they are individually or why they're here?)

The public is not hostile to most progressive notions. But they strongly suspect that, by gum, if progressives are ever voted in, they'll sneak a bunch of pesky damned social engineering flim-flams into the system while in the process  abandoning the big ideas that the public voted for in the first place (as the Clintons abandoned universal health care, an excellent case in point).  Progressives need to clearly and forcefully cleanse themselves of most of these shopworn, sticky and unpalatable issues BEFORE they can effectively push the much more important agenda Ivins lays out. And at top of that agenda, though, I would add energy independence. It's the strongest and most hopeful issue, it's our future, it holds out enormous promise for spreading prosperity and it's one of the keys to getting out of Iraq and THE key to avoiding future Iraqs.

Unfortunately, it appears to be true.  They need to stop worrying about what the repubs will do to them, and start thinking about what they can do to the repubs.

One example of this is their rollover attitude when it comes to national defense.  The popular meme is that dems are weak on defense, and that is simply not true.  Instead of standing up and saying LOUDLY that the dems are not weak on defense they simply avoid the subject or think they need to agree with the repubs to look "strong" on the issue.

'Sigh'  The Republicans have screwed everything up royally so......must be time to attack the Democrats.  Hey all of the present media do it, why not Molly?  Seriously why do we engage in this vitriolic self flaggellation and cannibalism?  I recall Bill Clinton as a pretty damn good president, triangulation, DLC and all.  He showed us how to win remember?  If you dont win you are useless.  If you all think Feingold has a chance of carrying any states beyond the NE, Wisconsin and California, go ahead and support him.  We lost a damn good president in Al Gore when many Dems voted for Nader nd we got Dubya.  We lost Hubert Humphrey when Dems bolted to McCarthy and we got Nixon.  The Dems have blown it time and time again with pacifism and I see them all lined up to do it all over again.  I live in the midwest and it just doesnt fly out here.  I dont see him having a chance at all but his voice is needed in the debate thats for sure.  But the road to victory is not lined with pure Bush hating and pacifism and you all better figure that out before its too late.  Question: what will you propose to do about Iran?  They seek nuclear weapons and they want Israel destroyed.  Last I checked, oh, around 1939, it would behoove us to take with deadly seriousness someone's declaration that they wish to exterminate the Jews.  Dont tell me they dont mean it.  What do you propose to do about the raging radical Islamists whose entire culture seems to be inconsistent with democracy and free speech and who are chanting death to America (and have been for decades: this is not because of Iraq) as they seek nuclear weapons?  How will you convince the country that you can defend it?  The fact that people no longer trust the Repubs to defend us gives the Dems a great opening, if they can fill it.  If not, well, you would be surprised at how many people will end up voting for a Repub president again particularly if the congress is held by the dems after 2006.

So bring it on Molly, you are great and I love your work and always have.  But frankly, if I hear another Dem react to the failure of the Repubs by attacking the Dems,  I will scream.  And if I hear more dems saying that ANYONE who supported the Iraq war at the start is automatically not qualified to be President?  Well lets just say I wont place any bets on a dem president in 2008.

We gotcha this time, Nick.

I think Notrol's figured it out.  Nick's running two computers with two different handles and email addresses.  NickDoe and Mary from RI are one and the same.

Mary from RI -- this comment is not a 0.

You've been here 41 weeks. It's time you learned how to rate comments.

Dissent Protects Democracy

I'm not so sure about that. I think the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" has the edge in the number of people. Unfotunately, DLC types have the big money.

Tom

Seriously why do we engage in this vitriolic self flaggellation and cannibalism?  I recall Bill Clinton as a pretty damn good president, triangulation, DLC and all.  He showed us how to win remember?

We engage because the Dems deserve it.

And it's not 1992 anymore. It's time for something other than triangulation. In fact, we don't even need it. Bush is at 33%. The country is behind us.

I think you're drawing on strawmen with your comments about "pacifism" and "bush-hating."

Finally, I suggest we let people know that we're tough enough to defend the country by starting with being tough enough to fight the Republicans.

Censure comes to mind.

How do you suggest we let people know we're tough?

Bomb Iran, perhaps? (Sorry, my "pacifism" coming out, I guess.) 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Now, now -- keep those claws tucked in.

Yes I was thinking of Humphrey too.  Someone who is trapped by fealty to LBJ to a disastrous pro-war position.

