I hear that the 50 state strategy is coming to Virginia, my home state. Can you tell me more about it?

Keep up the good work Gov. Dean.

I have a question for DNC bloggers. Who are you supporting at this point and time for Pres, and who is similar to Dean 2004?

Let me be clear as to why I supported Gov. Dean last time around:

I liked his views on the Iraq War, state-rights, and gay civil unions (not marriage). I am not so sure about socialized-health care (John Edwards is talking about that now - we shall see). Although I like the idea of covering the young (age 0-18) and older-folks (65-ish and up) I think that the middle sector should work and buy private insurance whenever possible. (Except for extreme cases of course – mentally ill, etc).

Any thoughts?

Congratulations, Chairman Dean! I was heartened to find the Dean quote at my link: "we must be committed to fighting the inequities that remain and championing fundamental rights for all whether it is voting rights, equality for immigrants or a commitment to end poverty in America."

So true! Full rights for all immigrants, regardless of their status or how many years or months they've been here.

On the downside, this quote is from 2005, and the Democrats don't seem to be pushing full and complete immigration reform for all as strong as they could. Hopefully that will be one of the things that the Chairman will see to in the coming months.

Equality and justice begins on our borders! Full rights for all immigrants, including the undocumented!

I LOVE YOU HOWARD!
YOU ARE THE MAN!
I want GORE in 2008.
I could go with GORE/OBAMA
and Howard will get a nice cabinet position.

I didn't want to mention her name in the same post as Howards but does anyone else think Hillary is making an ass out of herself? the sound of her voice is like nails on a chalkboard. or that horrible sensation when you bite down unexpectedly on a popscicle stick. or sort of like having your hand thrust into a meat grinder. she's a sick joke on the party and the country. I really cannot stand her.

Thanks, Tracy. This is indeed an anniversary worth noting.

Here in Idaho, the 50-state strategy hasn't paid dividends as strong as in some other states, but it's definitely made a difference. As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid noted in his remakrs at the winter meeting, Idahoans elected six more Dems to the state legislature last year (five of them in Boise, which is very strong Dem territory now).

The state party has more staff and more resources than ever before, though the work of grassroots volunteers inspired by Gov. Dean has made a huge difference, too. We had many other Dems come within 5% of winning last fall, and many local county parties are reenergized and ready to pursue more gains in 2008.

The national results speak for themselves! Congratulations to everyone, everywhere, who worked so hard for all the Dem gains in 2005-2006.

Appreciate the post, Tracy. When the discussion started about Howard Dean going for the position of chair, I was really wary, because I thought it might be a way of silencing him. But he knew what he was doing.

I need to make sure I add this blog to the ones I visit on a daily basis so I don't miss posts like this. I know people at my blog are interested, but since I'm not going to Kos any more it's going to take more effort to stay on top of everything.

I have watched the DNC turn from a McAuliffe led failure, into a Dean led sucess. I thank you, Howard for your foresight, and for sticking to the 50 State Strategy, against all odds (and by odds, I mean Emanual and Shumer)

Keep up the good work. Let's color the entire USA map Blue in 600 days!

If you haven't signed up for a Democracy Bond and are not a part of this take-back-our-country effort, find the icon on the front page and do it now.

Nice to see you post something positive as a topic for once...

I am not so sure about socialized-health care (John Edwards is talking about that now - we shall see). Although I like the idea of covering the young (age 0-18) and older-folks (65-ish and up) I think that the middle sector should work and buy private insurance whenever possible. (Except for extreme cases of course – mentally ill, etc).

Any thoughts?

Posted by JJNY4Dean on February 12, 2007 at 04:51 PM

Actually, JJ, Edwards is not so much talking about socialized health care as he is making sure everyone can AFFORD health care. Here is the link to his plan: Edwards Health plan (PDF format)

always dem,

The 50 state strategy is already in every state.

Go up to the icon on the right, about Democracy Bonds, which is the funding vehicle for the Strategy. I do not know if you remember the 2004 election, but the Dems in charge at that time (Schumer, Emmanual, McAuliffe), just plain ignored,& skipped states they thought they could not win. they sent no money, openened no offices, sent no political supplies to the Dems in those states.

NOW, offices have been openened in all Red states, a GOTV effort has been started in them all, ads on TV, hired help, supplies, etc are all going to them. This was a GREAT part of why the Dems won the 2006 election. NO STATE will be forgotten ever again.

I have been an active worker for the Democratic Party for decades. But unless the party realizes very, very quickly that the country is not interested in non-binding resolutions, but in real action, and that the war is the most important thing on people's minds, then we will not win elections. No matter how much we organize, our party -- just as the Republicans are learning -- must listen to what people are saying. They don't want politics, they want out of this crazy war.

All of this just happened without the help of Dean. Things happen and it is a shame the way things turned out in the last election. All we can do now is watch all these nitwits fall all over themselves to be president. May GOD have mercy on out souls.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

bhall, there are some of you out there who still keep the blinders on. 'things did not happen'. The American people opened up their eyes to the lies and rhetoric and distortions and corruption, and sexual perversion of the Republican party, and decided it was time for change! Howard Dean was a large part of getting Democrats elected in otherwise Red localities, and states.

All I know is, ANY ONE of those out there vying for President on the Democratic side is better by far than what we have in there now.

Democratic Party ONLY PARTY Representative of WE THE PEOPLE, the Political Left

In a TWO PARTY SYSTEM of government there is Left, WE THE PEOPLE and Right, CORPORATE INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF CAPITAL.

When going Right, and you find yourself in the middle of a bunch of alligators the farther right you go, you become aware there are too many alligators -- and it becomes increasingly necessary to your survival that you must take a sharp Left turn to find an equilibrium from the alligators on the right. The alligators on the Right are corporate interests and the interests of capital.

The Political Right EXTREME alligators are holding the political teeter-totter down with the Political Left, WE THE PEOPLE, dangling in the air suspended and unable to do anything because of Political Right infiltration of the Political Left's ONE PARTY, the Democratic Party, using the DLC Democrat/Republicans-Lite's "Al From" lobbyist congressmen "leech" organization of Republicans Lite's weight to help the Political Right hold the political teeter-totter down.

