First Open Thread
We've been noticing that people have been posting comments that don't necessarily have to do with the post. We want to know what you are thinking and want you to talk about what interests you so we have created your forum: the OPEN THREAD!!
Yeah I know its not that exciting but I hope you have fun with. Feel free to post an issue that matters to you, an interesting experience, or whatever you want.
It's your post.
Yeah I know its not that exciting but I hope you have fun with. Feel free to post an issue that matters to you, an interesting experience, or whatever you want.
It's your post.
posted by Anonymous at 12:06 PM
30 Comments:
If you want to honestly discuss issues with other young people on a site not funded by a seniors group (AARP) trying to deceive you into helping seniors use a horrible government program to rip you off, I'd suggest you check out:
www.bureaucrash.com
and
www.socialslavery.com
Peace.
Oh, and Erik, to paraphrase a popular beermakers tagline, this thread's for you!
We should be able to opt out of the government run Ponzi scheme (AKA Social Security).
I just wanted to see whether this worked
Oh good, now if you want info on how social security really works, how social security rips you off, and howsocial security is racist all you have to do is click here
Is it possible to have one conservative blog on rockthevote? Since every single blog on here is ridiculously left leaning, how about we balance it out?
Doubtful, I know.
RTV needs to push their liberal ideas down our throats.
I think more conservatives read this blog then liberals. At least by the postings.
Then why do you stay if you hate it so? Leave and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh yeah and right wing blogs don't have comments sections because they don't beleive in free speech and are afraid of what out of the mainstream far wingers might post on their sites.
GOP: Lying to the American People is Politics As Usual
by Armando
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 09:26:23 PDT
The GOP response was developing yesterday. Today we see it, lying to the American people IOKIYAR -is ok if you are Republican.
Understand the complete crap talking points the GOP has come up with:
(1) Karl Rove was MERELY warning Cooper about a false story. My reaction to this? Sheesh, the BS smell is too foul. I mean, who are they kidding? The identity of a undercover CIA agent is connected how to the supposed "falsehoods" in Wilson's story? If it is false, say it is false and explain how. How does Valerie Plame's role have anything to do with the supposed falsehoods in Wilson's column? Did the GOP find it impossible to JUST ATTACK WILSON himself? Did they need to attack his wife as well?
(2) The Democratic Party is in in the hands of the "Far Left." I kid you not. That is Ken Mehlman's response to this. Supposing that is true, what the hell does that have to do with Karl Rove's actions? Of course absolutely nothing.
But the bottom line is this - Bush won't fire Rove. He was asked today and didn't respond. The Moose explains why.
So what's left? Stating in unembarrassed terms that lying to the American public is politics as usual:
Two years ago, Scott McClellan lied on behalf of Karl Rove and/or the President or McClellan was lied to by Karl Rove and/or the President.
It can not be disputed now that Karl Rove did indeed "leak classified information." McClellan denied this fact two years ago. Who told McClellan to tell this lie to the American people? Was it Rove and/or Bush?
Why do I speculate as to whether the President was involved in this lie to the American people? Very simple. Karl Rove STILL works for the President. He has not been fired.
Forget for a moment whether a crime has been committed. The Special Prosecutor will determine that. What we know TODAY is that the Bush Administration lied to the American people. The question NOW is who directed that this lie be told? Was it Karl Rove?
Or was it the President of the United States?
More on the flip.
Republicans :: ::
John Cole understands what the Republicans are now:
Add together all the individual issues, tie in the fact that Bush has by all appearances lost the middle, and it appears clear what the strategy for the immediate future entails. Attack, attack, attack.
From top White House operative Karl Rove to two of the party campaign committees, Republicans have launched a full-scale attack on MoveOn.org, questioning the liberal group's patriotism and worldview. These attacks appear to have two purposes: One is to put the group and its Democratic allies on the defensive over support for the war on terror. And the second is to drive a wedge between Democratic candidates and the millions of dollars that MoveOn's supporters have pumped into their campaigns. With MoveOn fast becoming one of the Democratic Party's most important fundraising sources, the second goal may end up being the more important one."
