John Kerry HITS BACK at the GOP Hypocrites and Chickenhawks who seek to DEMONIZE all those who don't toe their fraudulent propaganda line....

Senator Kerry responding to Republican "you dissed the troops" charges:

"They ATTACK... LIE... and DISTORT."

IF John Kerry keeps up this line of Trumanesque PLAIN SPEAKING, we might have to sign-off here at C-Dems, and start up a new blog "BraveDems" or "Fightin' Dems" or something!

But it certainly IS a breath of FRESH AIR to FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY hear someone lump ALL the Republican BULLIES, media Brown-shirts, and demagogue THUGS into one category, for example, no-class, race-baiting, disease-mocking, mongering radio bully RUSH LIMBAUGH in with (Kerry's words):

"The Republican [leadership] HACKS who have NEVER WORN THE UNIFORM OF THIS COUNTRY, [and who] WOULD LIE for political gain."

And, we must point out (as Keith Olberman of "Countdown" did tonight in his 7th Special Commentary), that President Bush and the Republican Party have a lot of nerve trying to make a huge election issue out of one comment by Senator Kerry allegedly "disrespecting the troops"; because President Bush has NEVER APOLOGIZED for his:

#1. "Bring it on!" baiting of insurgents in Iraq;
#2. Mr. Bush's brazen lie that "Saddam Hussein would NOT ALLOW weapons inspectors in to Iraq" when in fact they WERE in Iraq, on the ground, inspecting dozens of locations at a moment's notice, until the IAEA inspectors were ordered OUT of that country, by the US government, on the very eve of America's "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign against Iraq;
#3. Mr. Bush has never apologized for his "No WMD's here!" skit at the White House Correspondent's dinner in 2003, when it became clear to even the president that Iraq had never had a WMD program after their stockpiles and labs were destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War;
#4. Mr. Bush has never apologized for Republican campaign smears of combat veterans, including John McCain, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and double-amputee Max Cleland (and currently Iraq double-amputee Tammy Duckworth);
#5. Mr. Bush has never apologized for making America EVEN MORE DEPENDENT on FOREIGN OIL IMPORTS since he became president, and he continues to classify as 'secret' even the names of those who attended Vice President Dick Cheney's "secret energy task force" from 2001;

(The list of Mr. Bush's insults that he has never apologized goes on...)

======================================

Senator Kerry's Response

Following is a transcript of Senator John Kerry's remarks in Seattle on Tuesday. following his speech to college students where he implied that if they didn't study and do well in college, they could find themselves "stuck in Iraq":
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/us/31kerry-transcript.html

IF anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is -- if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq, and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy. It's just wrong.

This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic. I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes.

I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, the most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves.

Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this.

This policy is broken, and this president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them. And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday. I'm not going to be lectured by a White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who's taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox, who's now going to try to attack me and lie about me and distort me. No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, are willing to lie about those who did. It's over.

This administration has given us a Katrina foreign policy: mistake upon mistake upon mistake, unwilling to give our troops the armor that they need, unwilling to have enough troops in place, unwilling to give them the humvees that they deserve to protect them, unwilling to have a coalition that is adequate to be able to defend our interests.

Our own intelligence agency has told us they're creating more terrorists, not less; they're making us less safe, not more. I think Americans are sick and tired of this game.

These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic, and they're afraid to debate -- you know, they want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men.
Well, we're going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is, these Republicans want to distort this policy. And this time it won't work, because we are going to stay in their face with the truth.

And no Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks that have no place in American politics. It's time to set our policy correct.

They have a stand still and lose policy in Iraq, and they have a cut and run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice, period.

Q Senator, John McCain said that you owe an apology to many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq who answered their country's call because they are patriots. Should those people who didn't get your joke, who may have misinterpreted you as saying the undereducated are cannon fodder -- what do you say to them?

KERRY: Never said that. And John McCain knows I've never said that, and John McCain knows I wouldn't say that. And John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Donald Rumsfeld for making the mistakes he's made. John McCain ought to ask for an apology from this administration for not sending in enough troops. He ought to ask for an apology for putting our troops on the line with a policy that doesn't have an adequate coalition, that doesn't have adequate diplomacy, where we don't have a strategy to win.

And what we need is to debate the real issues, not these phony, sideline issues that are part of the politics. Americans are tired -- sick and tired of this kind of politics. They know my true feelings. They know I fought to provide additional money for veterans. They know I fought to provide money for combat -- for veterans. They know I fought to put money for VA. They know I've honored those veterans. They know that this is the finest military -- and I've said it a hundred thousand times -- that we've ever had. They know precisely what I was saying, and they're trying to turn this, because they have a bankrupt policy and they can't defend it to the nation and they can't defend it to the world, and I'm not going to stand for this anymore, period. That's the apology that people ought to get.

Q Do you need to go to joke school?

KERRY: Sure. Q It sounds like you regret saying those remarks. And what were you trying to say?

KERRY: Very simple, that they -- that those who didn't study it properly, those who made the decisions, they got us into Iraq, very simple. And the fact is they know that. The administration knows that. And they're simply trying to distort this. They're trying to play a game, and again, I'm not going to stand for it. This is the kind of thing that makes Americans sick. People know.

And there ought to be some level of honor and trust in this process. You know, I have fought a lifetime on behalf of veterans, and we have the finest young men and women serving us in the United States military that we've ever had. And I'm proud of that. But this administration has let them down, and that was clearly in a remark directed at this administration. They understand it, they want to distort it. It's a classic Republican playbook. They want to change the topic. We're not going to let them change the topic. The topic is their failed policy in Iraq. The topic is that they don't have a strategy; they don't have a way to be able to win.

You got Dick Cheney saying everything's just terrific in Iraq only a week ago. John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa. He ought to ask for an apology for once again a week ago referring to al Qaeda as being the central problem in Iraq when al Qaeda is not the central problem.

Enough is enough! I'm not going to stand for these people trying to shift the topic and make it politics. America deserves a real discussion about real policy, and that's what this election is going to be about next Tuesday.

Q Senator --

KERRY: One more question, and then, I got to run.

Q (Off mike) --

KERRY: Let me tell you something, I'm not going to give them one ounce of daylight to spread one of their lies and to play this game ever, ever again. That is a lesson I learned deep and hard, and I'll tell you, I will stand up anywhere across this country and take these guys on. This is dishonoring not just the troops themselves by pointing the finger at the troops, it's abusing the troops. They're using the troops. They're trying to make the troops into the target here. I didn't do that, and they know that. And for them to suggest that somebody who served their country as I did and has a record like I have in the United States Congress of standing up and fighting for the troops would ever, every insult the troops is an insult in and of itself. And they owe us an apology for even daring to use the White House to stand up and make this an issue again. Shame on them. Shame on them. And may the American people take that shame to the polls with them next Tuesday.

Thank you, all.

One week before election, Michael Fox's support of Dems is "CONTROVERSIAL," but Katrina/FEMA incompetence ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED...??

So let's get this straight: ONE WEEK before election 2006, Michael Fox's ad for Democrats is "CONTROVERSIAL," but the awful loss of life in New Orleans after the failure of New Orleans levies; FEMA's dismal lack of preparation under Mike "heckuva job, Brownie" Brown for the Katrina monster category 5 hurricane; and Michael Chertoff's INCOMPETENT administration of Homeland Security ; TORTURE and the disregarding of the Geneva Conventions; 9-11 incompetence and the dismal planning for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq... all these, and many more issues and Republican scandals, ARE BARELY MENTIONED in the news and on networks and major-media, if at all?

Even with Democrats doing well in polls, across the nation the real message is REPUBLICAN DOMINANCE of the MEDIA and the media MESSAGE.

Republicans are STILL masters of NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS, and the Democratic Party leadership, as Arianna Huffington wrote today, is trying to make "middle class pocketbook" issues the CENTERPIECE of Election '06.... even though Karl Rove and the past dozen years of Republican electioneering demonstrate that NEGATIVE ADS WORK, EVEN when Repubs have been forced to create 'scandals' OUT OF THIN AIR!

(The penultimate or 'text-book' examples of Repubs creating 'scandals' OUT OF THIN AIR are the "Travel Office firings," the "Lincoln Bedrooom 'scandal'," and the "White House TRASHING 'scandal'," ALL OF WHICH WERE CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR by the Republicans and their attack-dog media flunkies against the previous Democratic White House administration.)

For an example from today's news, check out Charlie Crist's campaign for governor of Florida. His opponent's media message is so muted, that we are tempted not to even mention his name! (Jim Davis, the Dem. candidate for FL governor).

Charlie Crist, Republican candidate for Governor in Florida, has stated (himself) in TV ads "My opponent is AGAINST THE IMPORTATION OF CHEAPER prescription drugs FROM Canada."

But the laws that now PROHIBIT the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada were RECENTLY SIGNED INTO LAW by President Bush and THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!

HOW is it that Republican Charlie Crist is using a cruel and expensive (to consumers) REPUBLICAN LAW.... AGAINST his Democratic opponent, Jim Davis?!!!


-answer: Charlie Crist's ads are a text-book example of the Republican's ability to take NON-ISSUES and REPUBLICAN FAILINGS, and TRANSFORM THEM.... into NEGATIVE ads AGAINST the Democrats!

A REPUBLICAN administration FAILS to capture Osama bin Laden, has turned Iraq into a MAGNET of HATE AMERICA resentment in the Muslim world, and sacrifices thousands of American soldiers' lives to the abject corruption of crony contracts and business deals... and yet the Republicans PORTRAY DEMOCRATS as being "SOFT ON NATIONAL SECURITY"!!