Even though the Political Left's Democratic Party appears to have majority equilibrium, the DLC congressmen "leech" shills, helping the Political Right, make it impossible for the Political Left to achieve balance on the political teeter-totter of our country, so the Political Left is left suspended and unable to do anything but talk.

Although it is painful, these DLC leeches in the Democratic Party must be removed because the DLC leeches are sucking the blood out of the Political Left through the Democratic Party.

The political teeter-totter will be able to be balanced and equilibrium between the Political Right and the Political Left will be able to be found when the DLC leech infestation is pulled or burned off the Democratic Party, and it must be done.

Because the DLC leeches, just like mistletoe in a tree, will eventually destroy the tree and leeches if left unchecked will destroy their victim.

Through the Primary Election Process, WE THE PEOPLE must remove all DLC leeches and DLC mistletoe that has infested the Political Left through the Democratic Party that is the ONLY representative party for the Political Left.

GregL, thanks for the PDF Link.

I don't know why so many Americans are uncovered – some of that must be by choice (younger workers). However, I see a couple HUGE red flags; Edwards' plan will require businesses to cover or help finance employees healthcare. Yikes - "require" is creeping into Socialism, but even if I let that slide... will there be tax-breaks for businesses?

We need to give tax breaks to ALL companies large and small to encourage them to hire American workers - we are already losing A LOT of jobs thanks to cheap labor overseas (outsourcing) and illegal employment (paying non-citizens illegal wages) - this requirement with no relief - will be an added expense and another reason for outsourcing and/or another reason to hire undocumented workers. (Although I suppose – if an employer is going to be break the law – and pay less than the min. wage – it does not matter if we require insurance or not – probably best to explore that situation separately).

Also, the plan will require health care for all "American residents." That must be a typo, correct? It should state American citizens, right?

PS: If I have posted anything that was 'not positive' – it was in an effort to spark debate among Dems. The only thing that I’ve posted recently, that may not have been positive, was a couple weeks ago when I stated that Edwards seemed to be the least phony of the current field of candidates. I stand by that comment.

U.S. Shoots Self in Foot. Sends Troops to Protect Other Foot.
Robert J. Elisberg – The Huffington Post

Administration reports that bombs found in Iraq may have come from Iran have fueled speculation of an impending war with that rogue terrorist state. Now, however, comes the revelation of another, even more dangerous, massive influx of foreign weaponry that has entered Iraq. Sources disclose the arsenal comes from the United States of America.

"I couldn't believe my eyes," said Lt. Charles Danvers, who led the patrol, which found the initial cache. "There it was, a huge hoard of bombs, and every last one had Uncle Sam marked all over. For a sec, I felt kind of patriotic, seeing my flag on the bombs. But then, of course, I realized it they were being used against us."

Other stashes of American-supplied arms were later discovered throughout Iraq, as Army intelligence built upon new evidence. In one notable raid, the 51st Battalion captured 15,000 rifles supplied to Iraq rebels by the U.S. At first, their origin was unclear, but a quick-eyed soldier, Pvt. Harold Milligan spotted an invoice marked "Halliburton," with a handwritten sticky note, "Have a nice day."

Reports have started to leak from the White House that President Bush is preparing an address to the nation, declaring war against ourselves.

Quietly, documents have been released to support such an action. They show CIA intelligence given to Iraq on the use of mustard gas and cyanide attacks as early as 1984, as well as shipments of military and industrial technology.

"We have solid evidence that Saddam Hussein himself met with high-ranking agents of America," a subdued Vice-President Dick Cheney told NBC News. "There are irrefutable photographs of Saddam with Donald Rumsfeld. And believe me, I know what Donald Rumsfeld looks like. I'm aware people don't trust me much anymore, but you have to trust me on this one."

An unnamed Administration official has hinted that the President might be re-hiring Mr. Rumsfeld as a special consultant. As the source noted, who better than the former Defense Secretary knows where all the armaments are hidden? After all, Rumsfeld was long-insistent of having "iron clad" evidence where such material was.

And now, mounting proof provided by the White House shows shipments of cyanide, poison gases and anthrax were delivered by America to Iraq by the late 1980s.

"Okay, this surely is evidence of what we've been saying all along," White House spokesman Tony Snow stated emphatically. "Hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know this. We know this for certain. We know this because we sold them ourselves. C'mon, folks, put the pieces of the puzzle together. We have the documents."

All together, the discoveries of munitions and biological weapons have grown to an impressive number. Cluster bombs, tanks, steel tubes for military application and even helicopters have been found to have been supplied by the United States. "Honestly, it's probably why we have such a short supply of protective armor for our own troops now," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett commented. "I'm guessing we just gave it away."

As the evidence of U.S. involvement selling weapons to Iraq mounts, the White House is in "full game mode." Indeed, the President himself has hit the road. Yesterday, in Lexington, Kentucky, he addressed an adoring, hand-picked crowd of 20 supporters.

"The United States of America has been supplying weapons of mass destruction to Iraq for over 20 years," Mr. Bush intoned. "My very own dad told me. He helped order the arms there himself, for goodness sake. That puts us right in the center of the axis of evil. That makes us a threat to ourselves. That means we must protect ourselves from ourselves."

The President then took pre-written questions from the supportive assembly, which included inquiries into his favorite color and whether trees are nice? Mr. Bush closed by making it clear how serious he was about the threat to America by America.

"When I needed a new Secretary of Defense," he explained, "I hired Robert Gates. Who better to serve our nation against these terrible weapons than the man who, as Deputy Director of the CIA in 1982, approved their sale? That is why I have selected him to replace the previous Secretary of Defense who himself helped sell American armaments to Iraq, as well. As we say in Texas, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but fool me all the time and shame on you because there's no fool like an old fool, and I pity the fool.'"

As Congress debates the prospect of America going to war against itself, Republican leaders have raised the prospect of filibustering themselves. None would go on the record, however, although each Republican questioned criticized themselves for their silence. They did acknowledge privately that they support the President, even if they couldn't precisely explain him.

"It's real simple, folks," spokesman Snow told his press conference. "America has supplied weapons to Iraq, and we must be stopped, and we will fight ourselves to save America from continuing this fight. Who are you going to believe on this? Us - or us? Or U.S.?"
**********************************************
**********************************************

So, the President wants us to believe that these NEW United States weapons being supplied to the insurgency to keep the war going is from long past wars. I do not buy it. More lies. The U.S. is supporting the insurgents. Good God help us, we must get the United States out of war in Iraq.