I nominate John Warner, who will defer to the Biden-Clinton-Holbrook orthodoxy, genuflecting to the DC establishment whom he believes knows better than himself.

Part of my reason for comparing Feingold to McCarthy: The latter convinced LBJ not to run, but then didn't have the sense to get out of the way of history when Bobby entered the race.  Similarly I just don't see Feingold getting the nomination, the Dem establishment will never allow it.  But could he be a Hillary killer in the primaries?  And for whom would he then be opening up the nomination? 

Clark?

Is this premature?  :-) 

Right now I would be ecstatic if the majority of Democrats in Congress were to take up the challenge of Bush's just released reiteration of his right to invade any country he pleases, whether they are really a viable threat to us or not.  And, I would be equally pleased if the majority of Democrats were to take up the challenge of stopping the obviously planned invasion of Iran, which would be a total disaster for us and the world.  I would see those Democrats as being tough, as being committed to our country's security, and as being well equipped to keep us safe in this complex world.

But, I don't expect this to happen.  Instead I expect about 95% of the Democrats in Congress to declare solidarity with Bush, laud his leadership, and vote in favor of allowing him to invade any country he wants to, after, of course, bombing Iran.  

I'm not a pacifist.  I am focused on protecting our country.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"what will you propose to do about Iran?  They seek nuclear weapons and they want Israel destroyed.  Last I checked, oh, around 1939, it would behoove us to take with deadly seriousness someone's declaration that they wish to exterminate the Jews.  Dont tell me they dont mean it.  What do you propose to do about the raging radical Islamists whose entire culture seems to be inconsistent with democracy and free speech and who are chanting death to America (and have been for decades: this is not because of Iraq) as they seek nuclear weapons? "

First of all, according to translators who know, Iran's President said nothing about exterminating Jews. That was mainstream media bullshit.

Secondly, there is NO credible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or even wants one (although I assume they do, since they'd be fools not to.)

Third, the Islamic fanatics don't hate the US because of Iraq - they hate the US because of a century of interference in their politics and culture of the sort you are explicitly advocating here. In other words, it's assholes like you that make the rest of the world hate the US - and justifiably so. I suggest you reread the Founding Fathers of this country who advocated neutrality, no foreign entanglements and fair economic dealings with all comers.

And you are the perfect reason why Democrats should not be allowed in office any more than Republicans - they're war mongers and war profiteers JUST LIKE the Republicans.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Not a Democrat any more.  Molly Ivins says she can support not one of the 249 Democrats in Congress to run for president except for Feingold.  Maybe she's not a Democrat any more?

She continually comes out very strongly against Hillary Clinton, undercutting her repeatedly with sex-based language like "pandering".  Feingold's great but he's always been an outlier in his own party - he was the only Democrat to vote in FAVOR of letting the Clinton impeachment proceed.

I don't agree that Clinton should have been impeached. More energy should have been spent on Osama, not Paula and Monica. Bush and Cheney on the other hand should be impeached. convicted, and sent to the War Crimes Tribunal.

Tom

 There's an old Jerry Jeff Walker song that says "Texas women are Texas gold."

I almost posted a correction, I thought that song was by either Willis Allen Ramsey or Guy Clark. Waylon sang some of his songs. I checked, you are right, but I like the song Molly is singing now. She is Texas Gold for sure.

In a democracy, with free speech, and the right to ones opinion, I'm entitled to express mine. This isn't supposed to be a freeper blog where one is forced into group-think cscs

Yes, can't keep those Virginia Warners straight.

Feingold's great but he's always been an outlier in his own party - he was the only Democrat to vote in FAVOR of letting the Clinton impeachment proceed.

No way. Feingold is an ANGRY liberal. The worst kind.

Next thing you're going to tell me is he voted for John Roberts. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Molly Ivins... I guess she needed to include one real issue to lend credibility to her rant.. but frankly, Molly hasn't been writing about the health care crisis, taking up that battle and informing her public on the seriousness of the issue.. it's plain by how little attention or concern some of her audience have for the issue, and honestly, the threat to access to health care never bothered her in the past. She pooh poohed that and all other issues in '00. Perhaps because Molly's been making her living writing about politics as a blood sport, something to crack wise about. Over the years, she's inferred that Bush isn't really a bad guy, that he's "probably really is a compassionate conservative" of course she's also dismissed him as an idiot, while not paying much attention to his cruel and selfish streak. But then Molly has a job that pays really well, she's got premium quality health care insurance, she got top care treatment for cancer, was allowed her dignity, could feel secure that her docters weren't going to deny her treatment because of her ability to pay. She didn't have to lose her home, go without food or utilities. In fact, she's probably made more money with Bush in office.. so many opportunities to get speaking fees and write books.