How did we get to this point in American history where MILLIONS of Republican BENEFICIARIES of "liberal" and progressive laws and programs - the GI bill and college loans, small business loans, Social Security, pension, retirement, and savings guarantees and insurance, etc., ad infinitum - now vote FOR REPUBLICAN leaders who seek to (and are in the process of) KILLLING those very programs, assistances, and guarantees that have made them (Republican voters) successful citizens?

-ans: Oh yeah, over the past decade(s) Democrats have subscribed to the "FREE MARKET" Republican dogma, that even though using public airwaves, media corporations have NO, ZERO *responsibility* to provide election-year communications at cost, and therefore Democratic voters and candidates MUST ENRICH the vry corporations and business leaders who so often are MOST OPPOSED to the Democratic agenda and issues!

So even when Democratic candidates SUCCEED in raising campaign funds... we turn around and HAND THEM OVER to, and enrich, the very media corporations MOST OPPOSED to those Democratic candidates and issues!

Clearly, the Constitution and founders DID_NOT_ANTICIPATE the development of a modern, corporate media as OWNERS and GATEKEEPERS of American elections.

And, worse, faced with this media-politics disparity, Republicans have MASTERED THE ART OF NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS, while so often Democrats can NOT fashion a fighting message, even with years of Republican misrule and ABUSE OF POWER to use as campaign fodder.

========================================

Message to Dems: STOP Muddying the Campaign Messaging Waters
by Arianna Huffington
HuffingtonPost.com
10.30.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/memo-to-dems-stop-muddyi_b_32842.html


Memo to Dems: Stop counting your chickens, STOP TRYING TO SOFT-PEDAL what a Democratic victory will mean -- and for god's sake, stop muddying the messaging waters.

As Chris Bowers points out at MyDD, as many as 60 House races are still "absolutely in flux" -- i.e. within single digits, and likely to be decided by a very slim margin.

Bowers rightly hammers home the importance of "unrelenting activism" and making sure that the Democratic lead isn't gobbled up by the GOP's always effective get-out-the-vote ground game over the next eight days. He provides a helpful list of the kinds of roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-busy things anyone who cares about the future of this country can and should do between today and next Tuesday to ensure that those razor slim margins tilt Democratic.
Here's another thing that would help: Democratic leaders making it unequivocally clear with every pronouncement they make and every question they answer what this election is about. And it's not about what Howard Dean said yesterday on Face the Nation.

"Here's why we're running," he told Bob Schieffer. "We want middle-class tax fairness for the American people. We want middle-class Americans to benefit from this economy, not just the folks that have contributed to the president."

Nooooo! Dr. Dean, please, please tell me that you don't really believe this election is about "middle-class tax fairness."

To be fair, you did go on to say "We want a defense policy that's tough and smart" and that "Republicans have failed us on defense." But only after leading with middle-class tax fairness. Indeed, the first half of your segment was focused on it. You jumped right in with: "We want middle-class tax fairness. We think there's a war that hasn't been discussed, and that's the Republican war on the American family. A million people have lost their health care every single year that George Bush has been president. We need a minimum wage. America needs a raise."

The Republican war on the American family? A real war is sending young Americans home in body bags and has made us all less safe and you want to talk in metaphors?

Are you out of your freaking mind?

And it's not just you, Howard. Last week, Rahm Emanuel told the AP, "Democrats are talking about middle-class tax cuts and Republicans are talking about staying the course."

I know you two haven't seen eye-to-eye on much this campaign. Why start now, with this muddled message?

Staying the course is about Iraq. And now that the president is running away from that phrase, instead of beating the GOP over the head with it, Emanuel is robbing it of its power by using it as just a synonym for maintaining the status quo on tax policy.

Yes, there are many domestic issues -- taxes, health care, minimum wage -- Democrats will need to address once they are back in the majority. But, as I warned last month, they've got to stop reaching for the "it's the economy, stupid" crack pipe.

This election is about the fact that Republicans have made us less safe and that Congressional oversight is critical to ensure that Bush and company, with their tragically misguided decisions on Iraq and homeland security, don't make us even less secure over the two years they have left. Period. End of message.

There are only eight days left before this watershed election. I beseech all Democrats within spitting distance of a microphone: Put the standard-issue, knee-jerk, focus group-tested, inanities on ice until November 8th. Or else the real war on the American family is likely to get much, much bloodier.

We're nothing if not "Fair" here at C-dems! Obama, Feingold, Kerry lend a hand to the Ned Lamont campaign v "sell 'em down the river" Joe Lieberman.

According to Bob Geiger's Political Grab-bag (at HuffingtonPost.com), Senators Obama, Feingold, Kerry FINALLY lend a hand to the Ned Lamont campaign. Finally!

On the other hand, here is the context of the Senate Democrats' tepid support for Ned Lamont, and of how the CONTINUED SUPPORT for Lieberman by other Democratic Senators is just another of a symptom of the Democratic Party REFUSING to represent the rank-and-file "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" voters...

--------------------------------------------------
Regardless of Who Wins, Dems in for a Wild Ride after Election '06
By David Sirota
30 Oct. 2006
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2846/

Nowhere was this changing dynamic more on display than in Connecticut's recent Democratic senatorial primary and its aftermath. Businessman Ned Lamont--a first-time statewide candidate--toppled 18-year incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman after running a campaign against Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, Social Security privatization and lobbyist-written trade deals that have decimated the Nutmeg State's manufacturing economy. Lamont was grossly outspent thanks to Lieberman's corporate-funded war chest, but he built a grassroots campaign by tapping into his party's newly energized voters.

In response, a frightened Democratic Party in Washington tried to pretend nothing happened. Like frustrated children covering their ears and yelling "I can't hear you!," Democratic senators welcomed Lieberman back to their caucus after the summer recess--even though Lieberman announced he was abandoning his party to run in the general election against the Democratic nominee. Though many Democratic lawmakers officially endorsed Lamont, many also suggested to reporters they were still hoping for a Lieberman victory in the general election. That Lieberman ran to the media to berate his
party, likened his opponent to a terrorist sympathizer and declared his refusal to endorse down-ballot Democrats in other races seemed of little interest to Democrats comfortably insulated in the Senate club.

===================================

by Bob Geiger, HuffingtonPost.com
28 October 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/the-friday-political-grab_b_32633.html

Nedheads Unite - Unlike some other national Democrats, Barack Obama (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) have stepped up to the plate to give Democratic Senatorial Nominee Ned Lamont a boost in Connecticut this week.

"Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government," wrote Obama in an e-mail to Connecticut voters. "Ned Lamont's campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington. The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

The text of Feingold's e-mail was not available as of this writing but should be on the Ned Lamont blog today.

Also pitching in was Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who campaigned with Ned on Wednesday, appearing at a Veterans event with Lamont and praising his stance on the war in Iraq.

"The war in Iraq is hurting America's security. It is setting us back in the war on terror ... Ned Lamont understands that," said the Massachusetts senator. "He understands that we can fight a more effective war on terror, that we can be smarter in the way we conduct that war."

* * * * *
Quotes and Quips - Republican Alan Schlesinger got off a good line in the Connecticut Senate Debate this week when Lamont was hammering on Joe Lieberman for going back on his 1988 promise to limit himself to three Senate terms.

"Now, now, Ned," Schlesinger said. "The senator just simply meant he wanted three terms as a Democrat and three terms as an independent."

* * * * *
Kerry Caring - Kudos to both Kerry and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who each kicked in $500,000 from their campaign war chests to help boost Democratic hopes nationwide. The two Bay State Democrats donated the money equally between the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

GAO chief warns US economic disaster looms....

note: This is an informative article by Matt Crenson of the AP, but you have to hunt through all kinds of personality/fluff/infotainment writing (over half of the paragraphs) to get to the meat of the story; which we highlight here:
- The US national Debt is already $8.5 Trillion
- At current rates, the debt increases by $2 trillion to $3 trillion every year...
- Economists forsee the possibility that America's total debt could, in several decades, equal the total net worth of ALL Americans put together!
- Potentially, the INTEREST on the US national debt, alone, could be more than the US collects in taxes each year.

<< America's political class can be heard debating Capitol Hill sex scandals, the wisdom of the war in Iraq and which party is tougher on terror. Democrats and Republicans talk of cutting taxes to make life easier for the American people.

What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of ECONOMIC DISASTER... he nation's impending fiscal crisis... if nothing is done to correct it. >>

<< Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.

A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.

And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion. >>

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

GAO chief warns economic disaster looms

By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer
Sat Oct 28 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt

AUSTIN, Texas - David M. Walker sure talks like he's running for office. "This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids," the comptroller general of the United States warns a packed hall at Austin's historic Driskill Hotel. "We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed."

But Walker doesn't want, or need, your vote this November. He already has a job as head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government.

Basically, that makes Walker the nation's accountant-in-chief. And the accountant-in-chief's professional opinion is that the American public needs to tell Washington it's time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.

From the hustings and the airwaves this campaign season, America's political class can be heard debating Capitol Hill sex scandals, the wisdom of the war in Iraq and which party is tougher on terror. Democrats and Republicans talk of cutting taxes to make life easier for the American people.

What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wanted to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, nasty nostrums that might doom any candidate who prescribed them.

"There's no sexiness to it," laments Leita Hart-Fanta, an accountant who has just heard Walker's pitch. She suggests recruiting a trusted celebrity — maybe Oprah — to sell fiscal responsibility to the American people.