"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill." --Albert Campus: The Plague, Modern Library Edition, p. 120

=

"War creates peace like hate creates love." -- David L. Wilson

=

"During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism." -- Howard Thurman

===

Governor Dean is awesome. He trully is a great leader.

Everyone, read this! It's interesting and important. http://larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2007/0212_hamilton.shtml Good luck to all of ya.

War with Iran?
Harpers Magazine -- Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 by Ken Silverstein.

Last Saturday, the Guardian ran a story stating that “U.S. preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the U.S. to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year.”

The chance of military action certainly seems to be growing. Some in the administration, led by the vice president, seem to want a confrontation with Iran before George W. Bush's term expires. A few days ago, I spoke with a person who is intimately familiar with the official debate on Iran. This person told me that the Pentagon has completed its targeting of hundreds of Iranian sites; and although he did not believe that a strike is imminent or inevitable, he does believe that the White House considers itself to have addressed and overcome all significant obstacles to a military strike.

So is a military confrontation with Iran coming?
Over the past few days, I've contacted a number of academics, think-tank analysts, and former government officials and asked them whether they think military action against Iran is or is not likely. I also asked them about the probable consequences of a military confrontation.

Today I'm running responses from independent analysts—experienced policy experts who study the Middle East. Tomorrow's responses will come from former members of the CIA, and on Thursday we'll wrap up with opinions from people working at major think tanks.

A. Richard Norton

A. Richard Norton, professor of international relations at Boston University, has been living in Cairo since September, where he has been discussing regional and internal politics with leading officials, academics, and activists. He was an advisor to the Iraq Study Group, which presented its recommendations in December. His new book, Hezbollah: A Short History (Princeton University Press), will be out in a few weeks.

In recent weeks, the Bush Administration has dramatically improved its capacity for striking Iran. It is doubtful that a decision to go to war has been made, but in the weeks ahead officials and war advocates will describe an attack on Iran as both “feasible” and “necessary,” particularly if Iran persists in developing its isotope-enrichment program. Even born-again critics of the Iraq war, notably Hillary Clinton, go to pains to emphasize that a nuclear-capable Iran is intolerable and that all options must be kept open to deal with Iran. Israel's concerns weigh significantly in Washington decision-making as well, and the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity is understood in Israel to be an existential threat. Although a credible case may be made for deterring Iran's nuclear ambitions through non-military means, neither the Bush Administration nor the Israeli government has embraced that possibility.

Remember that in 1990–91 and then again in 2003 the very fact that the United States assembled a formidable array of forces in the Gulf region became an argument for using those forces and launching wars. The United States will soon have two carrier task forces on station, and perhaps a third carrier task force will soon be deployed. It will be difficult for the United States to step down from its combative perch without Iran accepting some fairly significant concessions.

While many leading Iranian officials fully understand the gravity of the situation, it is nonetheless possible to imagine a series of real or contrived clashes that lead, perhaps unintentionally, to a serious aerial and naval campaign against Iran. Or—to put it simply—to yet another U.S. war of choice.

This is the four-pronged U.S. strategy at present:

1. As the deadline for compliance with the latest Security Council resolution approaches, the United States assembles the capacity to strike Iran if the Iranian leadership continues to ignore the will of the UN.

2. The threat of Iran gaining hegemony over expanses of the region is used to bolster an alliance with “moderate” Arab states. The subtext is that friendly Arab leaders, such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, would be pleased to see Iran knocked down a peg or two.

3. Given evaporating domestic support for the U.S. venture in Iraq, the administration is working hard to change the subject and to blame Iran for meddling and for facilitating anti-Coalition violence. (The recent furor over Iran possibly supplying sophisticated explosive devices is somewhat hypocritical when one considers that America's armory enabled Israel's war in Lebanon last summer. But that is impolitic to note.)

4. Meanwhile, with Iran chastened, and with the tacit support of moderate Arab regimes, U.S. forces manage to get the Iraq civil war under some kind of control—thus converting that conflict from a catastrophic disaster to a manageable mess, a mess for which the Iraqis are fundamentally responsible because they failed to capitalize on the “gift” of liberation.

The idea that the U.S. could bomb Iran “surgically,” gain Iranian compliance, and then bolster the American position in the Middle East is risky in the extreme. A U.S. attack would undermine pragmatic voices in Iran, revive Iranian nationalism, provide incentives for Iran to make life extremely difficult for the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere, and probably impede the international trade in petroleum. Support for the United States is already weak among Iraq's Shiite community. The idea that America could align with a majority-Shiite government in Baghdad and simultaneously attack Iran is delusional. If America loses mass support among Iraqi Shiite, then the movie is over.

Surveying U.S. history, one is hard-pressed to find presidential decisions as monumentally ill-informed and counterproductive as the decision to invade and occupy Iraq; however, a decision to go to war against Iran would arguably surpass the Iraq war as the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president.

Wayne White

Wayne White, an adjunct scholar with Washington's Middle East Institute, was deputy director of the State Department's Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia until March 2005.

“Planning” in the sense of very active contingency planning is almost certainly underway and has been for some time. That said, if by “planning” one means preparation resulting from a decision already made, I do not think that is the case—at least not yet. With the February 21 reporting deadline approaching, and with all the risks involved in exercising the so-called “military option” against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, it appears that the White House wishes to give diplomacy at least one more shot before making a firm decision on whether it should embark on unilateral U.S. military action.

Since early 2006, there have been a number of leaks about contingency planning for a U.S. strike against Iran. The deployment of a second carrier battle-group to the Persian Gulf was probably meant to intimidate Iran into backing off with respect to its interference in Iraq—and also to threaten Tehran with the possibility of a strike on its nuclear facilities, should diplomacy reach a dead end in the context of the February deadline. However, that deployment also put an additional component of the military option into position, should that option be chosen.

