I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I'm not totally convinced of this whole ePatriots thang, but I will say this: if we're gonna do it, we should spread the wealth. Kos already has well over the amount he needs to get phone time with McAuliffe, but Atrios is still lagging. So if you're considering giving anyway, seems to make sense to give to Atrios.
The most significant thing about ePatriots is that we pool our money and actually get our voices heard. The more the DNC is compelled to listen to bloggers, the happier I'm gonna be.
If I were to talk with McAuliffe, I'd tell him to step down and let Maynard Jackson take over. Gads, we need some new blood and someone who will actually be heading an OPPOSITION party.
The DNC is listening to bloggers and we welcome your suggestions. Regarding ePatriots, so far it's been a great success, thanks to people like you, and it will make a big difference for the Dem. nominee against Bush.
STUPID SID'S FINE WRITING
WHAT A FUCKING DOPE
(FROM AN AMUSING REVIEW IN CITY JOURNAL OF SID THE SHARK'S UNINTENTIONALLY FUNNY BOOK)
Here he is recalling Hillary Clinton’s decision to run for the Senate, doing his hilarious impression of a twittering West Wing sycophant: “She was, like millions of others, drawn to the greatest city of all. (She discovered that her Rodham ancestor from England had landed on Ellis Island.) Her running there could not but flatter New Yorkers’ self-conception. Hillary had spent eight years in Washington. She was shaking those ‘little town blues.’ Now it was time for Broadway.”
Blumenthal also presents his zany overview of history, past and future: “Just as the presidents of the late 20th century operated in the shadow of F.D.R., those of the first part of the 21st century will stand in the shadow of Clinton.” Then there are his pages of ludicrously self-referential photos
--Among other blind spots is the vexed issue of Bill’s alleged indiscretions, which Hillary dismisses as agitprop by diabolical foes jealous of her husband’s Christlike aspiration to transform earthly life. Hillary and her advisers have yet to realise that her indifference or malice towards aggrieved working women like Juanita Broaddrick (who claims to have been injured by Bill in an Arkansas hotel room) compromises her status as a proponent of women’s rights, as enunciated in her 1995 speech against sexual violence at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. Hillary’s studied avoidance of Broaddrick’s allegations simply strengthens the Clintons’ myriad right-wing enemies, who have taken up Broaddrick’s cause.
But this is only one of many evasions and erasures in the book, which would need a line-by-line Talmudic commentary in the margins to supply all the needed corrections and amplifications. Numerous scandals are given short shrift or go unmentioned: we hear nothing, for example, of Bill’s end-of-office pardons (in which Hillary’s own brother was involved) or the flap over the Clintons’ trucking away of White House furniture, which had to be returned. When Hillary’s missing billing records from the Rose Law Firm, which were long sought by prosecutors, mysteriously turn up in an office near her White House bedroom, she vaguely blames it all on a hapless assistant.
One wonders how Gary Frazier finds the time to post so often, what with all those fascinating essays he's penning. Heh heh.
anonomous comes so often he certainly could cough up a fiver.
Anonymous-- go away or post something relevant. Don't waste our time with crap we don't care about.
Ignore the MBFs - it's what pisses them off the most.
The more the DNC is compelled to listen to bloggers, the happier I'm gonna be.
The DNC is listening to bloggers and we welcome your suggestions.
Oh God, please let this be true! It's like a dream or maybe I have died and gone to heaven. The DNC is so desperate that it is going to listen to anonymous name-calling, muckrackers for campaign advice. I can't wait for 2004 if the DNC is going to listen to liberal bloggers. A full election season filled with the DNC talking about Duck Pits, Whirlwind reaping, Rethuglicans, how better off Iraq was with Saddam, Special Forces using blanks to rescue Lynch, Iraq never having WMD, the honorably discharged aWol, etc. God Bless you Terry!!!
I pray to the Baby Jesus that the DNC follows the liberal bloggers lead and adopts the high-pitched shrill insults that fill their writing. Considering that Dean will most likely be the Democrat candidate and Hillary's desire to win in 2008, Bush is a shoe-in for 2004. Can it get any better for Republicans? WOOT!
DNC Doug,
I hope you stop by my blog, then--I have thoughts. Particularly, the Dems absolutely need to go positive and progressive. I have a three-point plan (linked remotely) I'd love you to see. Also why going moderate is a mistake.
I also could point you to a couple of strategy briefs, if you're interested. Email if you're interested in a further discussion.
Emma,
I just scanned your 3 point plan. I'm not sure I agree with it.
I think the Dems have a pretty compelling opportunity to portray the differences between the 2 parties.
America is at a crossroads. The world is not as safe for us as it once was. We must choose carefully between two paths to our future.