Walker doesn't want to make balancing the federal government's books sexy — he just wants to make it politically palatable. He has committed to touring the nation through the 2008 elections, talking to anybody who will listen about the fiscal black hole Washington has dug itself, the "demographic tsunami" that will come when the baby boom generation begins retiring and the recklessness of borrowing money from foreign lenders to pay for the operation of the U.S. government.

"He can speak forthrightly and independently because his job is not in jeopardy if he tells the truth," said Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

Walker can talk in public about the nation's impending fiscal crisis because he has one of the most secure jobs in Washington. As comptroller general of the United States — basically, the government's chief accountant — he is serving a 15-year term that runs through 2013.

This year Walker has spoken to the Union League Club of Chicago and the Rotary Club of Atlanta, the Sons of the American Revolution and the World Future Society. But the backbone of his campaign has been the Fiscal Wake-up Tour, a traveling roadshow of economists and budget analysts who share Walker's concern for the nation's budgetary future.

"You can't solve a problem until the majority of the people believe you have a problem that needs to be solved," Walker says.

Polls suggest that Americans have only a vague sense of their government's long-term fiscal prospects. When pollsters ask Americans to name the most important problem facing America today — as a CBS News/New York Times poll of 1,131 Americans did in September — issues such as the war in Iraq, terrorism, jobs and the economy are most frequently mentioned. The deficit doesn't even crack the top 10.

Yet on the rare occasions that pollsters ask directly about the deficit, at least some people appear to recognize it as a problem. In a survey of 807 Americans last year by the Pew Center for the People and the Press, 42 percent of respondents said reducing the deficit should be a top priority; another 38 percent said it was important but a lower priority.

So the majority of the public appears to agree with Walker that the deficit is a serious problem, but only when they're made to think about it. Walker's challenge is to get people not just to think about it, but to pressure politicians to make the hard choices that are needed to keep the situation from spiraling out of control.

To show that the looming fiscal crisis is not a partisan issue, he brings along economists and budget analysts from across the political spectrum. In Austin, he's accompanied by Diane Lim Rogers, a liberal economist from the Brookings Institution, and Alison Acosta Fraser, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"We all agree on what the choices are and what the numbers are," Fraser says.

Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.

A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.

And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

People who remember Ross Perot's rants in the 1992 presidential election may think of the federal debt as a problem of the past. But it never really went away after Perot made it an issue, it only took a breather. The federal government actually produced a surplus for a few years during the 1990s, thanks to a booming economy and fiscal restraint imposed by laws that were passed early in the decade. And though the federal debt has grown in dollar terms since 2001, it hasn't grown dramatically relative to the size of the economy.

But that's about to change, thanks to the country's three big entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicaid and especially Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare have grown progressively more expensive as the cost of health care has dramatically outpaced inflation over the past 30 years, a trend that is expected to continue for at least another decade or two.

And with the first baby boomers becoming eligible for Social Security in 2008 and for Medicare in 2011, the expenses of those two programs are about to increase dramatically due to demographic pressures. People are also living longer, which makes any program that provides benefits to retirees more expensive.

Medicare already costs four times as much as it did in 1970, measured as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product. It currently comprises 13 percent of federal spending; by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will consume nearly a quarter of the budget.

Economists Jagadeesh Gokhale of the American Enterprise Institute and Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania have an even scarier way of looking at Medicare. Their method calculates the program's long-term fiscal shortfall — the annual difference between its dedicated revenues and costs — over time.

By 2030 they calculate Medicare will be about $5 trillion in the hole, measured in 2004 dollars. By 2080, the fiscal imbalance will have risen to $25 trillion. And when you project the gap out to an infinite time horizon, it reaches $60 trillion.

Medicare so dominates the nation's fiscal future that some economists believe health care reform, rather than budget measures, is the best way to attack the problem.

"Obviously health care is a mess," says Dean Baker, a liberal economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. "No one's been willing to touch it, but that's what I see as front and center."

Social Security is a much less serious problem. The program currently pays for itself with a 12.4 percent payroll tax, and even produces a surplus that the government raids every year to pay other bills. But Social Security will begin to run deficits during the next century, and ultimately would need an infusion of $8 trillion if the government planned to keep its promises to every beneficiary.

Calculations by Boston University economist Lawrence Kotlikoff indicate that closing those gaps — $8 trillion for Social Security, many times that for Medicare — and paying off the existing deficit would require either an immediate doubling of personal and corporate income taxes, a two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits, or some combination of the two.

Why is America so fiscally unprepared for the next century? Like many of its citizens, the United States has spent the last few years racking up debt instead of saving for the future. Foreign lenders — primarily the central banks of China, Japan and other big U.S. trading partners — have been eager to lend the government money at low interest rates, making the current $8.5-trillion deficit about as painful as a big balance on a zero-percent credit card.

In her part of the fiscal wake-up tour presentation, Rogers tries to explain why that's a bad thing. For one thing, even when rates are low a bigger deficit means a greater portion of each tax dollar goes to interest payments rather than useful programs. And because foreigners now hold so much of the federal government's debt, those interest payments increasingly go overseas rather than to U.S. investors.

More serious is the possibility that foreign lenders might lose their enthusiasm for lending money to the United States. Because treasury bills are sold at auction, that would mean paying higher interest rates in the future. And it wouldn't just be the government's problem. All interest rates would rise, making mortgages, car payments and student loans costlier, too.

A modest rise in interest rates wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, Rogers said. America's consumers have as much of a borrowing problem as their government does, so higher rates could moderate overconsumption and encourage consumer saving. But a big jump in interest rates could cause economic catastrophe. Some economists even predict the government would resort to printing money to pay off its debt, a risky strategy that could lead to runaway inflation.

Macroeconomic meltdown is probably preventable, says Anjan Thakor, a professor of finance at Washington University in St. Louis. But to keep it at bay, he said, the government is essentially going to have to renegotiate some of the promises it has made to its citizens, probably by some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts.

But there's no way to avoid what Rogers considers the worst result of racking up a big deficit — the outrage of making our children and grandchildren repay the debts of their elders.

"It's an unfair burden for future generations," she says.

You'd think young people would be riled up over this issue, since they're the ones who will foot the bill when they're out in the working world. But students take more interest in issues like the Iraq war and gay marriage than the federal government's finances, says Emma Vernon, a member of the University of Texas Young Democrats.

"It's not something that can fire people up," she says.

The current political climate doesn't help. Washington tends to keep its fiscal house in better order when one party controls Congress and the other is in the White House, says Sawhill.

"It's kind of a paradoxical result. Your commonsense logic would tell you if one party is in control of everything they should be able to take action," Sawhill says.

But the last six years of Republican rule have produced tax cuts, record spending increases and a Medicare prescription drug plan that has been widely criticized as fiscally unsound. When President Clinton faced a Republican Congress during the 1990s, spending limits and other legislative tools helped produce a surplus.

So maybe a solution is at hand.

"We're likely to have at least partially divided government again," Sawhill said, referring to predictions that the Democrats will capture the House, and possibly the Senate, in next month's elections.

But Walker isn't optimistic that the government will be able to tackle its fiscal challenges so soon.

"Realistically what we hope to accomplish through the fiscal wake-up tour is ensure that any serious candidate for the presidency in 2008 will be forced to deal with the issue," he says. "The best we're going to get in the next couple of years is to slow the

Gen. Wes Clark notes that Joe Lieberman INTRODUCED the Resolution Authorizing War in Iraq... and voted for it WITHOUT ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS....

Gen. Wes Clark notes that Joe Lieberman INTRODUCED the Resolution Authorizing War in Iraq... and voted for it WITHOUT ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS that a functioning representative democracy demands of its representatives and leaders, especially in the case of declaring war that was opposed by MILLIONS of Americans, on a nation that had been surrounded by larger enemies, embargoed, and militarily straight-jacketed for a dozen years since the US victory in the Gulf War in 1991....

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

General Wes Clark in Campaign Ad for Ned Lamont
Submitted by Wes Clark on October 28, 2006
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9107

"Mistake"

I'm retired General Wes Clark.

Joe Lieberman introduced the resolution authorizing the War in Iraq. That was a mistake.

Joe Lieberman voted for that resolution without asking the tough questions. That was also a mistake.

And now, 3 and a half years into a failing mission in Iraq, Joe Lieberman can't seem to say we should change the course. And that's a REAL mistake.

Re-elect Joe Lieberman? Well, there's a word for it.

"Mistake."

I'm Ned Lamont and I approve this message.

James Webb: A COURAGEOUS Dem. candidate who isn't even using his war medals in his campaign....

Of course, until he became completely DISGUSTED with the Bush-Rethuglican agenda of blatant crony-corruption and the extortionate policies of one-party rule, James Webb was a Republican, a Secretary of the Navy under the Reagan administration, no less. Whether because of or in spite of his Republican career and Vietnam war combat experience, Webb is putting up a hell of a fight against incumbent Repub. senator George Allen. We hope the Webb campaign will CHALLENGE George Allen to DISCLOSE HIS PRIOR ARREST RECORD, seeing as the Allen campaign has seen fit to make Webb's Vietnam war-novels a campaign issue. The Republican smear-and-fear campaign meisters would CERTAINLY use any sealed convictions of a Democratic candidate against him; and they would most certainly go to friendly judges or officials to get those sealed records and publicize them, as they did with Bill Clinton's draft papers and his letter to his draft board.