Seeing as Molly's from Texas, I had to wonder why she never wrote about a law that Bush signed in Texas when he was governor (it was her beat after all) that allowed public hospitals to throw poor patients out onto the street after three days, if they couldn't prove they could afford to pay for their care. It didn't matter how seriously ill those people were, just toss them out onto the streets. Several deaths resulted. But for holier than thou' Molly, I guess that's one difference that wasn't important enough to matter. Besides, you can't waste time on the issues of the poor, they can't afford to buy hardcover books or pay to attend speaking engagements.. they really weren't her customer base..

I spoke with Molly Ivins after reading her article in '00 where she announced her plan to vote for Nader. I had expected her, the grand high poohbah of all things Bush, would have an appreciation for how truly painful a Bush presidency would be. I knew he'd start a war, I knew he would destroy the economy, that protections for workers, women, minorities, the disabled, et al.. would be trashed. She didn't have one concern, she parroted the standard Nader-reichers line.. "oh, we won't let that happen" and "it'll never come to that." Of course she knew it would come to that, anyone with half a brain knew what the outcome of a Bush presidency would be. The same way Kim Gandy, president of NOW, knew what the outcome of endorsing republicans like Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (plus others whose names I can't remember) would be. They could promise to kingdom come that they were "pro-choice", Gandy and others like her knew what kind of choice they supported, the kind we had before Roe v Wade was law.. affluent women could always get a safe, clean abortion. Chafee, Snowe, Collins and Gandy's other "pro-choice" republicans were always going to vote for types like Judge Roberts, and some of them voted for Alito, and still have their endorsements from NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood intact. Yet, great democrats like John Kerry, who were attacked by the catholic church for not voting against choice were pilloried by NOW, NARAL and PP for not being ideologically pure enough. If choice not only goes down, but gets criminalized as is the right wing's wont, anti-gay laws will soon follow, as well as anti-this and anti-that purges. Hey radical left wingers, when you've painted yourself in to the corner, and there's no one left to speak for you, who are you going to blame then, the democrats???

Jeez, either those of you who keep regurgitating the rethuglican spin that dems (or Kerry) didn't/don't have a plan, either weren't paying attention/researching the candidates or you are just lying. I know it involves some work, but if you can type venom day in/day out at your computer, you can surely google for news and facts online, watc C-SPAN to see what the candidates are actually doing, fighting for on the house or senate floor. Read news articles from archives to check candidates records...

I remember when the left disdained Jimmy Carter because he wasn't hip enough, they all got on the Jon Anderson bandwagon, more fool me because I was one of those idiots.. 19 and walking stupidity. Then comes 2000, and Gore wasn't "cool" enough, his wife was on the PMRC because she like other parents wanted to know if the music their kids listened to contained denigrating references to women.. the fact that the family of the late Frank Zappa (who railed against the PMRC) endorsed Gore didn't matter. So the Nader-Nazi's lied about Gore because fuhrer Nader told them to. The fact that Nader was actually the one who owned Occidental Oil stock, not Gore, that Nader made millions investing in corporate polluters, sweatshops, big oil, even the military industrial complex, purveyors of sprawl, pharmaceuticals, raping the Niger Delta, you name it, that was fine and dandy for the Nader-reich. Hypocrisy rules if you're part of the clique. Now some on the far left embrace Gore, can't get enough of him.

