John Doe, I find it hard to disagree with anything you said above, so I won't. In fact everything you said rings true. When I refer to libs, or dems, often maybe I don't paint a clear picture what and who I am referring to. The far left and the party elite are usually who I mean. You can't question the fact that the far left has been in control of the party for some time now. I'm not any happier with the GOP, although I do like Tom Tancredo. He has a message that resonates, and needs to be heard by more Americans. On the whole, I believe the government that sits in DC today is a far cry from what was intended by our founding fathers(here come the attacks on them now)and needs to be put in check by the American people. The best way to do that would be for voters to take a serious look at 3rd party candidates. Libertarians or others. It doesn't matter what your politics are, intelligent people can respectfully disagree, find an outsider that you can get behind, and get behind them. Ignore the candidates that are forced on us and look for alternatives. If a movement in that direction could gain some ground, enough to keep either of the major parties from holding a clear majority it might force some bipartisanship and make the THREE parties work together and create a little give and take. Or it may be too late, in which case we're all doomed.

"We get the government we deserve" - A Month of Sundays - Don Henley (lifted from H.L. Mencken?)

John Stout, I only speak for myself. If what I say strikes a chord with you that must mean it is the opposite of what you believe which I am more than happy to do. Also, my facts are straight. Hillary is not hated by all Americans. In fact, her numbers are higher than the President who you seem to believe in so much. Besides, how can you say such bad things about your home girl.

"I don't belong to an organized political party -- I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers. Thus it was and still is and probably will ever be -- and that is a good thing. Despite what Darren Pope says, the Republicans are far more organized with enforced discipline and suppression of dissent -- which gives them an advantage greater than their numbers would indicate. No one would accuse them of being nuanced. Their mantra goes on. You are with us or against us. You are on the side of right or else you are wrong. Love it or leave. Agree or shut up.

Darren: I have to disagree with your assertion that the far left is in control of the Democratic Party. At present there is a grassroots movement that is predominantly center-left attempting to regain control from groups like the DLC and the Blue Dogs who are predominantly moderate to center right. I think the impression that the Dems are moving to the "radical" fringes is based on the fact that we have been playing to the conservative independants for so long. We did this because it worked so well for the GOP in the 90s and we were trying to emulate that success. What we forgot was that there was a left leaning section of the independants that we were not energizing enough to get them out to vote. The strategy shift to energize the left leaning independants coupled with the Bush administration shifting the GOP so incredibly far to the right (so much so that we find conservative leaning independants voting for Democrats) is probably the largest contributor to our recent success at the polls. This is actually somewhat disturbing to me in the sense that I absolutely love a divided government. The Democrats should be checking the social conservatives on social policy and the Republicans should be checking Democrats on financial matters with foreign relations being colabrative. Or that's how I think it should work anyway (I'm still holding out hope that Santa Clause isn't really just dad too. ;)). The danger here is that I honestly think the GOP is hamstringing themselves for, conceivably, a decade here. If that happens and the Democrats get the same governmental trifecta that the Bush administration got... that's a bad thing. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. However, with Bush tying the GOP to every nonsensical and unpopular policy known to man we run the risk of getting into a situation were the Democrats wind up with a permanent majority which is just as bad, in the long run, as a permanent Republican majority. Third parties are not the answer. Getting involved with party politics on a local level is. The third parties really should be factions within the established parties. It is hard and slow going but I think that is the better response. Oh yeah... if you want to see the left's political fringe find a Kucinich supporter (and then thank your lucky stars that the left fringe isn't really in charge of the Democrats).

Rick Lapin, Howard Dean is great choice -- I can only dream. The Democratic party doesn't deserve him, but maybe some cream can rise to the top. If he could avoid being stabbed in the back by his own party "leaders" he could really take back many of the southern red states with his 50 state strategy. Many are just waiting for a democratic to pay attention to them. respect them, campaign there and actually ask for their vote. Maybe team him one way or another with Edwards.

Darren - I googled like you asked, and here's what I found: "A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party." Sounds like Curveball...[WorldNetDaily.com, 1/6/04...incidentally, there's an ad to the left of the article for conservative t-shirts as well as a link that answers the question "Should Christians be armed? The ultimate Biblical exploration of self defense"]. There's another article from the New York Sun echoed by Cybercast News Service (created by the Media Research Center). There's one from powerlineblog and another from newsmax (I like the links to "Al Gore's Convenient Lie" and "Think Conservative...think values...think strength...think Condi). I came across something from John Bolten telling congress that the US was looking into it...back in 2003. Then there's an article from CNN in which the ISG doubts the claims. Based on my initial canvas, my conclusion is that the WMD to Syria evidence is weak, touted in the unabashedly conservative world, and highly suspect. It could be true, but I'd assume if the administration had any evidence at all this would make it to, at least, Fox News and ABC. As for Hussein vs Bush: You're setting up a straw man. Most who doubted the existence of wmd did so because of the findings of the IAEA. It's never been a choice between Bush and Hussein.