. . . This shouldn't be surprising for anyone who has watched Rove, as his modus operandi is to always attack. . . . Put it all together, and it makes sense:
The Moose urges Mooseketeers to prepare themselves for the Bush summer offensive. . . . So what does a increasingly lame duck do when he is cornered? He attacks. The M.O. of this Administration is to never retreat, even when the situation seems to dictate compromise and accommodation.
. . . Durbin was the opening that was needed, and Rove immediately thereafter launched the stab in the back campaign while in New York. Much to my chagrin, this was done to a chorus of cheers among the willing participants in the right flank of the blogosphere. Today, the Roll Call story comes out discussing a planned attack against MoveOn (whose antics, I must add, quite frequently disgust me), and what do we immediately see- another salvo.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of this in the immediate future, as the political landscape is clear. This is war, and Rove doesn't intend to take prisoners. I can think of no real reason to constantly attack a beleagured minority party and her surrogates, when we should be concerned with governing. Is this really worth it?
When it is Rove's OWN ASS on the line, who could expect anything less. We already know for Republicans and Rove, NOTHING is more important than their own skins.
They won't volunteer to fight in Iraq.
They will deliberately damage the national security of the country.
They will lie to the American People.
There is NOTHING they won't do. Nothing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/122623/296
Tim Russert gets it. Uh oh...
by John in DC - 7/12/2005 11:53:00 AM
Russert was on the Today Show today and did great. Video from C&L.
Russert's best line: "As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second."
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/tim-russert-gets-it-uh-oh.html
"Are You Going To Fire Him?"
by Armando
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 11:23:40 PDT
The title is the question asked of President Bush, according to NYTimes reporter Richard Stevenson. Him, being Rove of course:
President Bush was asked today if he planned to fire Karl Rove, a senior aide at the center of an investigation over the unmasking of an undercover C.I.A. officer, and he offered only a stony silence in reply.
Bush is demonstrating he is not a man of his word:
Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.
He also said he would get Osama, dead or alive. He lied about that too. Just ask Porter Goss.
Update [2005-7-12 14:48:45 by Armando]: Some are concerned that Fox's Carl Cameron said Bush never said he would fire the leaker. Two things. Fox lies. All the time. Period. And this is just one more:
Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:
Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
BUSH: That's up to --
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
Republican Leaders: We Support Plame's Outing
by Hunter
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 12:09:55 PDT
Armando has already noted Ken Mehlman and other Republican reactions, but I want to re-emphasize it, because the "spin" really is contemptible, and demonstrates just how ethically corrupt the central "core" of the Republican machine has become.
All yesterday, every Republican in Washington simply clammed up -- the AP and other news reports couldn't get anyone to go on the record condemning Karl Rove. Or defending him, for that matter. Republicans wouldn't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. But after an intense day of Spin Camp, they're set to go, and the spin they've chosen is founded on an attempt to misdirect people from all of the basic facts of the case.
The RNC and other parties are now reading from the approved, faxed talking points. The central argument is this, according to the two-sentence statement by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:
It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.
Sounds like he supports Karl Rove's actions to me. However, while that spin is so furious that it could dry a pair of jeans in ten minutes, it's still nothing more than spin. Which is a polite way of saying lie.
Mehlman admits, at least, the central premise which the White House is still denying -- that Rove talked to Cooper, at minimum, about CIA NOC agent Plame's identity. That much has been acknowledged by Rove's own lawyer. But let's examine the obvious conclusions of Mehlman's statement.
Mehlman freely admits that Rove was talking to the reporter to "discourage" him from writing his story, a story which was very damaging to Bush, and which was admitted to be true by the White House on the 7th of July -- four days before Rove's conversation with Cooper. And to do that, Rove gave Cooper the information about Plame's CIA status.
Is the outing of an undercover agent during a time of war acceptable to "discourage" a negative story acceptable, now? Is that the Republican position? Not that Rove didn't do it, but that it was OK to do it in the course of shaping news reports?
If Rove was for a minute concerned with "discouraging" damaging stories in the press, you know what he could have done? Discouraged reporters from outing an undercover agent. Or at the very least, refused to talk about the status of undercover agents. He didn't. He made it a point -- he and apparently at least six other Bush administration officials -- to broadcast Plame's CIA status to reporters. That doesn't sound to me like someone working in the interests of American national security.