I am extremely wary of a military campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. If military action is taken against that infrastructure, there would be nothing “surgical” about the proceedings. The air strikes associated with contingency planning suggest that such maneuvers, in addition to hitting a number of widely dispersed atomic-development targets, would have to take out much of Iran's air defenses in order to clear paths to the targets. It would be a very large operation, probably spanning many days. In addition, Iran would strike back with whatever it could—for example, by attacking U.S. fleet elements and commercial ships with any anti-ship missiles that escaped destruction during the first wave of air strikes. It might also launch whatever ballistic and medium-range missiles survive the U.S. assault at various targets in the Gulf region, countries Tehran would likely view as complicit in such an attack. This would generate a major crisis in the Gulf—and, perhaps most importantly, one without a clear endgame.

Bahman Baktiari

Bahman Baktiari is director of academic and research programming at the University of Main's William S. Cohen Center for International Policy and Commerce.

If the United States attacks Iran, the consequences would be disastrous. It would produce a wave of patriotic solidarity with the theocratic regime in Iran, even among those young Iranians who are fiercely critical of the mullahs, and another tidal wave of reaction around the world, especially among Muslims. Within Iraq, Bush's policy has led to an increase in sectarian fighting, so an attack on Iran would be seen as anti-Shiite as well as anti-Iranian. As of last year, for the first time, a majority of Iraqi Shiites support armed attacks on U.S.-led forces, and if the United States attacks Iran, Iraqi Shiite militias will direct their anger at American soldiers and military personnel. Beyond this, we need to recognize that Iran has a complex political system and a young, critical society. The half-crazed Iranian President, Mr. Ahmedinejad, is not the ultimate boss. The supreme leader of this theocratic regime is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and he himself is constrained by strong interest groups and powerful personalities like Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Yet there is a real possibility that George Bush will order a military strike on Iran before he leaves the White House. The signs include: the build-up of Navy forces in the Persian Gulf, the capture of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the appearance of Undersecretary of State Nick Burns and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England at a security conference in Israel with pro-war elements of the Israeli military. Also, the administration has armed Iran's Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles. The Pentagon halted all sales of spare parts from its recently retired F-14 fighter jet fleet because of concerns they could be transferred to Iran. Moreover, the U.S. military has accused people at the highest levels of Iranian government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents. All signs point to a coming confrontation between the United States and Iran.
* * *

JJNY4Dean writes:
>Also, the plan will require health care for
>all "American residents." That must be a typo,
>correct? It should state American citizens, right?

No, it should be residents, not citizens. I'm currently living in Australia as an Australian resident, but I am covered by the Australian health care system. Prior to that I was a resident of Norway, where I was covered by the Norwegian health care system. The benefits of improved public health accrue to all, not just to the people who get sick.

ICH: U.S. General: "No Evidence of Iran Giving Arms to Iraqis"

"What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt - Political philosopher, Born 1906 in Hanover, Germany

=

"When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe; he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." --Thomas Paine "The Age of Reason" 1793

=

"The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918- ) Russian writer, Soviet dissident, imprisoned for 8 years for critizing Stalin in a personal letter, Nobel Prize for Literature, 1970

http://www.ichblog.eu/text/

http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

===

Joint Chiefs Chairman Sees No Evidence of Meddling by Iran's Regime

Published 2/13/07 by McClatchy http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/

by Jonathan S. Landay – CommonDreams.org http://www.commondreams.org/

A day after the U.S. military charged Iran's government with shipping powerful explosive devices to Shiite Muslim fighters in Iraq to use against American troops, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday that he hasn't seen any intelligence to support the claim.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace's comment could make it harder for the Bush administration, its credibility about Iran questioned because of its false pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein, to make its case that Iranian meddling in Iraq is fueling sectarian violence and causing U.S. casualties.

At a briefing Sunday in Baghdad, U.S. military officials said the al-Quds Force, an elite Iranian paramilitary organization, is sending arms into Iraq that include bombs that shoot molten metal jets through the armor of American tanks and Humvees.

They said these "explosively formed projectiles," or EFPs, have killed 170 U.S. troops and wounded more than 600 others and are "coming from the highest level of the Iranian government."

Asked about the briefing during a visit Monday to Canberra, Australia, Pace said he couldn't substantiate the assertion that the clerical regime in Tehran is shipping such devices to Shiite militias in Iraq.
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for an explanation of the apparent contradiction between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and his subordinates in Baghdad.
A senior U.S. intelligence official told McClatchy Newspapers that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the al-Quds Force, a component of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, couldn't conduct such a major undertaking without the knowledge of top leaders.

"Based on our understanding of the Iranian system and the history of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) operations, the IC (intelligence community) assesses that activity this extensive on the part of the Quds Force would not be conducted without approval from top leaders in Iran," the senior intelligence official said.

The official requested anonymity because intelligence on Iran is highly classified. But his remarks, translated from intelligence parlance, indicate that the U.S. has no conclusive evidence that Iran's leaders have directed the arms deliveries, as one briefer in Baghdad conceded on Sunday, but instead has concluded that they probably approved them.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied Monday that Iran is supplying weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq or stirring up violence by majority Shiites against minority Sunni Muslims, contending that the U.S. military presence is to blame for the bloodshed.

"We are asking for peace, we are asking for security," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "We are opposed to any kind of conflict and also the presence of foreign forces in Iraq."

"The U.S. administration and Bush are used to accusing others. The fact that you are showing us some pieces of papers and you call them documents - they do not solve any problem," said Ahmadinejad. "There should be a court to prove the case and verify the case."

President Bush and his top lieutenants contend that Tehran is supporting Shiite militias that have seized control of much of southern Iraq, attacked American forces and driven minority Sunnis out of large areas of Baghdad in response to Sunni insurgent attacks.
In response, U.S. forces have detained at least seven Iranian operatives in Iraq, and Bush has ordered a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force into the Persian Gulf.

Democratic lawmakers and other administration critics, including some former senior U.S. officials, are worried that the White House may be exaggerating its case against Tehran to justify a military strike on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons facilities.

White House spokesman Tony Snow reiterated on Monday that the United States has no plans to attack Iran.

"I don't know how much clearer we can be: We're not getting ready for war in Iran," said Snow. "What we are doing is protecting our own people."
The administration and its European allies believe that Iran's nuclear facilities are being used to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists that its program is strictly for civilian power generation.

***********************************

Is this called "Double Speak"?

Is this Double Speak, or what?