John Kerry spoke time and time again about getting us out of Iraq. Firstly, we couldn't just cut and run in '04. To do so, would not only have been bad for Iraq, but it would have been dangerous for our troops. We have a responsibility to ensure their safe withdrawl. He spoke about the need to get others involved with Iraqi troops training, Germany and other countries had expressed willingness to train, but in their own countries. Bush refused to do that. He advocated getting more of our allies involved, including on the rebuilding effort, no more sweetheart deals for Halliburton and Bechtel, plus much more that can be read here : http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/kerryoniraqwar/qanda.html

John Kerry has demonstrated commitment to campaign finance reform, he doesn't take PAC money, but more importantly, he not only co-sponsered McCain-Feingold, in fact, a few years ago, he offererd two amendments to the bill, one was killed on the Senate floor, the other was an incentive to increase the likelihood of public financing, that was included in McCain/Feingold. More importantly, he co-sponsered more meaningful, sweeping reform measures. One called the Clean Money legislation that would have, like the Clean Elections Law voted in, in Massachusetts in '98, provide candidates w/an alternative to the current system of raising and spending private money to finance campaigns by grants from a campaign trust fund..

On the issue of Election reform, Senator Kerry has also been an original cosponsor of the leading legislation that would improve voting systems throughout the country, and he has co-sponsered legislation that would have required a paper trail. Such reform is extremely important after the '00 and '04 elections. Additionally, Senator Kerry has offered legislation that would make Election Day a half-day national holiday for the next two election cycles. The bill, which recognizes that many people are unable to take time off of work to stand in long lines in order to vote, is an effort to improve voter turnout.

He also had plans for alot of the other issues, I notice not one of you mention the economy.. perhaps it's not an issue for you, but it is for a majority in this country. Kerry recognized that many of our problems are interconnected, he wants to invest some of our resources into developing and uses for alternative energy sources, building new infrastructure for our country, including new mass transit systems, this would be an engine to create new, well paying jobs. He wanted to remove the incentives Bush put in place that encourage the outsourcing and offshoring of jobs.

He had a plan for dealing with the health care crisis, he has a plan for ensuring all Americans have access to health care, his ideas including tax cuts and incentives to employers as well who provide good quality care to their employees, protecting medicare and medicaid, properly funding medical research, including increasing research for breast cancer and other underfunded research, improving access in rural and urban areas, he spoke out against Bush's prescription program, on the campaign trail, about what a false promise it was, he spoke about affordable prescriptions, and so much more. I wish his issue pages from '04 were still online.

You have every right to be an idiot in denial, you do not have a right to lie about, and slander decent, honorable democratic candidates.

No, Feingold didn't

Um, yes. He did. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Nick,

Wrong translation. Mollie is saying that the Dems calculate their every move like it's a world champion chess game, but it should be played like a kindergartener's game of war. You got the high card? Then just play the damn thing. Why reshuffle the deck?

I'm sorry, I meant Al From...

The popular meme is that dems are weak on defense, and that is simply not true.  Instead of standing up and saying LOUDLY that the dems are not weak on defense they simply avoid the subject or think they need to agree with the repubs to look "strong" on the issue.

As much as I see your point, I can't see an effective countermeasure for the party not in power. In other words, if the Dems stand up and oppose the war policies they are only a voice of opposition, as they have no real means to change the course of the war policy, due to their lack of power.

The constant voice of opposition, only results in them being villified as whiners and complainers.

The reality is they are powerless becasue the GOP controls congress and the senate.

Which to me is the argument to make, that if the public wants change they need to give shift the balance of power.

Just loudly and strongly saying how wrong something is does not get the same result.

BTW..what does meme  ....mean?

 Feingold's great but he's always been an outlier in his own party - he was the only Democrat to vote in FAVOR of letting the Clinton impeachment proceed

Hmmm, are you certain of that This was a morals issue, didn't Lieberman and Levin vote for the impeachment to proceed also?

It's time for all of us REAL Americans to read "Take It Back" by Carville & Begala. We'd all better get along and fight or we'll all be sharing space in Gitmo.

Bob 

Molly should nominate Russ, and let's see how many delegates he gets to vote for him. 

 Win with Warner '08

Hillary is Hubert Humphrey as of now--the CW "presumptive frontrunner" in the MSM.   LBJ is the institutional national Democratic party, such as it is. 

Bobby Kennedy candidate is, I would say, probably Edwards as the closest thing--committed to fighting poverty, capable of bringing people together across racial and class lines, openly positive and idealistic about what the country could become, and initially supportive of an unpopular war he now says he thinks he was wrong to support.      

So Molly Ivins thinks the party is 99% spineless and unworthy of voting for. Wow, that took alot of courage> I wonder how many friends that lost her in the circles she travels in.

Six years in between time of first inauguration and time of resignation is more time than the current incumbent has left.