============================================

James Webb's Navy Cross
The Virginian-Pilot
October 27, 2006
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113303&ran=33810

Editor's note: The Navy Cross is the nation's second-highest award for bravery in facing an enemy. James Webb has refused to use it in his campaign. We are publishing it with our endorsement of him because we believe it testifies to his character.

The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam.

On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out.

Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.

Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.

Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade.

Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body.

Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.

By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.

Big Oil's Top 10 lobbying recipients. Needless to say, Dem. "Leaders" can barely make ENERGY DEPENDENCE a newsworthy issue in '06.....

<< Wonder why we don't have a national energy policy or a serious push toward alternatives? >>

WONDER WHY THE damn Democrat "Leadership" CAN'T EVEN MAKE AN ISSUE out of DICK CHENEY's CONTINUING to PROFIT from holding HALLIBURTON stock...? Why they STILL can NOT make an issue of George W. Bush's CLOSE TIES to Ken Lay of ENRON infamy? (Bush PERSONALLY selected Enron senior executive THOMAS WHITE to be Secretary of the Army... Bush SNATCHING WHITE from under the very collapsing Enron meltdown!)

WONDER WHY THE DAMN DC DEMOCRATS **STILL** can NOT make a campaign issue of Dick Cheney's "SECRET Energy Task Force" in early 2001?? (By contrast, the Rethuglicans had to know EVERY detail of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force LONG before it was released in early 1993.)

Well, the answer is easy enough: The DLC/DNC/DCCC/DSCC Democratic "leadership" COULDN'T MAKE AN ISSUE of a GAY MALE PROSTITUTE making MIDNIGHT VISITS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, so how the hell would they be able to make an issue of a life-and-death subject like the nation's ENERGY POLICY????



Big Oil's 10 favorite members of Congress
By Jim Jubak, MoneyCentral, MSN.com
27 Oct. 2006
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/BigOils10FavoriteMembersOfCongress.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

Wonder why we don't have a national energy policy or a serious push toward alternatives? Follow the money that oil and gas companies send to Congress.


Think it's a matter of chance that we don't have a meaningful national energy policy? Wondering why oil and gas companies don't pay higher royalties to the Treasury now that oil is over $55 a barrel? Amazed that Washington loves to talk about energy research with promise 15 years down the road, but won't put significant money into alternative technologies that could reduce energy consumption now?
For answers to all those questions and more, just follow the money. Nothing about U.S. energy policy should be a surprise if you know where the money's been going and which legislators have taken the biggest payouts from the energy industry. So don't miss your only chance in the next two years -- the Nov. 7 election -- to tell Congress what you think of its sellout to the energy companies.

Most energy money goes to GOP

The oil and gas industry's giving is highly, highly focused. Oil and gas executives seem to feel that with the Republicans in solid control of Congress, there's no need to give to anybody but Republicans, since they're the folks that can get things done. There's none of the fence straddling of the securities industry, which has divided its $46 million in contributions almost evenly between Republicans (47%) and Democrats (51%). A whopping 83% of oil and gas money has gone to Republicans in this election cycle. To find similar imbalance, you have to look at such Democratic bulwarks as the public-sector unions, 84% Democratic in their giving, and the building trades unions, at 83% Democratic.
So who did this concentrated dose of cash go to? Here are the top 10 -- all Republicans -- as complied by the Center for Responsive Politics:

Big Oil's 10 favorite Congress members

Rank Candidate Office Amount given by oil and gas industry

1 Hutchison, Kay Bailey, R-Texas Senate $258,361
2 Burns, Conrad, R-Mont. Senate $188,775
3 Santorum, Rick, R-Pa. Senate $188,120
4 Bode, Denise, R-Okla. House $153,650
5 Allen, George, R-Va. Senate $148,600
6 Talent, James M., R-Mo. Senate $147,470
7 Cornyn, John, R-Texas Senate $142,750
8 Barton, Joe, R-Texas House $138,450
9 Hastert, Dennis, R-Ill. House $122,200
10 Pombo, Richard, R-Calif. House $121,340

Data from the FEC as of Sept. 11, 2006. Compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

You've got to hand it to the oil and gas industry. They know how to support their favorite sons and daughters, of course: Texans Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn, after all, are both senators from a big oil state.
But the industry keeps its eye on the prize. If you want to keep oil and gas royalties low; if you'd like to drill in environmentally sensitive areas; if you want to keep the government from admitting that global warming might exist; if you want to make sure that money flows to research in alternative energy technologies for the future but not to commercialize alternative technologies today, then you give to the key people who can get those jobs done.
So you contribute to the campaign of California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee in charge of deciding how the oil and gas (and other industries) can use government land and how much they'll pay for that use. Pombo has been a point man in the House in efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.
(The committee's jurisdiction also extends to gambling on Indian lands. Pombo and his personal political action committee, known as Rich PAC, reportedly are being investigated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Indian tribes paid Abramoff and his lobbying firm big fees in exchange for promises he would get favorable rulings from lawmakers and members of the executive branch on their casino plans.)
Pombo is also involved in my favorite bit of election-year irony. He has been criticized for lobbying then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton to suspend regulations opposed by the wind-power industry because his parents collect sizable royalties from windmills on their ranch. Pombo, his critics have noted, has a personal interest in the ranch. So who should Pombo face in the 2006 election? Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind-power engineer and CEO of a start-up wind-turbine manufacturer.
The oil and gas industry also gives heavily to Texas Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; to Sens. James Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia, all of whom sit on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; to Illinois' Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, who plays a huge role in deciding what legislation moves to the floor for a vote and what doesn't; and to Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum, head of the Senate Republican Conference and announced candidate for Republican whip in 2006 if he wins re-election.

Democrat "leaders" IGNORE SWORN TESTIMONY, before Congress, of VOTE STEALING SOFTWARE, by the programmer who wrote the code....

Video of sworn testimony before Congress, click arrow in YouTube screen, (below).

(photo- Congressman Tom Feeney, R-FL, in 2000 the Speaker of the Florida statehouse.)

<< Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Oviedo asked a computer programmer in September 2000, prior to that year's contested presidential vote in Florida, TO WRITE SOFTWARE THAT COULD ALTER VOTE TOTALS on TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES, the programmer said.
Former computer programmer Clint Curtis made the claim Monday in sworn testimony to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee investigating allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election involving touch-screen voting in Ohio.
In his testimony, Curtis said that Feeney, then a member [SPEAKER, the_most_powerful member] of the Florida House of Representative, met with Curtis and other employees of Yang Enterprises, an Oviedo software company, and asked if the company could create a program that would allow a user to ALTER THE VOTE TOTALS while using the touch-screen machine. The program had to be written so that even the human-readable computer code WOULD NOT SHOW its illicit capabilities, Curtis recalled. >>

Computer programmer Clint Curtis testifies, under oath, to Congress, that he wrote vote-stealing software in Florida in advance of the 2000 election under contract to the most powerful Florida state legislator, then Speaker of Florida statehouse Tom Feeney.
=======================================
Feeney implicated in vote fraud
Congressman sought to alter totals, testimony in Ohio case says

By Alex Babcock
December 16, 2004
http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/16/41c2fdb042ea1

Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Oviedo asked a computer programmer in September 2000, prior to that year's contested presidential vote in Florida, to write software that could alter vote totals on touch-screen voting machines, the programmer said.

Former computer programmer Clint Curtis made the claim Monday in sworn testimony to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee investigating allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election involving touch-screen voting in Ohio.

In his testimony, Curtis said that Feeney, then a member of the Florida House of Representative, met with Curtis and other employees of Yang Enterprises, an Oviedo software company, and asked if the company could create a program that would allow a user to alter the vote totals while using the touch-screen machine. The program had to be written so that even the human-readable computer code would not show its illicit capabilities, Curtis recalled.

Curtis said he wrote a prototype program for Feeney, and that he believed the program might not only be usable on touch-screen voting machines, which some counties - predominantly in South Florida - now use, but also on optical-scan machines, which most of the state's counties used in the 2004 elections.

Feeney could not be reached for comment.

Michael O'Quinn, an attorney for Yang Enterprises, said Curtis' claims are outrageous and that Feeney never discussed such a program with the company. He said Feeney's only relationship with the company was as its legal counsel. Feeney worked at the law firm with O'Quinn until 2002, when he resigned after being elected to Congress.

"I immediately assumed that he was trying to keep you guys from cheating," Curtis told Democrats at the hearing Monday. Curtis further said that Li Woan Yang, a co-owner of the company, told him that, "We need to hide the fraud in the source code, not reveal the fraud, because it's needed to control the vote in South Florida."

Curtis, who formerly lived in Oviedo, quit the software company in December 2000, after the November 2000 election that preceded Feeney rise to become speaker of the Florida House.

"I left because all of the meetings with Feeney let me know I wasn't in a situation I wanted to be in," he said in an interview with the Chronicle. "He's in there selling contracts, telling us how to bid them, special little formulas being employed, how you get right point structure. They were going to limit how many vendors could apply to government contracts so only connected vendors could get on the approved list."

O'Quinn confirmed that Curtis resigned, but said he told the company he got a job in another state. Curtis ended up working for the Florida Department of Transportation. O'Quinn also disputed the allegation that Feeney helped work on government bids, saying Feeney was careful to avoid such work because of ethics rules. Feeney "played no role whatsoever" in helping Yang secure government contracts, O'Quinn said. The company currently does work for NASA, the state Department of Transportation and other companies.

Yang Enterprises, in a statement released to the public, said Curtis' allegations are "categorically untrue."