Bush has sent 3-4 of the U.S.'s biggest, baddest nuclear battleships imaginable to the Middle East Gulf Area, so one can't possibly think that the peace being talked about can be anything other than the 'Peace of Death', since Bush has unbalanced the power in the Middle East to such an extent that the U.S. now has to fear Iran attacking Israel. How long will Bush let U.S. war ships set without attacking Iran? That is the question. Will these war ships remain permanently stationed in the Middle East? Highly unlikely. Bush will probably start a war with Iran before his time is up.

What Bush has failed to understand is that the GOD of Heaven protects Israel. The GOD of Heaven will not let Israel be destroyed. When Israel is attacked, and Israel will be attacked, the GOD of Heaven himself will fight for Israel, not the United States.

Bush's cultic fundamental Christian dominionist representation of GOD is a FAILURE with no good and constructive purpose. Bush can't be representative of God because God doesn't FAIL, and everything Bush touches FAILS. Bush's MURDEROUS destruction of Iraq was a massive FAILURE that most assuredly grieves the GOD of Heaven; and only makes the God of Hell happy.

I have been registered Democratic for years and have voted for the Democrats for even longer BUT I am now so angry and frustrated that I may change to independent and vote for a third party! My husband agrees completely with me.

FIRST: The Democrats seem only to be able to say we don't like BUSH! EVEN the Republicans don't like Bush-that's NO big deal!

MOSTLY: TWO Border Guards (one of which won the Border Guard of the year award this year for heroism) caught a Drug Smuggler and had to fire their weapons to do it as the Smuggler has "something shiny in his hand as he raised it towards us".
THE FEDERAL JUDGE--took the DRUG SMUGGLER--asked not one question about contacts, who he was to meet, etc. and threw the Border Guards into jail and then the JUDGE on this case would not allow the testimony that would have helped these men.
The Feds gave the DRUG SMUGGLER complete freedom from prosecution and "asked" him to come back to USA FREE and testify against the Border Guards!

THE Border Guards were sent to prison and not even protected from the brutality of the prisoner's anger at LAWmen!

Lou Dobbs on CNN had two REPUBLICANS who are trying to help these Border Guards but no Democrats have joined them, only Republicans. The President's office refused to comment and IGNORED the letters, memos and calls of these Republicans from TEXAS! THE Att. General's agent on this confessed to Congressional reps. that the dept. LIED and helped to prosecute these Border Guards!

NOT ONE DEMOCRAT has signed up to help the Border Guards! NO ONE! WHAT on earth is wrong with this party?

Posted by MartinSmith on February 13, 2007 at 09:25 PM

If John Edwards wants to take my money (taxes) and use it to help American Citizens - then MAYBE I'll consider the plan. However, I will not pay for healthcare insurance of non-citizens.

Mexico and Canada have borders – we have borders. If I go to Canada and/or Mexico – I do not expect to get a free ride from their healthcare systems, and sure as heck don’t want my money to cover healthcare for Europeans on holiday in the USA.

I don’t mind covering the young and the elderly, but that middle-group (18ish – 65ish) - this is a capitalistic country - get to work and buy your insurance.

Al Franken Running For "Wellstone's" Minnesota Senate Seat

Al Franken to run for Minn. Senate seat

By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 14, 2:13 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Comedian

Al Franken said Wednesday he will run for U.S. Senate in 2008, confirming his long-suspected plans to seek the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Sen. Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record).

Franken's announcement came on the final day of his radio show on Air America. The former "Saturday Night Live" performer's celebrity instantly makes him a heavyweight contender and brings national attention to the Minnesota race.

"Minnesotans have a right to be skeptical about whether I'm ready for this challenge, and to wonder how seriously I would take the responsibility that I'm asking you to give me," Franken said in a video clip posted on his Web site.

"I want you to know: nothing means more to me than making government work better for the working families of this state, and over the next 20 months I look forward to proving to you that I take these issues seriously," Franken said in a transcript of the clip.

Though Franken has a well-known name and is likely to be well-funded, he's expected to be challenged by several other Democrats, including wealthy trial attorney Mike Ciresi.

Franken, 55, was born in New York City but grew up in the Minneapolis suburb of St. Louis Park. He graduated from Harvard University in 1973, and in 1975 he and writing partner Tom Davis joined the writing staff of "Saturday Night Live" during its first season. They soon started appearing in sketches, and Franken remained a fixture on the show well into the 1990s.

In 1996 Franken took his career in a political direction when he wrote "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations," a broadside against the conservative radio host and other figures on the right. He's since published several other books critical of Republicans and the conservative establishment.

As early as 2003, Franken said he was considering a run for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat previously held by his friend, the late Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone.

In 2004 Franken joined the upstart liberal radio network Air America as its biggest-name host. He soon got more directly involved in politics, forming a political action committee that raised more than $1 million for Democratic candidates in the last election cycle.

In 2005, Franken and his wife, Franni, moved back to the Twin Cities, which was widely interpreted as laying the groundwork for a campaign. He announced a few weeks ago that Wednesday would be his last day on Air America, but continued to play coy about his aspirations while privately telling prominent DFLers [Democratic Farmer Labor Party] about his plans to run.

Franken is stringing out his announcement over two days — Wednesday's announcement, and a scheduled first public appearance as a candidate Thursday morning at a clinic in south Minneapolis.

In his Web site message, Franken acknowledges he's not a "typical politician." But he stresses his Minnesota roots, talking about his father's decision to open a quilting factory in Albert Lea that failed after two years, prompting the family's move to the Twin Cities.

"I grew up in a hard-working middle class family just like many of yours. And as a middle-class kid growing up in Minnesota back then, I felt like the luckiest kid in the world. And I was."

Franken's celebrity is likely to give him an edge over other Democrats in getting attention, but is no guarantee he'll get past the primary. Besides Ciresi, other names mentioned as potential candidates include state senators Tarryl Clark, Mee Moua and Tom Bakk, and state Rep. Joe Atkins.

Franken's candidacy will also test whether Minnesotans are in the mood for another celebrity-cum-politician, after the 1999-2003 governship of former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura. Ventura's fame and occasionally outrageous behavior regularly brought national attention to the state but after a while wore on the patience of many Minnesotans.

Coleman defeated former Vice President Walter Mondale in 2002 just a few weeks after the plane crash that killed the incumbent Wellstone.