But of course that's according the Constitution, whose provisions are subject to suspension on national security grounds. 

<< We engage because the Dems deserve it.>>

Except, of course, the Democrats who agree with you; who are fearless patriots with the courage of their convictions. As opposed to Democrats such as myself, who are merely timourous opportunists who lack the testicular fortitude  to be "real Democrats."

Noel

<< She didn't have one concern, she parroted the standard Nader-reichers line.. "oh, we won't let that happen" and "it'll never come to that." Of course she knew it would come to that, anyone with half a brain knew what the outcome of a Bush presidency would be.>>

Generally, I'm in favor of letting bygones be bygones, rehashing the Nader thing doesn't help that much; though, honestly, the temptation to say "I told you so" to the smug idiots who claimed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush is hard to resist.

The only thing I'd point out, though, is that the hostility between the wings of the Party is more acrimonious by orders of magnitude than it was in 2000- we all need to learn to live with each other; and more important, fight for each other- or get used to being a permanent minority.

Noel

No longer a trusted user (too many "0" ratings from Mary from RI and  NickDoe, I guess) I can't see BevD's comment to which mine is a response.

Could someone do me a favor and give BevD's -- if it's still there -- a positive rating so I can see it.

cscs you are obfuscating.  How many Democrats said they will vote against Feingold's resolution?  None that I know of.  As you know, voting for a motion is not the same as co-sponsoring it.  The overwhelming Democrat response to Feingold is:  This distracts from our efforts to work against George Bush, at this time.

What if the poll asked:  Is it more important for Senate Democrats to emphacize that George Bush has made us less safe from terrorism, put US power on the line for no good reason in a war that cannot be won, alienated our friends and motivated our enemies in the Middle East, established a deficit getting worse and worse in order to give money to the very richest, threatens Social Security, and repeatedly says lovely words that counter his actions on education, energy, and healthcare, (etc, etc).  Or is it more important for Senate Democrats to push for censure of the President for criminal acts the Republicans (in the majority) one and all continually claim he didn't commit?

I spoke with Molly Ivins after reading her article in '00 where she announced her plan to vote for Nader. I had expected her, the grand high poohbah of all things Bush, would have an appreciation for how truly painful a Bush presidency would be.  Mary fromRI

As usual Mary provides no links to support her claims or to give them context.

Did Ivins support Nader to the exclusion of supporting Gore?  Of course not.  As she said, where the outcome was clear, a vote for Nader might give reformers a leg up when it came to the debate in 2004: "Our [Texas] electors are going to Dubya no matter how Democrats here vote, so for us, this is the equivalent of a primary vote: Go with your heart."

If, as she claims, Mary really did speak with Molly Ivins, I pity poor Molly.

Quaere:  What can this woman possibly mean by calling Ivins "the grand high poobah of all things Bush"?  Has anyone got any idea, at all?

I had to post this, as so many of you believe that those who won't jump on Feingold's bandwagon shouldn't be re-elected. I'm sure you've heard of Representative Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the darling of the left, well Bernie does not support censure, he stated that it would be a waste of time and energy, he agrees with Nancy Pelosi on the subject.

So let's get started on trashing Sanders as weak, cowardly, and whatever little smears you try and pin on democrats.. ;-) I'm just dying to hear how ol' Molly spins her way out of this one.. after all, she and Bernie both endorsed Nader in '00.. could it be that as Bernie is running for Jefford's senate seat this year that he knows it won't profit him to act so precipitously?

What gets me is how pathetically little attention the rabid-extremely- ineffectual-left pays to the realities, or to the consequences of their demands. Here's something some of you ivory tower gripers might like to consider, if democrats take control of the house, who becomes the committee  chairman leader on the house judiciary committee? Representative John Conyers.

Do you actually know who Conyers is, or do you just type, cut/paste his name in when you latch onto a particular issue he's championing, and then it just flits out of your head? Do you smug fools know who the current chairman is? Rep. Sensenbrenner, so would you rather have someone who actually would vote to start impeachment proceedings against Bush, or someone who covers Bush's behind in charge of that committee?

Why do I know that I won't get any replies to this one... ;-)

What can this woman possibly mean by calling Ivins "the grand high poobah of all things Bush"?  Has anyone got any idea, at all?

That's today's tack. Calling us all either Marxists or Bushites. 