Democrats and independent groups are challenging presidential election results in Ohio, and have claimed that irregularities in some precinct results might have been caused by tampering with electronic voting machines.

Curtis said he has been trying to get attention drawn to his claims since shortly after leaving Yang Enterprises, but has had difficulty until this year. After watching a news report about voting machines in Florida being installed at precincts without having their software inspected, he said he redoubled his effort to get public attention.

"People finally care," Curtis told the Chronicle. "Coming forward isn't the problem, it's people caring."

The Democrats are listening, as is a non-partisan government watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The group, which began working with Curtis in early December, is working to verify elements of his story.

Curtis says he is also working with the FBI to investigate another claim he has made against Yang, that the company is spying on NASA. In its response, the company said that the man named by Curtis as the recipient of NASA-related information has never worked for the company.

The company also says Curtis' claims are based on a grudge he has with the company. O'Quinn said he's also being motivated by money.

The Justice Through Music Project, a nonprofit organization that engages young people about political issues, has offered $200,000 for proof of election fraud in 2004.

Curtis said he has not pursued that money, which has not been offered to him.

Republican Party IMITATING TERRORISTS, PAYING to BROADCAST bin Laden videos in to YOUR HOME!

WOW! "TO FILL OR OVERPOWER WITH TERROR, to TERRIFY - THEY ARE THE ONES TERRORIZING YOU."

That is one of the many comments by by Keith Olbermann of the TV news show "Countdown" in his latest "Special Commentar"... TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICAN 2006 campaign ads designed to TERRORIZE and TERRIFY American voters!!


And, no, Mr. Olbermann is not talking about Halloween... he is talking about the_Republican_Party_airing_Al Qaida_videos, in an attempt to win voters in this coming election, ostensibly on the theme that [paraphrasing} "Repubs are STRONG on defense, while Democrats are not".... EVEN AS **those Republicans** BROADCAST TERRORIST VIDEOS from the terrorist WHO KILLED 3,000 Americans ON_THEIR_WATCH, a terrorist who has thus far ELUDED JUSTICE ON THEIR WATCH!


"The LEADING TERRORIST GROUP IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW is Al Qaida, BUT THE LEADING TERRORIST GROUP IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, IS_THE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY" saith Mr. Olbermann in his stunningly, brutally honest commentary.

For the TRANSCRIPT in full of Mr. Olbermann's most damning commentary to date (which is saying a hell of alot!) click on our headline link, or past the URL into your browser. For the smooth-running YouTube VIDEO of last night's Countdown TV show on terrorism, fear, panick, and FEAR-MONGERING, click on the arrow,

"A SPECIAL COMMENTARY on the ADVERTISING OF TERRORISM."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WG7pcIpV10&eurl=
MSNBC's transcript - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

RNC runs snearing ads against Dem. Tenn. senate candidate Harold Ford....

The RNC is running sneering campaign ads against Tennesse Senate candidate Harold Ford, for the'sin' of Mr. Ford (an African-American) having attended a Playboy Superbowl party in Jacksonville, Florida, last year.

Once again, the point is that Republicans can create CREATE SCANDALS (and alleged crimes) OUT OF THIN AIR when it comes to accusing Democrats, BUT THE DAMN COWARDLY DC DEMOCRATS let entire pages and volumes of Republican CRIMES, CONVICTIONS, FRAUDS, abuses, and misrule go UNCHALLENGED and UNREMARKED ON, EVERY_DAMN_ELECTION.

WHERE is the DC Democratic PUSHBACK for the White House JEFF GANON SCANDAL, the male-prostitute with a website GIVEN PRESS ACCREDATION BY THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE as a "credentialed reporter," the reporter who was Mr. Bush's FAVORITE reporter to call on for soft-pitch questions for weeks on end?? WHY have not the DC Democrats created some subtle but effective ads portraying the Bush White House and Congressional leadership (Speaker Denny Hastert) as LOOKING THE OTHER WAY to Representative Mark Foley's placement on a Congressional committee overseeing abused children?

WHERE is the 2006 Democratic version of Newt Gingrich's 1994 back-bench LEADERSHIP?

(our list of Republican convicted felons, criminals, con-men, & frauds was several posts before, at
http://cowardlydemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/10/republican-crooks-criminals-cronies.html)

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

NAACP : The Tenn. Republican Senate ad PLAYS TO RACISM
By BETH RUCKER, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 25, 12:11 AM ET
24 Oct. 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_el_se/tennessee_senate_ad

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A political TV ad targeting a black candidate for Senate contains what critics, including the NAACP, are calling racist sexual innuendo about a black man and white woman.


The Republican National Committee ad began airing Friday and features a series of characters facetiously declaring their support for Democrat Harold Ford Jr., a Memphis congressman who faces Republican Bob Corker, who is white, in the Nov. 7 election. Polls have shown the two locked in a tight race.

In the ad, a blond white woman brags, "I met Harold at the Playboy party." At the end she looks into the camera, holds her hand like a telephone and says, "Harold, call me," before winking.

The line is an apparent reference to Ford's attendance at a Playboy Super Bowl party in Jacksonville, Fla., last year.

"I was there. I like football, and I like girls," Ford said Tuesday.

"I don't think they're doing it to talk about the goodness of me or the goodness of my opponent," Ford said. "They want to scare people about me."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People criticized the ad.

"It is a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women," Hilary Shelton, head of the Washington NAACP office, told the Los Angeles Times.

The Corker campaign denounced the ad, saying it is "tacky, over the top and is not reflective of the kind of campaign we are running."

RNC spokesman Danny Diaz has defended the ad's accuracy and said it will run its full course. It cost $457,944 to buy the time for the ad, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Because the ad was created by an outside group that contracts with the Republican National Committee, neither the RNC nor Corker's campaign saw it in advance and can't order it to be taken off the air.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed by Congress in 2002, political parties can pay for "independent expenditure" advertisements against opponents that do not count against legal spending limits on campaigns. But the party is not allowed to play any role in creating the ad or deciding how and when it will be used.

Former Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, also a former Republican senator from Maine, said on CNN that the ad was "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment."

The END of the Democratic Party as an opposition party...? The Diebold vote FIX is IN for 2006....

So Virginia Senate Democratic candidate JAMES WEBB had his last name CUT OFF in the review portion of some of Virginia's electronic voting machines this week, in "A GLITCH" that "election officials assured votes and candidates would NOT AFFECT the vote-totalling outcome. And the WASHINGTON POST story says:

<<
U.S. Senate candidate James Webb's last name has been cut off on part of the electronic ballot used by voters in Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville because of a computer glitch that also affects other candidates with long names, city officials said yesterday. >>

BUT "JAMES WEBB" IS_NOT a "long name"!

WHAT GIVES, Washington Post?! HOW can you write "the computer glitch CUTS OFF LONG NAMES, when one of the most prominent candidates in America has a last name WITH JUST FOUR LETTERS???
-----------------------------------------------------

We stopped in to visit early voting in Florida, and were faced with dozens of earnest voting volunteers... who were all assisting in the use in voting machines, machines with NO, ZERO, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA verification or paper-trail to assure voters their votes had been counted correctly.

SIX YEARS after the voting debacle of Florida in 2000, and TWO WHOLE YEARS after the voting debacle in Ohio in 2004, Democratic leaders HAVE BARELY MADE A FUSS about the state of America's corrupt, inherently suspicious voting machines.

The operative concept here is that EVERY STATE IN AMERICA which allows "SLOT" gambling machines, RIGOROUSLY INSPECT _EVERY_SINGLE_LINE of _COMPUTER_CODE that operates those machines, in order to prevent someone from inserting a few lines of code "TO SKIM" any of the money inserted into the machine.

As is today typical of America, WE PLACE A HIGHER PRIORITY on the legality and verification of our ENTERTAINMENT (gambling machines, a subsidiary of America's entertainment industry), THAN WE DEVOTE to our VOTING and political leadership.

"Political leadership" that can grant or rob us of Social Security, health care programs, day care, public schools, higher education, jobs, national security... EVERYTHING that we take for granted as "the fabric of America."


Not every American has the time to take on Diebold and other Republican owned and run corporations, that make MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars producing these SUBSTANDARD, LAUGHABLY SUSPECT voting machines.

One WOULD THINK that Democratic leaders - those with the most resources and the most experience - would be LEADING the FIGHT to ASSURE American voters that OUR VOTES ARE BEING COUNTED FAIRLY and ACCURATELY.

But instead, HILLARY CLINTON is trying to criminalize the almost non-existent 'sin' of FLAG-BURNING, and now she has joined the Bush administration in ADVOCATING TORTURE. And Joe Leiberman has JOINED the Bush-Republican agenda of ONE PARTY RULE and DICTATORIAL POWERS in everything but name, and he will probably join the Republican Party (because of the benefits of being on the majority party) if he wins election to the Senate as an "independent."

JOE LIEBERMAN and HILLARY CLINTON: AWOL on the issue of VOTING SECURITY and verification; PRO-BUSH on the issue of TORTURE, MERCENARIES in war, and other actions that, in the mid-1940s, the victorious Allies prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials.

==================================

Some Voting Machines Chop Off Candidates' Names
Computer Glitch Affects Voters in 3 Jurisdictions; Error Cannot Be Fixed by Nov. 7
By Leef Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; B04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301178_pf.html

U.S. Senate candidate James Webb's last name has been cut off on part of the electronic ballot used by voters in Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville because of a computer glitch that also affects other candidates with long names, city officials said yesterday.