President Bush and the Republicans are increasing the danger. Abroad, they have alienated almost all of our allies. Using forged documents, they lied to Congress and the American people in order to invade Iraq. If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distruction, we cannot find them. They either were never there or they have been looted by the lawless who can use them against us.
At home, our ports are not secured. Our vulnerable infrastructure --nuclear power plants and chemical plants -- are not protected.
In a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy, they have undermined our progressive system of government, turning their backs on our poor, our children and our seniors.
They have gutted our environmental laws, through repeal and lax enforcement, stealing from our future generations for the short term finacial benefit of the oil and energy industries.
The Democratic party has it's eyes on a better future. Etc, etc.
Didn't bother developing the progressive side, since we all know what that is.
Remember, we're in day two of Project Drive Rosie Joe Nuts. Do your part!
I created a Kucinich challenge
http://www.paydemocracy.com/campaigns/1003 for everyone who wants to give directly to a truly progressive cause.
Bill,
Of course they do, but I don't think it's a winning strategy. Look, if you do a search at the DNC website, what name comes up most often? Bush's: almost 600% more than any Democrat's (tellingly, Clinton's is 2nd). To me, that's a party with no message for the American people other than, "we're not Bush."
You lose both the progressives and the moderates that way, and the message continues to wander. The truth is, we don't know the progressive side. Look at the Dems who are running for President. Only Kucinich is a progressive--everyone else is a DLC-style Clinton moderate. Unfortunately for them, they lack his charisma. Left with only the policy strategy he developed, they will all suffer the same fate as Gore and the congressional Dems.
The Clinton strategy has had ten years as a trial run. Who did it elect? Only Clinton. Time to try a different strategy.
Emma aka walter jerkrite,
Are you really that dumb?
600% more, are you sure it wasn't 598%?
What a maroon!
Here is a little tidbit to use in getting donations.
Wasn't Frank Luntz the pollster during the debates?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
climat...,906979,00.html
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".
A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment".
The popular image is that they are "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically [sic] as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit", Mr Luntz adds.
The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.
Now for the real kicker
I foun d this at the end. It is EXACTLY what BUSHCO has been doing, and should be made into a slogan
"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.
I WILL ONLKY DONATE 2 CAMPAINS OF CANDADATES WHO WILL PUT TEH MORON RETHUGLICAN BROWNSHIRT FUCKS AND SCLMS IN TEH DUCK PIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
JOE ESCHATON aka walter jerkrite,
Your nanny has the caps lock on and she can't spell!
WALTER JERKRITE IS A MORONIC BROWNSDHIRTS FUCK AND I AM NOT SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO IN THE DUCKS PIT HADENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!111
ouch!
Am I the only one to notice the Trolls have been particularly vociferous as of late?
"Am I the only one to notice the Trolls have been particularly vociferous as of late?"
If it is a truly democratic perspective, then yes all points get posted. Otherwise you wind up with a fux news mutual admiration society, that quickly devolves into mental masturbation, and sympathetic reach arounds.
same old same old.
I don't want to use a credit card. Live within my means. Unfortunately for this, I live in a rural area where we don't have debit cards yet. The site only takes credit cards. If/when this changes, I'll donate in a heartbeat.
You can also send a check and put the correct reference number on it.
Emma,
Bill Rehm frames a strong argument. Our Dem. candidates are out there telling everyone what their vision and plans are, and it's our job to make the most effective, compelling case possible against the Bush administration.
Emma,
Bill Rehm frames a strong argument. Our Dem. candidates are out there telling everyone what their vision and plans are, and it's our job to make the most effective, compelling case possible against the Bush administration.
DNC Doug,
Well, he "frames" your argument. The question is--are you actually listening to bloggers, or just using the blogosphere to shape opinion? (Not that there's anything wrong with that--however you choose to conduct your campaign is your business.)
If you are listening, rather than shaping, I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to my post about the DNC's solely anti-Bush focus. Why, exactly, do you imagine that's a winning strategy when it has consistently failed in the past?
I know you are in the position of supporting all Dems, which limits your ability to craft a really clear image of the party (the primaries are all about distinguishing oneself). But you have the opportunity to begin building long-term for the future. If you only build a platform on deposing Bush, what is the foundation of the Democratic message? What if you win?
I would like to gently suggest that it's not your "job to make the most effective, compelling case possible against the Bush administration." It's your job to build a coherent message--a vision, a platform, and a set of policy initiatives--that will build a broad base of support among a majority of Americans.
That's where your hope lies.
You can be sure that Republicans will be recycling a portion of their recent tax windfall into the wondrous machine that promises in time to end any obligation to their fellow citizens, so I've asked my accountant to tell me what, if anything, I got.
While I am waiting I sent some off to the DNC for the first time since a guy named Clinton appeared in '92.
trigon health insurance trigon health insurance trigon health insurance // casino affiliate program casino affiliate program casino affiliate program
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