She's working for this month's NickDoe Classy Blogger award.

Dissent Protects Democracy

I'd realized that I'd forgotten to paste in the link Ellen, then for some reason after I had pasted in the link and hit submit, it wouldn't allow me to edit my post.. I wonder why.. someone find that truth inconvenient? ;-)

Oops, made a mistake here's Sanders comment on censure, with a link to the article http://www.localnewsleader.com/brocktown/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=159762

Sanders, the Vermont congressman, said a far better goal is ending Republican dominance in Congress in November elections.

This is Bernie's comment on impeachment http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11866980/

Yeah, Molly, did end up rationalizing voter swaps, and strategy voting depending on whether you were in a red or blue state, that after she wallowed in Nader-reich hatred of all things dem for months..

I looked up the # for the paper in Fort Worth that she worked at back then, assuming I'd get voice mail. Ivins herself answered the phone and we spoke. I stated a fact, didn't make a big deal about it. Are you 12 years old or something because quite honestly, that is how you come off..

Sour grapes, that's all you've got.. now go cogitate over some new agitprop, whydontcha? ;-)

George W. Bush and because he is a war criminal who also loves to break the IV Amendment.

Tom

I think Ralph Nader is right. Money has corrupted the Dems. The local Dems here in suburban Philadelphia are great. Go to the county level and they are very cautious. At the state level, Gov. Rendell has supported the war in Iraq from the start. At the national level with the exception of a few Senators and a larger number of Representatives the Dems are wimps who won't make serious challenges to Bush's ludicrous vision of reality. It's either big bucks and/or a horrendous lack of perceptiveness that is causing many of the more powerful Dems to be this way.

Tom

No way. Feingold is an ANGRY liberal. The worst kind..Next thing you're going to tell me is he voted for John Roberts

Bingo! yes he did..after asking the most searing questions he voted for him...that is when I started to question his positions. Now Obama, did not vote for Robers...but good ol Russ sure did

Democrats to emphacize that George Bush has made us less safe from terrorism, put US power on the line for no good reason in a war that cannot be won, alienated our friends and motivated our enemies in the Middle East, established a deficit getting worse and worse in order to give money to the very richest, threatens Social Security, and repeatedly says lovely words that counter his actions on education, energy, and healthcare

Yes!!

And how about spinning that terrorist line 'do you wanna fight them abroad or here"

to

Do you wanna have a  democracy, and fund schools, hospitals and healthcare abroad or here?

Tom,

If you've got trusted user status, still, and can see my comment, above, could you give me a rating to make the comment visible to those, like myself, whom TPMCafe does not trust.

So, you did exactly what I said you did -- misstated and misrepresented Ivin's statements and position.

You're a liar Mary.  You can keep giving me "0" ratings, but you'll remain one. 

I'd emailed my friend Shirley who lives in Wisconsin, your remarks to ask her opinion, and what she had to say was that while you were spot on, regarding the political makeup of the state, she begs to differ about what people in the state are thinking about, their priorities and how Feingold's screed will play.

While there's been discussion on the subject, most find it a time waster and wonder if this is a case of ambition over good common sense. Most are upset with the vote to increase the budget deficit, the economy, the war. She said that many in the state view Feingold a "back bencher", when they talk about a representative who has that independent streak, and good common sense who cares about the people of the state, they refer to Rep Obey, not Feingold.

Thanks for taking the time to give me more input on what's going on in my home state! :-)

OH, Mary, the truth hurts, doesn't it?  I guess that is why, rather than respond to my post you just gave me a big old zero.  You really don't understand the concept of rating, or you would understand what a zero is for.  You do yourself no credit by acting like a little spoiled child.  Rather than discuss you give me a virtual kick in the shin. 

The things I said were responses to your own quotes, and I showed you to be at least disingenuous when you wrote about having respect for other's opinions.  I never called you names, or told you that  what you believe is "completely wrong, as you did to me.  And in the end, rather than continue our reparte, you kinda took the coward's way out.  Tell me Mary, how does giving me a "Troll" rating stack up to having respect for what I think?   

Jan Knaus

[grin]  I'm just as surprised as you are that it's a JJW song.  I was thinking Ray Wiley Hubbard, and I remembered the line as "Texas women IS Texas gold."  What 30 years taketh away, Google restoreth.