Coleman is viewed as vulnerable after several years of Democratic resurgence in Minnesota and the continued unpopularity of his fellow Republican President Bush, but his proven skills as a campaigner and adept fundraiser make him a formidable opponent.

Franken has had little good to say about his potential opponent. In his latest book, "The Truth (with jokes)," he criticized Coleman in not-so-flattering terms for his former chairmanship of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

"The subcommittee's chairman, Minnesota Republican Norman Coleman, is one of the administration's leading butt boys," Franken wrote. "He hasn't held a single hearing on postwar corruption."

Leaked Letter Reveals GOP Strategy: Talk About Anything But Escalation

By Greg Sargent

So this explains a lot. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office has obtained a letter that GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra sent out to House GOP colleagues about escalation. The letter gives GOP members pointers on how they should approach the battle over it on the House floor this week.

Hoyer's office has now posted the letter on his Web site, and it lays bare the GOP's strategy for dealing with debate over the House's anti-escalation resolution and reveals just how worried party leaders are about having a genuine discussion about the "surge." The letter says:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Yep, so the advice here is this: GOPers shouldn't allow themselves to be lured into a "debate" about the single most important policy question facing us right now, because they might lose. Never mind how all this might impact the troops who actually have to go to Iraq. Healthy priorities, huh?

Also amusing is the letter's assertion that "Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge." Now why on earth would Dems want Republicans to justify a policy that will directly impact tens of thousands of people and their families? How unreasonable!

Wouldn't you know it, but during the House debate today many GOPers did indeed "broaden the debate" to the threat posed by "radical Islamists." Say this for your House Republicans: They're good at following orders.

JJNY4Dean writes:
>If John Edwards wants to take my money (taxes)
>and use it to help American Citizens - then
>MAYBE I'll consider the plan. However, I will
>not pay for healthcare insurance of non-citizens.

You apparently have misunderstood how universal health care works. It isn't just the taxes of citizens that finance public health care. Non-citizens pay the same taxes you pay. Their taxes finance public health care too. That's why they are covered.

>Mexico and Canada have borders – we have borders.
>If I go to Canada and/or Mexico – I do not expect
>to get a free ride from their healthcare systems,
>and sure as heck don’t want my money to cover
>healthcare for Europeans on holiday in the USA.

Obviously, people on holiday aren't covered, unless there is a reciprocal agreement with their contry's government. But yes, if you lived and worked in Canada or Mexico, you certainly would expect to be covered by their health care system.

>I don’t mind covering the young and the elderly,
>but that middle-group (18ish – 65ish) - this is
>a capitalistic country - get to work and buy your
>insurance.

That's exactly what paying into a public health care system is. And, by the way, all the countries that have universal health care systems are also caqpitalist countries.

It is clear you haven't studied universal health care systems.

As a Democratic voter you lost my VOTE.

Go spew your lies to someone who will believe them - you are either frauds by choice or ignorance.

Let the truth come out, the Democrats are equally to blame, if not more, for our countries situation. The democrats have done nothing for this country, but undermine its future, sovereignty and presence in the eyes of the world.

The republicans are allowing thousands of un-vetted Iraqi refugees’s to enter our country without even debate from the democrats.

Furthermore, you would rather side with illegal aliens, than the overwhelming majority of US CITIZENS; and grant millions of illegal alien’s amnesty and award them with guest worker status.

Yet, the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets threatens not only millions of workers and their families, but also the American way of life. Corporations and politicians are breaking down our borders and jeopardizing our sovereignty in search of the lowest-price labor available.

Big business and Washington are in cahoots, trading our nation's livelihood for short-term gain.

Corporations are laying off Americans from well-paying jobs and replacing them with low-paid foreign workers.

Yet, unfair tariffs on our exported goods are at an all-time high, imports are allowed to enter the U.S. on weak foreign currency by overwhelming numbers; our auto industry has laid-off thousands and thousands workers, textiles and electronics no longer exist, steal and other manufacturing industries are almost non-existing, yet you claim to be the party of the people?

Where are you (the Democrats), are you trying to levy tariffs against foreign goods shipped into this country, by unscrupulous balances, are you trying to eliminate the trade deficits with China, Japan, Mexico, stopping the exportation of U.S. jobs and industries etc……?

No, you are not; you are in favor of rewarding millions of illegal aliens, foreign industries, all on the backs of American Citizens.

This is just a brief synopsis of what we the people see. So look in the mirror first before speaking and take notice of who you really are, then if you can stand up for America first – then speak. Unfortunately, what you have laid-out in your game plan falls short, or should I say does not even come close to putting America first.

We need to rid this country from both career Democrats and Republicans by vote because the majority of both, do not have what it takes to put Americans first.

Shortguy wrote:
>This is just a brief synopsis of what we the
>people see.

Your diatribe was stew of self-contradictions. You will have to clarify your own beliefs and remove those contradictions before you can vote sensibly.

First let me be clear - ideally - we would have private insurance - 100%. However, I understand that some states, like VT, offer taxpayer funded healthcare to children 0-18ish. And old-folks 65-ish and up have taxpayer funded access to healthcare.

So, people between the ages of 18 - 65 need to get a job and buy private insurance. (Ex: a 22 year old has to get a job and buy insurance).

You need to allow for some vagueness, because I have a job and I am working and checking out this post on my coffee break. OK. Back to work, got to pay my bills, save some money and pay for my private insurance. You know like a good American citizen.

PS: As for non-citizens. I'm referring to undocumented workers AKA illegals who are paid by scumbag employers - off the books, and usually well below the minimum wage. Their tax money does not go into the slush fund. There for should not have access to “President Edwards” health insurance plan. Oh wait; they are ‘residents.’

Nice try.

Mr. Dean....I would like to discuss a plan to maintain Democratic control of the PRESIDENCY..that could keep the democrats in control for the next 16-24 years...

JJNY4Dean writes:
>First let me be clear - ideally - we would have
>private insurance - 100%.

Nobody misunderstood you. Your ideal system has now been seen to not work. Tens of millions of Americans don't have private insurance. There are many reasons why they don't. Some you can complain about, some you can't, but the bottom line is that these tens of millions of uninsured people end up costing the economy far more than if we just insured everybody with a single payer system, like they do in most of the rest of the civilized world. Plus, your payments would be lower in the single payer, universal system. And you would still have great health care.