Although the problem creates some voter confusion, it will not cause votes to be cast incorrectly, election officials emphasized. The error shows up only on the summary page, where voters are asked to review their selections before hitting the button to cast their votes. Webb's full name appears on the page where voters choose for whom to vote.

Election officials attribute the mistake to an increase in the type size on the ballot. Although the larger type is easier to read, it also unintentionally shortens the longer names on the summary page of the ballot.

Thus, Democratic candidate Webb will appear with his first name and nickname only -- or "James H. 'Jim' " -- on summary pages in Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville, the only jurisdictions in Virginia that use balloting machines manufactured by Hart InterCivic of Austin.

"We're not happy about it," Webb spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd said last night, adding that the campaign learned about the problem a week ago and has since been in touch with state election officials. "I don't think it can be remedied by Election Day. Obviously, that's a concern."

Every candidate on Alexandria's summary page has been affected in some way by the glitch. Even if candidates' full names appear, as is the case with Webb's Republican opponent, incumbent Sen. George F. Allen, their party affiliations have been cut off.

Jean Jensen, secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, who said yesterday she only recently became aware of the problem, pledged to have it fixed by the 2007 statewide elections.

"You better believe it," Jensen said. "If I have to personally get on a plane and bring Hart InterCivic people here myself, it'll be corrected."

Absentee voters casting ballots in advance of the Nov. 7 election first noticed the problem. Election officials have been forced to post signs in voting booths and instruct poll workers to explain why some longer names appear cut-off.

Election officials in Alexandria said they have been vexed by the problem since they purchased the voting machines in 2003. Although the problem has raised eyebrows among confused voters, elections officials said they are confident that the trouble has not led voters to cast ballots incorrectly.

"This is not the kind of problem that has either shaken our confidence in the system overall or that of the vote," said Alexandria Registrar Tom Parkins. "There have been far worse problems around the country."

James T. "Jim" Hurysz, an independent candidate who's running to unseat incumbent Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), sees it somewhat differently. His name has been shortened on the summary page to "James T. 'Jim.' "

Moran is the one lucky James in Alexandria whose last name made the summary page, although without the "Jr."

"That situation is not acceptable," Hurysz said. "There's enough voter confusion as it is."

Jensen said Hart InterCivic has created an upgrade for their firmware and recently applied for state certification to apply the fix. That process, she said, can be time-consuming because of security measures in place .

Hart InterCivic officials yesterday said they hoped to correct the problem by next fall.

"The newer voting systems will not be certified and installed before the Nov. 7 election," said company Vice President Phillip Braithwaite. Hart InterCivic "does intend to install the newer system version before the next major election in 2007, assuming certification from the commonwealth."

In the meantime, Jensen said, the three affected jurisdictions have begun educating voters to prevent confusion on Election Day and will place notices in each of the polling booths that explain the summary page problem.

"We have a very conspicuous posting in the booths and if [voters] say, 'Hey I don't like what I'm seeing on the summary page,' we can refer them to the chart," Parkins said.

Three years ago, Alexandria purchased about 225 Hart InterCivic machines for $750,000. "We're not comfortable with [this problem] in the long term . . . but we have every reason to expect it will be rectified before the next election," Parkins said.

Sheri Iachetta, general registrar for Charlottesville, said the city purchased 72 machines in 2002. Election officials have had trouble displaying long names ever since.

"We do have people complain and say they don't get it," Iachetta said. "I completely understand what they're saying, but it's not something I can control. We do a pretty good proactive job getting the word out. . . . We've tried to let the voters know that their vote will count even if they can't see the entire name on the summary page."

Lieberman, the VP candidate who SOLD Florida voters down the river in 2000, calls Ned Lamont "a liar" in last Connecticut Senate debate...

Well, you certainly have to hand it to Joe Lieberman: he has convinced thousands of Connecticut voters that he is an "INDEPENDENT" candidate, even though his votes, and his agenda, CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONTINUATION of Republican ONE PARTY RULE, and the DICTATORIAL agenda of the Bush-Rove-Cheney White House, on subjects from TORTURE to abandoning the GENEVA CONVENTIONS to Cheney's continued profiting from handing huge government contracts to HALLIBURTON, to the gross WAR PROFITEERING in the Iraq War.

Americans and Connecticut votes are fortunate that Ned Lamont has risen to the challenge of confronting the self-centered Senator Lieberman and his agenda of deceit and deception; and his almost cartoonish support of every Republican program to UNDERCUT America's middle-class, seniors, children, students, minorities, and even Iraq war veterans (denied funding for veteran's rehabilitation by a Republican Party bent on tax cuts for the rich)).

We sincerely hope that Connecticut voters will see through Mr. Lieberman's deceptions, and say that "3 terms, and eighteen years, is ENOUGH time for Mr. Lieberman to go back on a lifetime's worth of pledges!"

<<
''You constantly distort and, frankly, just tell lies,'' Lieberman, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Lamont, said at the Garde Arts Center New London. ''No matter how many millions of his own family's money Ned Lamont spends, the polls show the people of Connecticut are not buying it. THEY CAN'T BE BOUGHT." >>

Mr. Lieberman's comment, above, is a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE of PROPAGANDA: He is indeed TRYING to "buy" reelection, by SPENDING MILLIONS in campaign funds, most of them donated by REPUBLICAN donors close to the Bush-Rove White House.

------------------------------------------------
Lieberman Blasted on All Sides at Debate
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 24, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/whats-bad-for-america-is_b_32290.html

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman sat between his Democratic and Republican rivals in Monday's final Connecticut Senate debate -- and got it from both sides as well as from hecklers.

The three-term senator, who has a 17-point lead in the latest statewide poll, struck back at Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, who has assailed him as a career politician desperate to hang onto his seat and one beholden to powerful Washington special interests.

''You constantly distort and, frankly, just tell lies,'' Lieberman, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Lamont, said at the Garde Arts Center New London. ''No matter how many millions of his own family's money Ned Lamont spends, the polls show the people of Connecticut are not buying it. They can't be bought.''

Lamont, a wealthy cable TV executive who has poured $12.7 million of his own fortune into his campaign, bristled.

''Senator Lieberman just called me a liar and he made a lot of outrageous accusations,'' Lamont replied. ''Senator, everything we're talking about is your record, and you can't run from your record.''

Hecklers interrupted the debate at times, and some chanted ''Lieberman Protects Cheney.'' They were escorted from the theater.

An exasperated Lieberman, a particular target for outbursts from the audience, scolded the hecklers. ''C'mon,'' he said, ''let's let the candidates talk.''

Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq drew criticism from Lamont and Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger.

''Joe Lieberman and George Bush's stay-the-course strategy, that's the recipe for failure,'' Lamont said.

Lieberman warned that Lamont's support for a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawals would be disastrous.

''Your answer is to give up on Iraq,'' Lieberman said. ''Your plan is a recipe for retreat and disaster.''

Lamont's primary upset of Lieberman last August was fueled primarily by his strong anti-war views. Lieberman reiterated Monday night that if re-elected he would still caucus with the Democrats.

''Not only am I a man of my word, it's what I want to do,'' Lieberman said.

Schlesinger has tried to use the debates to climb out of the single digits in the polls. Lieberman and Schlesinger are vying for Republican support, so any Schlesinger gains could come at Lieberman's expense.

Schlesinger accused Lieberman of trying to mask his liberal record to win GOP votes.

''In the spirit of Halloween, we have a U.S. senator here who's masquerading as a Republican,'' said Schlesinger, the former mayor of Derby.

Schlesinger also chided Lieberman on health care, accusing him of avoiding the truth about how the massive generation of baby boomers needing health care in coming years will overwhelm the nation's medical system.

''For 18 years, our senator has not been straight with you,'' Schlesinger said.

----------
Associated Press writer Stephen Singer in New London contributed to this story.

Republican CROOKS, criminals, cronies, convicts, con-men, frauds, & Liars.... and Dem. 'leadership' ISN'T SOUNDING THE CHARGE to take back Congress??!

"DISGUSTING!" Gerald Plessner writes, of his compilation of Republican crooks, criminals, convicts, adulterers, pension-stealers, fraud-meisters, vote-stealers, election-cons, and, in general, the arrogant, unprincipled "round up the slaves and ship 'em back to the plantation!" low-lifes who populate the Bush-Rethuglican party.

But perhaps EVEN MORE DISGUSTING is that, to find this compilation, THE LAST PLACE YOU WOULD LOOK is at any OFFICIAL Democratic Party website, whether the DNC, the (infamous) DLC, the DSCC, the DCCC, or any of the high-muckety-muck official organs close to the Democratic "leadership."

Which is PRETTY DAMN DISGUSTING, if you come to think of it: the Damn Democratic leadership would PREFER TO LET American voters CHOOSE CRIMINALS, CRONIES, and THUGS (out of ignorance), than WORK HARD at ACTIVELY LINKING ALL OF THESE THUGS to the Bush-Republican "moral values" AGENDA!

How lame is that?

HOW PATHETIC!

HOW DISGRACEFUL!