We have never had a Woman President, and we have never had an African-American President. No matter how well-qualified Hillary or Obama are, I think this is a bad time in our history to have an experimental election to see if it is possible to elect either of the two. If it turns out to be impossible due to long-standing prejudices (and as much as we deny them, they do still exist), we are stuck with a Republican President again. Plus we will have Cheney and Bush as "Elder Statesmen" to offer advice and twist an arm or two.

WMD is Syria? Nonsense! Months before PRESIDENT LIAR said "I have not yet authorized the use of force" we were occupying Iraq. We held the airfields before the "war" even started. We had been doing over flights for YEARS and had wall-to-wall satellite coverage. ANy WMD being moved to Syria would have been detected and attacked. They managed to find some trucks used to generate hydrogen for weather balloons - what did those stinking liars tell us they were? Mobile chemical warfare labs? What a steamy pile of lies.

To Sierra in San Francisco.....YOU and the attitude you come off with, are a big part of the reason why the Republicans held the majority in congress for as long as they did, and defintely the reason why Bush took the White House twice. Where were YOU, and where was your B.S. and "bravado" when Republicans in congress tried to stifle and surpress Bill Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act in 1993? Where was your big mouth when they tried to K.O. the Crime Bill in 1994, and used the ban on assault weapons, and the NRA to catapault themselves into the majority? Where were YOU when Newt Gingrich was pushing the "Contract ON America" down the troats of the American public, in spite of the fact that the economy had already turned around in the spring of 1994? Where were YOU when Jerry FARTWELL and the (im)moral "majority" were running TV ad's accusing the President of The United States of murdering Vince Foster? (By the way, FARTWELL has already announced that he will run a HATE CAMPAIGN against Hillary if she gets the nomination. Apparently, you're announcing that you'll help him.) Where were YOU when The Republican Congress and Ken Starr ran a-muck with the law, and tried to remove a sitting President for a personal indiscretion? HUH? Where were YOU Sierra, tell us? You want us to follow your detritus "I hate Hillary" mantra, because she voted to give a discretionary power to a President who severely abused it. You say YOU "knew" there were no WMD. But you weren't a part of any of the briefings she attended, and you fail to mention that we had THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES running around telling people "we cannot wait for the smoking gun that will come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Hillary was / is a United States Senator with a responsibility to her constituency. She did what she felt she had to do in the hysterical aftermath of 911, to protect the people she represents. The information she and other congressional Democrats were given, was cherry picked by people loyal to Bush, SPECIFICALLY to mislead them into voting for the use of force in Iraq. But you COMPLETELY ignore and excuse that fact. You also fail to mention that the combined vote count, for all Democrats in BOTH houses of congress was 147 - 110 AGAINST going to war. There were 302 Republicans in both the Senate and The House of Representatives who voted on this measure. 296 of them voted FOR the war. You lay the complete blame for this war at Hillary's feet (as do other EXTREMIST idiots like yourself). But you completely excuse the 296 Republicans who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq and you say NOTHING about the fact that Bush LIED through his teeth to the congress and to the American people. I find that curiously intriguing. I saw your post to me the other day, regarding my commentary on Code Pink's incongruous protest at Hillary's rally earlier this week. Code Pink is / are a bunch of jerk-off's who need to get their asses over to The White House where Mr. Bush can hear their chortling anti-war chants. But they are too damn lazy to do that, so they pulled a "drive by" on Hillary instead. Even the crowd drowned them out with a chant of their own, "Go see BUSH!" You talk about Obama being against the war from the start. I say that's non-sense because he had the luxury of not being in The Senate when that vote was taken in 2002. He doesn't come from the state where 2800 people DIED on 911, and he was never briefed by Bush's people like Hillary and other congressional Dem's were. Obama has exactly two years in office as a U.S. Senator and "some" experience as a State Legislator in Illinois. He is UNQUALIFIED and as a result his candidacy will result in yet another Republican winning The White House in 2008. But, you don't care about that. I could go along with Edwards or Richardson. But I would remined you that Edwards voted for the war also (a little factoid you forgot to mention), and Richardson, aliken to Obama, never had to make a decision with regard to voting for or against the war in Iraq. The bottom line is that for some inexplicable reason, extremeists who can't get their own God Damned way within our party, want to do everythig they can to rip our base apart before the campaigning even starts. It's almost as if you WANT another NEO-CONSERVATIVE jack ass to win in 2008, so you can blame it all on Hillary. Get it together Sierra! Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way! But DO NOT tell me or any other Democrat that we shouldn't vote for Hillary simply because YOU can't get your own way within Democratic ranks. You're right about one thing though; if you and your extremeist friends don't stop the whinning, and crying about Hillary you will DESERVE the Neo-Con you get in The White House instead!