JJNY4Dean writes:
>As for non-citizens. I'm referring to undocumented
>workers AKA illegals who are paid by scumbag
>employers - off the books, and usually well
>below the minimum wage. Their tax money does
>not go into the slush fund.

Yes, it does, but more important, you are talking
about a small number of people. Everyone still wins even if these invisible workers are included.

Your diatribe was stew of self-contradictions. You will have to clarify your own beliefs and remove those contradictions before you can vote sensibly.
Posted by MartinSmith

Martin it is very clear by you responses to posts, that you are very un-informed. You are either very impressionable, or just incapable of insight or truth.
If you want, we can discuss these issues here, and submit and post public information relating to the cost of illegal aliens on our health care, legal, school, welfare, and correctional systems.
I can also submit and post public information on the trade deficits with China, Japan, Mexico, etc…..; to illustrate how a soft foreign currency along with, unfair trade agreements have cost millions of US jobs, ex: auto industry, big labor, etc………..
This is not even attempting to discuss the threat to this country from foreign terrorist.
Moreover, each one of our elected officials voting record is a click away.

I am union man (Democrat) – let’s talk about it. What have the Democrats done for Big Labor recently, I will use something real easy as an example, NAFTA, “oh yea” a Clinton push; or do you want to list the voting records of other bills signed by both parties that have contributed to millions of lost jobs and tax cuts for big businesses, drafted by lobbyist.

You call my last posts a rant? Sorry, but it is the truth, experienced and felt by millions of Americans. It is so cliché, and typical of politicians to result to name calling or avoiding the REAL issues when they cannot refute them.

My posts are not personal attacks, but opinions based on facts and experience, that are real issues faced by millions of Americans. If you cannot debate them or purposely avoid them, then do not assert you are for the people, or have all the answers and place blame on others.

All I am saying is that our elected officials (both Republicans and Democrats) have not performed with the interest of the American people first in a long time!!!!!!

Until you realize that my friend, your sensibility has been clouded and compromised, thus altering YOUR vote.

shortguy writes:
>Martin it is very clear by you responses to posts,
>that you are very un-informed.

Actually I have lived in the US, Australia, and Norway, so I have direct experience with the health care systems in all three states. I know how universal health care systems work and why, having experienced two such systems firsthand.

>If you want, we can discuss these issues here,
>and submit and post public information relating
>to the cost of illegal aliens on our health care,
>legal, school, welfare, and correctional systems.

Those numbers would be pointless, short, because the cost per illegal alien in all the systems you listed is the same as the cost per legal alien in the same systems, and it is the same as the cost per citizen in those same systems. Health care for an illegal alien doesn't cost more than health care for a citizen, so extracting those statistics for discussion has nothing to do with universal public health care.

If you want to get rid of illegal aliens, knock yourself out, but it has nothing to do with the workings of universal public health care so stop raising red herrings.

>My posts are not personal attacks,

But you said this about me: "You are either very impressionable, or just incapable of insight or truth."

That's a personal attack.

MartinSmith, if you do not like the current health care system in the USA - that's fine, but you are mistaken, we are not 100% private. The USA health care system is private and public, and I don't want to make it 100% public (taxpayer funded).

Shortguy, the American worker is suffering because of outsourcing and illegal employment. Factory workers, office workers, and even doctors and lawyers. We need to support politicians and business leaders who will reward companies for hiring Americans, and punish those who hire illegals (fines, then 3-strikes and you are out -jail time).

The middle class is under attack – by outsourcing AND illegal employment.

JJNY4Dean writes:
>but you are mistaken, we are not 100% private.

I didn't claim it was. You said "First let me be clear - ideally - we would have private insurance - 100%." You raised the 100% figure. I didn't say anything about it. In fact, I said your ideal system doesn't work because we now have a private health care system and yet tens of millions of people are not insured.

>Shortguy, the American worker is suffering
>because of outsourcing and illegal employment.

Maybe he is, but you are the one who said he and everyone else who is suffering needs "to go out and "get a job and buy private insurance." The point is that won't solve the problem, because (a) unemployment never goes to 0, and (b) a great many jobs don't pay enough to support a family *and* buy private insurance, and (c) people lose their jobs all the time and it takes a long time to find another one.

>The middle class is under attack – by
>outsourcing AND illegal employment.

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with
John Edward's proposal for a universal health care system.

This is my first ever blog entry... I'm a 50 year old RN, marrried, 2 teen boys, ex "soccer Mom"... and I can't figure out what anyone sees in Hilary... To me she's just another politico and comes across very fake... perhaps "overhandled" by her advisors?
And I don't like that she hasn't apologised for her pro-war vote... Where was her brain? And her conscience?
Edwards is the only presidential contender that I currently trust...and, as a nurse, I lke that he's had the courage to start talking healthcare... HIlary really botched it back when she tried to overhall the system, again, I think becasue she listened to her handlers rather than her own common sense... she ended up making things worse.
Check out Edward's website versus Hilary's... It's so much more substantive and with fresh ideas!
The sad thing is, I'm almost afraid to be writing this, 'cause I imagine her campaign may read blogs like mine and get even more aggressive against Edwards... and, if things go like they usually seem to in this country, he/she with the wealthiest special interests behind them win the nomination.
The fact that she's a woman means nothing to me. Women can get drunk with power just like men... look at Condi Rice.... I'm SO disappointed in her!!

Ahh the DNC blog – always fun.

First, all of these issues overlap – outsourcing, illegal employment, and healthcare. Some people lose jobs, some people don’t have healthcare. No, we can’t save everyone, but we can give them a chance to help themselves.

MartinSmith, as for healthcare – you implied that my 100%-private dream was active today – it is not. You have a different view than me – we can go back and forth all day – but I like the current healthcare system – you don’t – the end.

I see no contradictions in anything that I have posted. But if there are any, I don’t care – this great country was founded on contradictions! HA!

God Bless America!

JJNY4Dean writes:
>First, all of these issues overlap – outsourcing,
>illegal employment, and healthcare.

But they are separate problems with respect to their solutions. The solutions to the immigration problem and the outsourcing problem are not part of the universal public health care system. To link them is to confuse the issues.

>Some people lose jobs, some people don’t have
>healthcare. No, we can’t save everyone, but we
>can give them a chance to help themselves.