There was once a time when President Bush -- and Scott McClellan, for that matter -- had plausible deniability on Rove's actions. The White House stated repeatedly that Rove was not involved with the Plame outing; that he was explicitly asked about involvement with the Plame outing, and denied it; and that anyone who was determined to have had a part in the outing would be fired.
The President no longer has that plausible deniability. Both Cooper and Rove's own lawyer have confirmed Rove's conversation with Cooper, the Friday before Novak's column would appear in papers. Now the President has to decide whether Rove's known actions are ones he will endorse. And so does the RNC, and so does every Republican senator and congressman. It's time to chose between party and ethics; between talking points and country.
Time to choose. Now.
As for the boilerplate of Mehlman's statement itself, which states "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party" -- You know what, Ken? Fuck you. Personally. I can say that now, because your Vice President said so.
Being anti-corruption is not "far-left". Or is it, now? Being anti-treason isn't "far-left". Or is it, now?
Despite the RNC insistence that every exposure of Republican crime and corruption -- whether it be Rove, DeLay, Cunningham, or other Republican figures under active criminal investigation -- is a trick by the evil far-left MoveOn or other groups that have the audacity to support Democrats instead of Republicans, that simply isn't the case. It is a tired joke, at this point. It stopped even being insulting a few years ago, and now is simply recognized as the last refuge of a pack of scoundrels -- the talking point that acts as a few sentences of placeholder, in all Republican generated documents, until it can be edited out for some more credible defense against Republican amorality or corruption.
You don't want corrupt Republicans to be exposed? Then condemn them. Expose them. Expell them. At some point, your party is going to have to treat government with the same seriousness that you treat campaigning, and not simply as a perpetual money trough for rewarding anyone who has given the correct amount of money to the party through Jack Abramoff, through Texans for a Republican Majority, or other spigots.
And that, then, is the central lesson of the Republican reaction. Republicans -- whether partisan bloggers, conservative interest groups, or Republican Party leaders -- choose entirely to define the issue as parsing whether or not what Karl Rove did was strictly illegal. There should be a roughly higher standard, for Republicans, then the line between felony and not felony. At one point in time, the Republicans held the standard that there were moral, ethical, and patriotic lines that should not be crossed. Those notions have been completely discarded. According to the Republican leadership of Rove, DeLay, Reed, Abramoff, Santorum, Frist, Hastert, Mehlman, and President Bush himself, the only defining line in acceptable behavior is whether or not the government can put you in prison for doing it.
And even then, we find numerous Republican officials treading the wrong side of that line.
So Ken Mehlman, you've got a decision to make. The top advisor to the White House has been exposed as having direct connections to the "outing" of a CIA NOC agent. Documents confirm it. Both Cooper and Rove's own lawyer admit it. You need to decide how long you're going to defend it, or if maybe -- maybe -- damaging this country's intelligence capabilities during a time of war is a line that you, Ken Mehlman, don't want to cross.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/15955/4131
Send Karl Rove His Pink Slip!
Why doesn't the President Just ask Karl Rove?
by Joe in DC - 7/12/2005 04:32:00 PM
Over and over and over, for the past couple days, Scott McClellan has refused to answer questions about the Rove scandal. Today, the President also refused to answer.
Scott kept saying, we are waiting for the investigation to finish. Why? Why does the President of the United States have to wait for a special prosecutor to tell him whether or not one of his staffers outed a CIA agent. Can't the President just ask Rove? Bush told us all he wants to get to the bottom of it. So here's how he can.
Walk two doors down the hall to Karl Rove's office. The Washington Post recently published a handy map of the West Wing. Bush and Rove are pretty close to each other.
So, give the President a copy of the map, and just send the President over to Rove's office. When he gets there, Bush should simply ask Rove if he did it. There are many ways Bush can ask Rove for the truth. He can ask him if his lawyer was telling the truth. Or Bush can ask him if Matt Cooper's email was accurate. And, as a heads up to the Prez, Rove plays a lot of word games with this, so be persistent.