<< We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.>> Wow...apparently J. Merle didn't read this. Of course, somehow that latest profanity laden tirade got approved for posting. And someone gave Darren grief for posting something that was "too long".

Darren, here is the post you requested I re-post. It was in reference to you responding to a blogger stating that Bush said a dictatorship would be easier for him. And you referenced Daniel Pearl and others who had been executed. Thank you for responding. BTW I will not apologize to the blogger who feels the posts are too long. "Darren, I am going to apologize upfront because I think you have broad shoulders to have 90% of the people here jump on you at once. That being said if you have answered this since your 2:06 blog I apologize. Don't you believe the fact that we are the United States of America makes us better than those responsible for the deaths you spoke about at the end of that blog. The Geneva Convention is very clear about what is acceptable practice when it comes to treatment of other human beings. There is not an asteric in it that says, but if they are a terrorist then see the paragraph labled special exceptions. That is what makes this country great, that we don't stoop to the levels of these other countries. And that we don't let our emotions make our decisions. That is why the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights, the Nuremberg principles just to name a few were all written. And that is why we belong to the United Nations. The combination of all these things, along with many others have worked for hundreds of years. Now we have a administration that disregards those documents and invents his own. Like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act, just to name a couple. If he doesn't like it, he signs a bill to go around it. He has repeatedly said he wont listen to congress that he "would be the final decision maker", Dick Cheney has said in reference to whether or not they were going to listen to Congress that "you can't run a war by committee".(MTP January 17th approx) I understand you are not a Bush backer, and you believe that we need to finish what we started. I also understand that you believe the Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. But please tell me that you can see, when you aren't all fired up, that the United States is like silly putty in this administrations hands. They just mold it and do whatever they want with it, regardless of the results."

WOW J.Merle, I agree with everything you said except for berating Sierra. It is the voice of the people that keep this alive, but please don't stoop to the level of all the name callers on the blog. I understand that by saying this I am leaving myself open to the same thing. But as Americans we have a right to voice our opinions, and rebuttals carry a lot more weight and validity if they are done in a professional manner.

Susan, there is no asterisk, but the Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy non-combatants, in other words, terrorists. They do not wear a uniform, instead they dress as civilians and when they launch their cowardly attacks they blend back in to the population, which often causes more civilian deaths.

Darren: save your breath. Excellent synopsis about why the left and the Dems will FAIL at electing a Dem President in "08. When it happens, we can listen to all the sqealing and moaning and whining about "stolen elections", Ohio precincts this, and Florida chads that, when the simple truth of the matter is, even though most Americans don't LIKE GW now, they will overwhelmingly elect ANOTHER Repub President, because the Far Left and the Democrats, AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, are out of touch with Americans. You know, let them have the House. It's becoming plain as day that its the EXECUTIVE branch that throws the most weight in matters that matter most. Catchy phrase, huh? "..in matters that matter most".

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA said........ << We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.>> Wow...apparently J. Merle didn't read this. Of course, somehow that latest profanity laden tirade got approved for posting. And someone gave Darren grief for posting something that was "too long". ........."Profanity laden," Grimey? Hardly! I guess you didn't care for the spirit and the content of what posted, and you would like to see it censored. That's fine, you're entitled to your opoinion. But please don't mis-represent what I wrote as being "profanity laden" because that is a simple LIE. I used the words "asses" and "damned." That certainly doesn't qualify my piece as being "profanity laden." I can see why your name is "Grimey." By the way, your comments were "attacking" mine. So you're as much in violation as you accuse others of being. I notice that the moderators of this board give some lee-way with regard to what gets posted. I think I speak for everyone when I say, we'd rather have it that way, than to have strict censorship of one's political expressions. There have been other posters who have used explicitly worse language than I did. But, I see you chose to complain about me, and about those who criticized Darren. So in other words, whatever gets approved for posting is okay with you, as long as it doesn't clash with YOUR political viewpont.

J. Merle Stanley: do you like your fellow Libs with fava beans and a nice Chianti? fffffffffffffffffffft!

Darren - The Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan when we invaded. Thus, those fighting for the Taliban actually comprised the country's military. Just because we want to call them something else doesn't make them less than what they were - soldiers fighting for their country.

jtb - only Hillary can blow the '08 election for the Democrats - that or martial law by a failed and disgraced president. Weren't you on here squealing and screeching about how the Dems would never take over the Congress? Besides - maybe the Dems will steal this election - you seem OK with stolen elections.

Ask Sierra, jtb. She seems to want to eat Hillary alive.