Again you introduce an irrelevant concept. Saving people is irrelevant. A universal public health care system *does* give everyone a tool they can use to help themselves.

>MartinSmith, as for healthcare – you implied
>that my 100%-private dream was active today –
>it is not.

No, I said the opposite. I said it is not a workable solution, and I said the situation today shows why it is not.

>but I like the current healthcare system – you
>don’t – the end.

The current health care system is broken in the US for all the people who can't afford it. And this is not the end, of course. I expect all the Democratic candidates will be making universal health care proposals as part of their campaigns.

>this great country was founded on contradictions!

Would you list them then?

OK, now it's my turn.

I stated earlier that under John Edwards' plan - health care would be provided to 'residents' and I do not want my money - taxes - to support undocumented workers AKA illegals who are paid by scumbag employers - off the books, and usually well below the minimum wage, because their tax money does not go into the slush fund.

Martin Smith writes: "Yes, it does."

MS, there is no way that an illegal worker’s taxes will go into the tax system - not directly - not thru a payroll tax because they are undocumented, and do not receive a paycheck. Perhaps that illegal money will work it's way into our economy - but not thru a payroll tax.

Also, are you an American citizen or not? Are you a registered Democrat or not? I don't mind having an academic conversation with you - but I get the impression that you sitting in Norway trying to tell American-Workers what to do with our taxes.

>MS, there is no way that an illegal worker’s taxes
>will go into the tax system

Your statement is meaningless. All taxes paid go into the tax system. You claimed "their tax money does not go into the slush fund." Yes, it does. If they pay taxes, it goes to the slush fund (sic). Now you are claiming they don't pay taxes. That's a very different claim, and this time you are correct. Workers in the black market cash economy don't pay taxes. But I pointed out that (a) the problem of illegal workers is a separate problem; it should not prevent implementation of a universal public health care system, and (b) even with this illegal cash economy, the overall economy (ie everyone including you) is better off even including this small minority of people in the system. They contribute to the economy much more than they take from the health care system.

>Also, are you an American citizen or not?

I am a citizen of the USA. Do you still beat your wife?

>Are you a registered Democrat or not?

I am not a registered Democrat. Are you a humanist or not?

>I get the impression that you sitting in Norway
>trying to tell American-Workers what to do with
>our taxes.

How did you get that impression? You are the one telling American workers what to do with their taxes. I'm sitting in Australia at the moment. The job markets in Australia and Norway are much fairer than the US, IMO. American corporations seem much more inclined to use age discrimination. Didn't that used to be illegal?

MS, I asked you fair questions. I want to understand your point of view. You are not a registered Democrat. OK. Are you a Republican, Independent, or member of the Green Party? It is a fair question. To answer my own questions: I am a registered Democrat, and I am a US citizen.

I look forward to watching the debates to hear what all the candidates have to say about health-care and taxes.

JJNY4Dean writes:
>MS, I asked you fair questions.

And I answered your questions, but your questions have nothing to do with the issue under discussion.

>I want to understand your point of view.

Your questions don't have anything to do understanding my point of view either. Your questions are simply a way to divert the discussion away from the issue of universal public health care.

>Are you a Republican, Independent, or member of
>the Green Party? It is a fair question.

A fair question but irrelevant. I'm not a member of a political party. None of the parties has a platform consistent with my views.

I live in South Carolina, and we re-elected our two U.S. House of Representative members, and we may have gotten a few more State House of Representative members and State Senators (I'm not sure), and we kept the State Superintendent of Education position on the Democratic side, and maybe a few more Mayors (Anderson, SC elected for the first time in history a black male Democrat for Mayor), but other than that, we really didn't win anything in 2006. I know that the National and State Democratic Party is just getting started taking South Carolina seriously is one of the reasons for this. Hopefully, we will have a lot more progress in the future on the local, state, and national level from South Carolina.

Illegal workers do pay taxes and social security. When the employers collect the taxes, they might send the money in like they're supposed to, so the government won't come knocking on their doors, nosing around. In that case the illegal worker looses the money for Social Security because he can't ever collect, and the money just goes into the system. OR, in a lot of cases, the employer keeps two sets of books, pockets the money he collected from the illegal workers, and the "tax" money doesn't go to the government even though the worker thinks it did.
It's not the worker's fault if the money didn't go to the government. He believed he was paying taxes. It's just another abuse in a long line of abuses.
The government needs to crack down on the employers.

I agree that we need to crack down on employers and, somehow discourage illegal immigration. Many employers pay these undocumented workers by cash – so everything is off the books – therefore it will not go into John Edwards slush-fund for healthcare (at least not through a payroll tax), and if these undocumented workers are docile/scared – why would they file taxes via a 1099 (etc)?

>Many employers pay these undocumented workers by
>cash – so everything is off the books – therefore
>it will not go into John Edwards slush-fund for
>healthcare (at least not through a payroll tax),

But that is an insignificant amount of the health care cost compared to the total, so your concern is misplaced. Illegal immigration is a separate problem.

Illegal immigration is a symptom of much larger, farther reaching, and very intertwined problems.
We need to KILL FAST TRACK, re-negotiate the VERY EXPENSIVE "free" trade agreements to protect workers and the other countries economies, and crack down on employers of illegal aliens in this country.
We also need to get the giant agri-businesses to stop pulling corn of the market to make corn ethanol and poisonous high-fructose corn syrup, which in addition to damaging our livers, causing type II diabetes, and making us obese, is damaging the sugar industry.
They dumped cheap corn on the world market, which destroyed the farm economies of poorer nations, and drove farmers to the cities.
Now they are diverting corn from food use to ethanol, and driving up the price of corn beyond the reach of the poor many of whom used to grow their own crops before they lost their farms.
We need a sustainable, not a parasitical model for the world economy. This calls for a more balanced and aware model for world trade, and not the greedy, money grubbing, selfish and unsustainable model that has been in use since Reganomics brought it to the fore. It's time to admit that the current model is a disaster, and changes are imperative.

Ann Coulter was correct yesterday when she described the Breck Girl aka John Edwards as a faggot, and Howard tarzan Dean is a Douchbag Pinko

The 50-state plan would have worked, if you actually involved 50 states. result show that you only participated in 5 or 6 elections.