DISGUSTING!
by Gerald Plessner
Oct. 22, 2006
http://www.geraldplessner.com/articles/article.cgi?doc=20061021230551

JACK ABRAMOFF, Pled guilty of bribery, jailed - ELLIOTT ABRAMS, Convicted perjurer serving in Bush White House(Pardoned by GHW Bush) - SPIRO T. AGNEW, Nixon vice president resigned under threat of indictment for bribery while MD governor(deceased) - ROGER AILLES, FOX News Propaganda master - CLAUDE ALLEN, White House official arrested for shopping theft - WILLIAM BENNETT, Gambling addict, phony moralist - JOHN BOLTON, arrogant and ineffective U. N. ambassador - EDWIN A. BUCKHAM - DeLay unindicted co-conspirator used charity for political gain - GEORGE H. W. BUSH, Close friend of Saudi royal family and war profiteer - GEORGE W. BUSH, worst president in American history - NEIL BUSH, presidential brother almost indicted in S&L scandal - DICK CHENEY, lies to American people to justify attacking Iraq, former CEO of Halliburton, Inc. - ANN COULTER, Media slut - DUKE CUNNINGHAM, Congressman pled guilty to conspiracy to commit crimes against the U. S. - TOM DeLAY, Indited Congressman and most corrupt Speaker - CHRISTINE DeLAY, Wife paid $100K annually for doing nothing - REV. JAMES DOBSON, right-wing religious bully and American Evangelical Pope - BRIAN J. DOYLE, Homeland Security deputy press secretary arrested for attempt to seduce minor on Internet - JIM ELLIS, Indicted executive director of DeLay's PAC - REV. JERRY FALWELL, Fundamentalist religious liar - ARI FLEISCHER, Habitually lying Bush press secretary - TOM FOLEY, disgraced Congressman who had illicit communication with male House pages - NEWT GINGRICH, Cheated on wives one and two - LUCIANNE NEWT GINGRICH, Cheated on wives one and two - LUCIANNE GOLDBERG, Got Monica Lewinsky to save blue dress - ALBERTO V. GONZALES, Attorney General who repeatedly failed to defend the Constitution, endorsed torture of prisoners - PHIL GRAMM, Texas senator who, with wife made fortune through helping corporations - WENDY GRAMM, wife of Phil, who as Federal regulator made money as ENRON Board member - SEAN HANNITY, FOX News propaganda parrot - SHAUN HANSEN, indicted for jamming phone lines of Democratic get-out-vote office - JESSE HELMS, Racist, race-baiting former senator -DAVID HOROWITZ, Left-Wing radical turned right-wing attack dog - HENRY HYDE, former Congressman who admitted cheating on wife - WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Democratic Congressman investigated for taking bribes - ALAN KEYES, Candidate-for-hire and extremist radio host - ADAM KIDAN, With Abramoff, pled guilty to conspiracy and fraud against the U.S. - WILLIAM KRISTOL, neo-conservative nut who promoted war on Iraq - DAVID LAPIN, Politically conservative rabbi who took money from Abramoff - I. "SCOOTER" LIBBY, White House fall guy for Rove, Cheney, et. al. In Valerie Plame conspiracy - "RUSH LIMBAUGH, loudmouth radio personality arrested for drug-shopping - CHUCK McGEE, New Hampshire Republican official imprisoned for telephone harassment of Democrats - KENNETH MEHLMAN, Republican National Chairman helped Abramoff get White House endorsement - JOHN NEGREPONTE - CIA Director and Reagan death squad manager - BOB NEY, Convicted Congressman who exchanged favors for money and golf vacations - RICHARD M. NIXON, Disgraced president, resigned(Deceased) - GROVER NORQUIST, Un-American Libertarian organizer of "K" Street Project - OLIVER NORTH, Convicted perjurer in Iran-Contra affair - ROBERT NOVAK, Republican newspaper commentator who disclosed Valerie Plame - BILL O'REILLY, Telephone sex addict & adulterer - RICHARD PERLE, right-wing "intellectual" pushed war on Iraq and profits from arms sales - JOHN POINDEXTER, retired admiral and convicted perjury in Iran-Contra affair - MICHAEL POWELL, Colin's son who gave airways to big media companies - MICHAEL SCANLON, DeLay partner in Indian fraud and bribery, Pled guilty, imprisoned - RALPH E. REED, Former Christian Coalition President, Abramoff friend and corrupt lobbyist - REV. PAT ROBERTSON, Senile radio preacher who converted non-profit television network to personal asset -GEORGE ROCHE, III, Incestuous adulterer, whose daughter-in-law committed suicide - DANA ROHRABACHER, Congressman, college Republican who got wife to run as a Democratic to seal election for Republican - KARL ROVE, politician involved in every Republican illegality and dirty trick - TONY RUDY, DeLay chief of staff pled guilty to conspiracy - DONALD RUMSFELD, Incompetent and arrogant Secretary of Defense - DAVID SAFAVIAN, White House procurement officer convicted of lying to government ethics officials - RICK SANTORUM, dumb Republican senator - CLARENCE THOMAS, Least intelligent Supreme Court justice since Taney - CASPER WEINBERGER, Convicted of perjury in Iran Contra affair(pardoned by G.H.W. Bush and deceased) - CURT WELDON, Congressman who got daughter $1-million lobbying contracts - PAUL WOLFOWITZ - Iraq War Promoter lied to Congress and the American people - JOHN YOO, Bush attorney justified Unitary Executive concept - and many, many more.(A work in progress, October 21, 2006)

Someone SLAP the next damn Democrat to announce a "book tour"! And Nancy ______ while you're at it!

In one of this past week's previous posts, we mentioned how Senator Barbara Boxer was out stumping for... her new book release! A NOVEL about (what else) SEX and power! For most Americans that would be a WONDERFUL thing... but it just so happens that Barbara and her 43 other "Democrat" senators are ALL that stands between American voters and ANOTHER, MORE, continuously STOLEN elections.

"WHY?" we here at C-dems.blgspt.com keep asking, can Democrats NOT find ANY OUTRAGE to express THIS ELECTION SEASON???????

Here it is just TWO SHORT WEEKS before what might be the most critical election of our lifetimes... what might be (not to be too dramatic) THE LAST ELECTION of American democracy.... and BARBARA BOXER is out SELLING_HER_NOVEL!

This is WORSE than JOHN KERRY GOING_ON_VACATION as soon as he had the Democrat nomination sewn up in 2004... at least Kerry took HIS vacation (as stupid, appalling, arrogant, blockheaded, and contemptuous as it was) from his desired job (of campaigning as the Democratic nominee for president), in the middle of summer, long before November rolled around.

BUT BOTH BARBARA BOXER in 2006, and JOHN KERRY in 2004 are effectively broadcasting a simple, inescapable message:
"THERE IS _NO_ PROBLEM HERE, EVERYONE who has money SHOULD TAKE A VACATION or go sell their SEX and power novel"!!!

Sweet Jesus, HOW DID WE GET STUCK WITH THESE MORONIC, SELF-IMPORTANT CRETINS as "our LEADERS"???

And, from our very previous post (courtesy Arianna Huffington herself, someone who knows a thing or two about selling her own books and self promotion) we learn that Democratic "Great Black Hope" (not to be too cute) BARAK OBAMA CANNOT find the time to stump the campaign trail with Democratic Senate Nominee Ned Lamont... OBAMA IS TOO BUSY SELLING *HIS* BOOK!

And it gets WORSE! (aside): Obama is already reminding us of another pretty-boy senator, JOHN EDWARDS, who, despite conditions in his home state of North Carolina being RIPE for the type of Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson programs that helped win a world war, set America on the course of winning the Cold War, set America on course to put a man on the moon, and of course saved the Depression generation and also SAVED the returning W.W.II veterans with programs like the GI bill, Social Security, federally guaranteed housing loans, unemployment insurance, & etc. - DESPITE all that, John Edwards wouldn't have been able to win reelection as a dog catcher in North Carolina in 2004, and he sure 'n hell didn't deliver his state in the 2004 general election! We here at C-dems have no insider-scoop on this, but we get the general impression that the Junior Senator from North Carolina was taken under wing by the staff of the Senior Senator from North Carolina, who back then would just happen to be seriously ENTRENCHED Washington official curmudgeon Senator JESSE HELMS. Yes, indeed, we get the impression that Senator John Edwards got all of his DC political advice FROM THE STAFF OF one of the most RIGHT WING SENATORS in the entire Congress; and WE KNOW that Barak Obama got HIS tutelage from another former Democrat turned Republican, Senator JOE LIEBERMAN.

Undoubtedly, Barak Obama's BUSY BOOK SELLING SCHEDULE, and close ties to JOE LIEBERMAN, keep him FROM campaigning actively FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE NOMINEE from Connecticut, Ned Lamont.

While we're at it (and making enemies) WHO THE HELL did MICHAEL JORDAN think he was, being "ABOVE POLITICS" when he refused an appearance with Jesse Helm's senate opponent HARVEY GANT, a successful Black (African-American) politician who lost a tough battle to Helms in 1990, and an even closer battle against Helms in 1996. I guess it would be cruel, cold, and crass for us here at C-dems to point out, THAT IF JESSE HELMS HAD HAD HIS WAY, MICHAEL JORDAN would NEVER HAVE HAD his place in the UNC Tarheels basketball team, would never have attended UNC at all.
<< In 1996, Helms drew 1,345,833 (52.6 percent) to Gantt's 1,173,875 (45.9 percent). >> (from Wikipedia's Helms bio)
By our primitive calculations, that is a difference of less than 200,000 votes in a state that considered Michael Jordan to be its greatest athlete and native son, but by dent of POWER OF SENIORITY (the perks and pork Helms could keep bringing home to N. Carolina) kept reelecting a Senator who, we confidently feel, would have JOINED with Miss. Senator Trent Lott in saying "The USA wouldn't be having these problems, if Strom Thurmond had won the election of '48!" at the head of the Dixiecrat [segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever) Party. (To be precise, Helms never said, exactly, any such comment as Lott was captured on video saying, at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. But, again, we know where Helms' sympathies lay... with Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott's vision of America!)