Ok Darren, but what makes this country better than those you lothe. . . . the fact that we don't (or aren't supposed to (abu graib))treat other human beings like that. Thats part of what makes this the great country that we are. And why people flee towards it to be a part of it.

Lee: yes, you are correct: I couldn't imagine the millions who voted Repub in "04 would sit on their hands, and watch the Limousine Libs like Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry take the reigns of Government. Boy, was I wrong. If you can find any of these turncoat Republicans, please ask them to join the discussion. They weren't smart enough to realize that they WEREN'T voting against Bush, but against fellow Repub elected Congresspersons. BIG MISTAKE

jtb-maybe, just maybe, they agree with the majority of Americans and were demanding change. It's a jagged little pill for you I know.

LEE, I disagree. Obama will get beat BADLY. Too inexeperienced, and YES the G.O.P. WILL polarize the election based upon his color. Especially down south and out in the mid-west. (Gilliani did that very thing here in 1993 when he ran against David Dinkins for Mayor.) It wouldn't be moral, and it wouldn't be right. But they don't care. If it wins an election for them, they'll do it anyway.

"Isn't it ironic...can you see..."--Alanis Morisette, from the album "Jagged Little Pill"

Susan in Nebraska............wanna' know why The American People voted for Democrats? Because those like jtb, say things like this; "I couldn't imagine the millions who voted Repub in "04 would sit on their hands, and watch the Limousine Libs like Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry take the reigns of Government.".....Now we're "Limosine Libs." jtb just doesn't get it, and he probably never will. "The times they are a' changing"..... and so is the political attitude of our country. Whether jtb, or any republiCANT for that matter, wants to admit it or not, the G.O.P. stands two chances of winning the Presidency again next year; NONE and ABSOLUTELY none.

I tend to agree with you J. Merle, however, I dont believe geography is the only issue that has to be overcome here. I think it is a male/female issue and age issue as well. I believe there is an older generation of males and some females that wouldn't vote for an african american OR a female just because they are bigots. Sad but true. Yes I am from the mid-west, but I don't think it is as much geography as age. I am 33 years old, and I tend to believe that my generation is more forward thinking than those before me. I could be wrong!!!! No offense intended.

J. Merle...In no way shape or form am I advocating censorship. But it never hurts to show respect to fellow posters. Calling someone an "extremist idiot" is unnecessary. If it is someone "trolling" and throwing out a ridiculous viewpoint...fine. But, Sierra has been posting here for quite a while. I don't agree with her often, but I do respect her opinion. Also, please keep in mind that as someone who leans conservative, this isn't the blog I'd be checking out if I only wanted to see political views that square with mine. I think what makes this blog nice is that there are a variety of opinions. There are several on the right and quite a few on the left. But, there is normally a pretty nice dialogue. I stepped up for Darren because someone made a request that posts be kept succinct. I wasn't trying to slam you at all, I just thought that a post of that length that basically trashed one other regular poster was unnecessary. I give your viewpoitns the same respect as I do to every other regular poster here. (FYI...the name is a reference to a rather obscure character from "The Simpsons").

Susan...very well stated. You and I are roughly the same age and I have no problem with a candidate of any gender, race, etc. (and...*gasp* I am conservative). The job should go to the best person regardless of their gender, race, religion, etc.

I see Hillary or Obama as VP. Can you imagine a VP with Cheney's authority named "Hillary" looking into to the books? My bet is on martial law. I don't think Obama would get beat badly, though. No amount of crap can bury a honestly positive message.

In reference to Democrats being in lock step, I quote Will Rogers, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." That about sums it up.

Susan, Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it was a handful of individuals, and those who tried to cover up their deplorable mistreatment of prisoners who were responsible, not the U.S. as a whole. As for the Taliban, well some may call them an army, but according to the Geneva Convention, combatants MUST wear a uniform, and adhere to accepted international rules of warfare. The Taliban did neither. They were a terrorist group who assumed power and subjugated the population to horrific treatment. They were not fighting for their country, as Carrie asserted, but for a radical Islamic cause. To enslave and forcibly control the entire population of a country.

I have voted for only two Democrats in my 38 years of voting, but, in November of 2006, I pulled the lever for a straight Democratic ticket for state, local and national elections. I’m obviously disgusted with the Republican Party. The primary reason (not the only reason) is that President Bush’s arrogance has caused me to think hard about the consequences of putting the wrong person in a position of unequaled individual power, the US Presidency. I used to think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the worst Presidents during my lifetime but they’re looking better as time goes on. Dare I vote for Hillary or Gore?? Its more of a possibility than I ever thought possible.

JMerle, you said it. And it's not right, but that 's the way it is. Sad. I wish we'd be proven wrong though.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):