Karl Rove serves at the pleasure of the President. Surely, our commander in chief wants to know if there is a security leak -- during the time of war -- in the West Wing.
There is NO reason that George Bush has to wait for the special prosecutor to finish the investigation before he knows the truth. That is so weak and just adds to the White House credibility problem. Bush prides himself on "straight talk" and his determination. If he can't get a simple answer from his top aide, he looks pathetic.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-doesnt-president-just-ask-karl.html
Day Two: Repubs. won't talk about Rove
Erik seems to have some sort of obsession with Karl Rove. Ah, the things political domination does to loser MoveOn.org types...
If you don't liek my comments then I have accomplished my goal.
Read this and then everytime you hear a Republican pundit speak on the talking head shows see how many talking points you can connect to this RNC memo(probably from Rove himself) You will also see many of the 30%er's repeating these talking points here because they don't think for themselves and just repeat what they heard in the right wing echo chamber.
Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson
If you don't liek my comments then I have accomplished my goal.
Yes you have.
That is, if your goal is to make an even bigger utter mockery out of the far left in this country (which you are a part of). By all means, please keep it up. Your shill against Karl Rove has been the best one yet. Watching a liberal self-destruct like you is a flat out classic. I really hope RTV never deletes these blogs, because someone could make a book out of your manic obsession with blasting anything that isn't far left. Hell, you even take down moderate-to-liberal people because they aren't liberal enough for you.
Amazing. You make Democratic Underground look moderate.
Nice try. But I already read the RNC talking points about trying to paint anyone that speaks about Rove or the inept Bush administration as moveon, socialists, etc. Doesn't fit my ideology. Just proves that you don't or can't think for yourself without Rush and Fox doing your talking for you.
What is everyone's favorite music genre? Mine is Jazz, I love Cannonball Adderley and Paul Desmond, my favorite modern artist is Joshua Redman, that man can play the Tenor Sax like it is an extension of his voice.
(I'd rather not bog down the open thread with the same content that erik already posted in five others, besides I think a light hearted discussion will be good.)
Go somewhere else and talk with your right wing friends. You consistently call the host of this site a liar and now you want to get to him and others. I could care less about what your interests are. I already know enough about you not to care.
Mark, you're 22, running for mayor and you don't know anything about politics? Sounds like you need to first get active in your local political scene. Go to city meetings, school board meetings, talk to people at church (if you attend one) or other meeting places about local politics because generally someone you know or talk to will either know a local politician personally or know someone who does (that who seven degrees of separation).
Next, begin to solidify your political beliefs, what do you believe in at the local, state and federal level (most people think they're the same, they're not)? Go to the websites of the current, past or future mayoral candidates and see what their platform was/is/will be and if you can begin a dialogue with them. For example, in this last election I would not vote for our current mayor because he screwed our city into taking the Dallas Cowboys, he used Cowboy money to canvas the town with propaganda and half-truths about the economic 'impact' of the stadium while pledging to use eminent domain to take property if needed to in order to build the new stadium (this was before the SCOTUS decision). I looked at the other candidates running for mayor and began emailing them, and at the local level you have better odds of actually getting a personal response.
Over the three weeks leading up to the election I found out that the only person running for mayor who had any idea about politics was the current mayor, and the rest of the candidates really didn't have a clue, they were just the 'other guys' on the ticket. Sad, but most local elections are like this, so after you get your feet grounded and check out the competition the next step is to draw up plans for a campaign.
A Campaign should not be put together in a a few weeks or even a month before an election. To do it right you should really begin polling your local neighbors about the issues you think should be changed or strengthened in your city. Take time to really find out how your growing platform resonates with the local citizens. If there is a topic or issue you really feel should change, but find out that most people really don't care or are against it perhaps you're not asking the right question, explaining it properly or doing a good job of persuading people that here is a problem that needs fixing.
Then after you feel you have the right ideas and can get your point across to the voters you should begin looking for ways to fundraise, while planning for campaign collateral (signs, brochures, buttons, etc.) and which areas of the city you want to target. Most cities aren't big enough to have mayoral candidates use TV or radio spots for their campaign so expect to do a lot of hitting the pavement and talking to a lot of people. Trying to setup talks at local lodges or local business group meetings is a good idea, especially if you can tailor your speech to be informative and not preachy and if your platform directly effects these groups.