Well, we promised it would get worse, and MICHAEL JORDAN's preference for GAMBLING instead of EMPOWERING an underdog African-American senate candidate wasn't the "worse" we had in mind.

That would be FLORIDA Senator BOB GRAHAM, who sat on the SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE, and declared that he was not only suspicious, BUT DEEPLY DISTRESSED by the Bush administration's case for WAR AGAINST IRAQ (aka "wmd LIES_TO_WAR), but HELD his dismay close to his chest, citing the "TOP SECRET" nature of the information he was. Well, despite his doubts and his conscience, Senator Graham did NOT GO TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FORCEFULLY with his doubts about "fixed," exaggerated, or "cooked" intel being used to justify an invasion of Iraq. UNTIL, that is, the Senator HAD A BOOK TO SELL, about the time of the 2004 general election! We hate to beat up on the reputation of Bob Graham, but if he and a handful of other Democratic Senators had BANDED TOGETHER and CONFRONTED and OPPOSED the Bush-Rethuglican agenda way back in early 2001 (much less sitting on their hands as the Bush-Bush campaign STOLE the Florida electoral votes from Al Gore), then it WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY to publish C-dems.blgspt.com!

And finally, just to finish out this rather horrid post, how can we forget House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who according to some audio excerpts on the Big Ed Shultz radio show today (www.WeGotEd.com) was "BLIND-SIDED" by an interview question about "impeaching President Bush".

IF Nancy Pelosi is "BLIND-SIDED" by a question that is BURNING in the hearts of MILLIONS of Democratic voters... SHE HAS _NO_ right being "the Democratic LEADER" of the House! We're not saying that she has to agree that impeachment is the most pressing priority of the moment... SHE JUST SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE QUESTION!!!!!!!

(Big Ed had the perfect politico answer that Pelosi could have used, "No, I don't think impeachment is the top priority of the next Congress, BUT WE WILL SEE WHAT THE AMERICAN VOTERS demand after the election."

SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS, Rep. Pelosi?!

Damn, as "bleeding heart liberals" we here at C-dems.blgspt.com don't believe in CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, but this generation of glad-handing, take-no-stands, keep-your-big-donors-happy Democratic "leaders" are SO DIVORCED from everyday American life, that we certainly feel that it would do them ALL good to put on a pair of boxing gloves, maybe a head protector, and have them GET IN THE RING AND DUKE IT OUT until they get punched in the nose once or twice!

SELLING NOVELS on the eve of an election that determines whether Americans will HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY in the future, or just a big, black ENRON-esque accounting BLACK HOLE??

Going on TV to talk about "RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT" while NO ONE in America has ANY certainty that THE VOTES WILL BE COUNTED FAIRLY and ACCURATELY??!

SMILING for the cameras and writing petty-cash checks for the Lamont campaign, while JOE LIEBERMAN benefits from KARL ROVE's smear machine, and George Bush's CAMPAIGN DONORS??

Here it is just TWO WEEKS before the election, and we must SEARCH THE WEB for a COMPILATION of the Republican CROOKS, CONVICTS, and CORRUPT DONORS, many of whom have already BEEN CONVICTED in these past few years??

WHAT THE HELL ARE THOSE Democrat "LEADERS" THINKING????

Cowardly DC Democrats leave Ned Lamont TWISTING in the WIND... meaning giving Lieberman's REPUBLICAN AGENDA a FREE RIDE....

<< According to a story in yesterday's Hartford Courant, the Bush donor base has been opening its wallets for Lieberman... which is one of the reasons why Lieberman has raked in $5.1 million in campaign cash since Aug. 9.
The ROVE/CHENEY SEAL OF APPROVAL has HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont JUST TWO POINTS behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman UP_BY_12. >>

<< And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they CAN'T campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.

NOT EXACTLY THE CALVARY RIDING TO THE RESCUE. >>

<< What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.

Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern. >>


YOU GOT THAT, DC Democrats? That is the publisher of perhaps the most popular "liberal" web site in America, a web site that allows all Democrat senators to voice their opinions ("blog") in a friendly atmosphere, stating that you, the Democratic 'leadership' may be "TOO CONFUSED TO GOVERN"!

In their time of need millions of voters across America look to their experienced Democratic Senators to lead the fight to save American democracy... ONLY TO BE LET DOWN by those who have the position, experience, and platform to be heard!
===============================

Thanks to Arianna for this post... she's been a bit narcissistic lately, but now it's back to the meat-and-potatoes of campaign 2006: THE TENDENCY of the DC DEMOCRATS to BETRAY Democratic America!

Speaking of "Narcissistic," so JOE KLEIN, the author of "Anonymous" who DENIED, point-blank to reporters, that he was indeed the writer of that political satire fiction (loosely based on the Clinton campaign of 2000), is out there on the COVER of TIME magazine... suggesting that BARAK OBAMA should run for... PRESIDENT in 2008 ???

Excuse us at C-dems.blgspt.com, but we do NOT think that A SINGLE Democrat in the US Senate is qualified to run for president.... THEY ALL RUN AND HIDE when Karl Rove starts banging his pots and drums and SMEARING AMERICANS.

WHERE were the SENATE DEMOCRATS when the Karl Rove-George Bush political machine SMEARED Senator and Vietnam War double-amputee Max Cleland as "SOFT ON TERRORISM"??? WHY do the lame (not to say "cowardly") Senate Democrats ALWAYS FOLLOW the LOSING TEMPLATE of TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, and even Al Gore, who, though he 'won' the voting in 2000, LOST the vote-counting... BY ALLOWING Republicans to position themselves as "morally superior."

Well, HERE WE GO AGAIN.. COWARDLY Democrat leaders, which is to say THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, LETTING Ned Lamont TWIST IN THE WIND, as JOE LIEBERMAN runs a virtual REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN.

Or, once again, the DC 'Democrats' LET LOCAL CANDIDATES do the LIONS SHARE OF WORK *CONFRONTING* the Republican MONOPOLY of power in America.

This current crop of Senate Democrats could still turn out to be the BANE of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, because in these last 2 weeks of election 2006 KARL ROVE is JUST GETTING STARTED at unleashing his ONE-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR campaign war chest of ATTACK ADS and SLEAZY LIES, and like 2000, 2002, and 2004, the DC Democrats are UNPREPARED or UNWILLING to FRONTALLY CONFRONT the Bush record of lies and smears and appalling governance.

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


The Lamont Litmus Test: Why Are So Many Democrats Failing It?
Arianna Huffington
10.22.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-lamont-litmus-test-w_b_32249.html

So the good news in the Connecticut Senate race is that the party is finally stepping up to the plate. Unfortunately, the news is good for Joe Lieberman, because the party that's rising to the occasion is the GOP.

The question is: why aren't the Democrats doing the same thing for Ned Lamont?


According to a story in yesterday's Hartford Courant, the Bush donor base has been opening its wallets for Lieberman. Conservative stalwarts like Joe Allbaugh. Remember him? He's the guy who helped manage Bush's 2000 campaign, then took over FEMA, where he hired Michael Brown. Or Don Nickles, who, until he left the Senate in 2005, was one of its most conservative members. The list goes on and on, which is one of the reasons why Lieberman has raked in $5.1 million in campaign cash since Aug. 9. The Courant details a phone call Karl Rove made to Lieberman, whom Rove calls a "personal friend," on Aug. 8. According to GOP consultant Scott Reed, that was "a signal to a lot of the Republican faithful to get engaged." Dick Cheney's non-endorsement endorsement was another green light.
The Rove/Cheney Seal of Approval has had the desired effect. A month ago, an ARG poll put Lamont just two points behind Lieberman. As of last week, ARG had Lieberman up by 12.

And what are the Democratic power players doing for Lamont? Claiming scheduling conflicts to justify why they can't campaign for the Democratic nominee. Barack Obama has been on a book tour around the country, but has carefully skipped Connecticut. And Hillary Clinton has also skipped Connecticut, instead sending a $5,000 donation and holding a quiet fundraiser for Lamont on the Upper East Side tonight.

Not exactly the cavalry riding to the rescue.

What's particularly confounding -- and distressing -- about the lack of strong party support for Lamont is that it comes at a time when we are being bombarded with calls from Democratic strategists, pundits, and self-appointed consciences of the party for the Democrats to stand for something.

Well, Ned Lamont stands for something. And his opponent, Joe Lieberman, stands for something very different. If the Democratic Party can't look at this race and decide that it needs to unequivocally rally around Lamont, then maybe it really is too confused to govern.

You certainly don't need to convince the Republicans what's at stake in Connecticut. Just look at how they responded. A phone call from Rove to Lieberman and a few kind words from the VP were all the party faithful needed to rally around a guy who's not even in their party. Why? Because they stand for something. And they support people who stand for many of the same things. Like Joe Lieberman.

You may hate what Republicans stand for, but you've got to respect the way they've put principle over party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care enough to fight for either one.

The field for the Democratic presidential nomination is already crowded. But, unlike 2006, the 2008 race won't be a referendum on George Bush. The candidate who stands for something, and has the guts to show it, will rise above the rest.

But why wait until '08? How about standing for something now, when it counts, and stepping up to the plate for Ned Lamont? Those who don't should pay a price down the line. The Lamont litmus test is one we should definitely get behind.