Running for office isn't easy, but can be a real eye opener and become quite burdensome, so get some help if you're serious (family members are a great place to start, just make sure they're supportive). Good luck.
I did an interview on my blog with the Cowboy Junkies about their new antiwar cd, check it out right on the front page: http://www.earvolution.com
It is amazing to me that people do not do the math. I just sent a reposne regaring the RTV Flash about Social Insecurity.
I doubt they will look at or post my comments so I am including them here:
Under Social Security in 30 years when I reach retirment age I will be able to collect $1500 per month - WOW!
Now If I had access to the over $40,000 already given to social security, and funded a CD at 4.4% rate (as of 7/18/2005 current rates found on bankrate.com) and then made regular deposits of the $858.00 per month I am now forced into contributing to Social Security at the end of the same 30 years the calculations look like:
Interest or dividend rate per period (e.g., 8.25) 0.33%
Number of periods 360
Amount of each investment $857.66
Initial value* $40,000.00
Total payments $348,757.60
Total interest $373,239.16
Total value of investment, before taxes $721,996.76
Tax bracket (percent – e.g., 28) 28.00%
Total taxes $104,506.96
Net value of investment, after taxes $617,489.79
Or in other words about an extra $1000.00 per month on the same money.
Let's not forget that now when I die that money in Social security disappears and becomes the governments money (exception of children under 18 getting a small stipend and a death benefit for a spouse).
But also, with the $$721,996.76 in the bank when I am 67 I can still continue to draw interest on the funds left in the bank - so if I am smart (which I must be since I have done this math and made these savings) then I would setup a living trust with instructions to pay my bills and receive a monthly stipend so I don't blow the lot. IN this case there is the potential to earn many thousands more...
Why aren't people screaming about this! We should all be screaming to privatize and allow us to each make our destiny.
Oh, by the way all of my calculations are based on 2005 dollars and do not factor any increase in salary which would then contribute even more.
Call everyone you know and tell them to do the math - I just did it using Excel and one of their templates.
"BUSHGATE" "ASHCROFT", "WATERGATE", "VIETNAM", "SCANDAL", "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN", REAGAN..... Pray for us.
God Please protect those with light and love from forces of evil
I find it a very interesting study in both sociology and psychology.
Does anyone out there truly want to change the world? Does anyone out there think that we're in the middle of "BUSHGATE" similar to "WATERGATE" during the Nixon era... And do I really need to bring up the Vietnam war and the Kent State Massacre in Ohio. Doesn't anyone realize that Ashcroft and this recent
AOL News - Bush Won't Comment on Rove's Role in CIA Leak Doesn't ANYONE out there want to stand up for a change and SCREAM at the top of their lungs that it's enough bullshit already!!!!!????
Where is your courage?
As I type this I start to tremble as I know the Power Brokers, The Schwarzenneggers, Clinton's Bushes of the world. On the Right, They scare me breathless. I fear we are all under "Big Brother's Watch".
Stand up! Get involved. It's OUR government. Let's get it back.
I'm starting a production arm of our company to be involved in the projects I'm developing and will be emailing you each separately to join a new group of like minded people. I am specifically looking for great range who can do it all!Think of it as a "SEA" of Michael Moore's cloned undiscovered talent. I'm interested in working with you, networking with you and Making a difference.
Who's on board?
Let's start a REVOLUTION!!!!
Cheryl Shuman
www.CherylShuman.com
www.TheInCrowdVlog.com
www.cherylshuman.blogspot.com
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Count me out, Cheryl
Ryan,
Why don't you keep your negative bullshit to yourself. Give Jay my Love, "not".
And also, the "delusional" comments, not very nice. Remember Karma.
Cheryl Shuman
Key Democrats Supported Social Security Accounts in 2001
The Hyde Park Declaration set goal for creation by 2010.
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century
Full Document : http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926
We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.
5. Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
Signatories include:
Evan Bayh, United States Senator, Indiana
John Breaux, United States Senator, Louisiana
Lee Brown, Mayor, Houston, Texas
Bob Buckhorn, City Councilman, Tampa, Fla.
Tom Burroughs, State Representative, Kansas
Kevin Cahill, State Assemblyman, New York
Ken Cheuvront, State Representative, Arizona
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio
Pat Colwell, State Representative, Maine
Kathleen Connell, State Controller, California
Marti Crow, State Representative, Kansas
Donald T. Cunningham Jr., Mayor, Bethlehem, Pa.
Wayne Curry, County Executive, Prince George's County, Md.
Jim Davis, United States Representative, Florida
Dan DeMarco, Commissioner of Ross Township, Pennsylvania
Dana Lee Dembrow, State Delegate, Maryland
Calvin Dooley, United States Representative, California
Douglas M. Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County, Md.
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, Illinois
Jeff Gombosky, State Representative, Washington
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, California
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, Pa.
Daniel Grossman, State Representative, Colorado
Lars A. Hafner, State House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Florida
Bob Hagedorn, State Representative, Colorado
Karen Hale, State Senator, Utah
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, Florida
Scott N. Howell, State Senate Democratic Leader, Utah
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblyman, New York
Calvin Johnson, State Representative, Arkansas
Paula F. Julander, State Senate Minority Whip, Utah
Ember Reichgott Junge, State Senate Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota
Delores G. Kelley, State Senator, Maryland
John F. Kerry, United States Senator, Massachusetts
Kwame Kilpatrick, State Representative, Michigan
Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, Louisiana
Thomas Lazieh, City Councilman, Central Falls, R.I.
Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator, Connecticut
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, United States Senator, Arkansas
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone County, Idaho
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, Conn.
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, Pennsylvania
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, Delaware
Stan Matsunaka, State Senator, Colorado
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, Kentucky
Tom Miller, State Attorney General, Iowa
Bobby Moak, State Representative, Mississippi
James P. Moran Jr., United States Representative, Virginia
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York
Ed Murray, State Representative, Washington
Janet Napolitano, Attorney General, Arizona
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, Md.
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, Massachusetts
John D. Porcari, State Secretary of Transportation, Maryland
David Quall, State Representative, Washington
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, Colo.
John Riggs IV, State Senator, Arkansas
Antonio R. Riley, State Representative, Wisconsin
Stacy Ritter, State Representative, Florida
Charles Robb, United States Senator, Virginia
Carroll G. Robinson, City Councilman, Houston, Texas
Tim Roemer, United States Representative, Indiana
Linda J. Scheid, State Senator, Minnesota
Allyson Schwartz, State Senator, Pennsylvania
Kathleen Sebelius, State Insurance Commissioner, Kansas
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, Florida
Ellen O. Tauscher, United States Representative, California
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, Georgia
Tom Vilsack, Governor, Iowa
Kirk Watson, Mayor, Austin, Texas
J.D. Williams, State Controller, Idaho
Philip Wise, State Representative, Iowa
Jane Wood, State Representative, New Hampshire
Cheryl,
I think you should go back and look again at the facts surrounding Rove and the Plame investigation. Rove is not the target of the investigation and it has already been proven that Plame did not fit the definition of a covert agent and that Rove did not leak her name to the press.
Also, its important to learn from history not just take some party's view of it. Vietnam was nothing like Iraq. I know many people in this country keep espousing this falsehood, but the facts again prove that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, except for the media coverage (all negative, all the time). One glaring contradiction to such a claim is the FACT that our military took out the entire military infrastructure and usurped the sitting government within weeks of the start of the war. In Vietnam we weren't able to push past the 17' parallel and never got close to over taking the North's capital. This war is over, we won, and now we're nothing more than an occupying force waiting for the locals to train up and protect themselves.
People need to start looking past Iraq, its over, in the past, but we really need to begin looking at Iran. That country just started a recruiting effort to locate and train suicide/homicide bombers to specifically attack western targets and "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth". They are also waving their nuclear potential around declaring their love for mass destruction... ah the peace loving religion of Islam. I'm beginning to see Tom Tancredo's point about threatening to bomb Mecca as a 21st century version of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Post a Comment
<< Home