email request to expand House Homeland Security investigation into 'homegrown' extremism...

here is the full text of the email i sent to the Democratic minority members of Rep. King's investigation into 'homegrown' extremism requesting they ask for an expansion of the hearing to include ALL extremism:

"Date: March 11, 2011

To:
Bennie Thompson, Mississippi, Ranking Member
Loretta Sanchez, California
Jane Harman, California
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Henry Cuellar, Texas
Yvette Clarke, New York
Laura Richardson, California
Donna Christian-Christensen, Virgin Islands
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Brian Higgins, New York
Jackie Speier, California
Cedric Richmond, Louisiana
Hansen Clarke, Michigan
William R. Keating, Massachusetts

Re: Request for Expansion of Hearing on public examination of Muslim extremism in America

From: J Michael Ireland


In light of Chairman King's investigation into the public examination of Muslim extremism in America, I believe it would be of greater benefit to our country to expand the investigation of extremism to include groups of all faiths including Christians, Mormons, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. along with all other extremist groups identified by the Department of Homeland security. It should include all sides of the spectrum - including the right and the left. I would include the political parties also, eg Democrats, Republicans, Teabaggers, Independents, Green. etc,.as well as groups such as PETA, Cato Institute, SEIU, Alliance Defense Fund, AFL-CIO, etal.

We will never get a true picture of just how much extremism is effecting/affecting our security unless a thorough study is completed. Focusing on only one group is unclear and incomplete. We should leave no stone unturned.

With the recent occurrences such as what happened to Rep. Giffords, the bomb at the Martin Luther King Jr. parade, and the murder of Dr. George Tiller, it would behoove us to have a complete picture of all threats.

Though I realize that the majority on the committee would probably vote down any such motion, I believe it should be brought to the attention of the American people as a whole.

I also request a personal favor. Unfortunately, I was unable to find all of the minority members' email addresses and would appreciate it if you could share my concern with those I could not contact. Thank you, very much.

I appreciate your taking time to consider this request and I hope that you will be able to calm the sense of urgency and fear that the entire country has been hit with by Mr. King's hearings. It is of the utmost importance that every aspect of this concern be addressed.

Very truly yours,

J Michael Ireland
jm****@comcast.net

There is nothing wrong; only things that are missing."

in the news obfuscations...

U.S. Says C.I.A. Destroyed 92 Tapes of Interrogations

in the New York Times

the quote:

The tapes were destroyed as Congress and the courts were intensifying their scrutiny of the agency’s detention and interrogation program.

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

Is Phyllis Schlafly the Most Dangerous Woman in America?

from wowowow.com

the quote:

“Feminists have a death grip on the top level of the Democratic party,” insisted Phyllis Schlafly during an interview last month. “The feminists are a disaster … It’s so unfortunate what they do to young women.” Funny, some say the same thing about Schlafly.

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

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry

from Politico.com

the quote:

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

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

Christian salt seller hopes to shake up market

from Examiner.com

the quote:

CRESAPTOWN, Md. (Map, News) - You've heard of kosher salt? Now there's a Christian variety. Retired barber Joe Godlewski says he was inspired by television chefs who repeatedly recommended kosher salt in recipes. "I said, 'What the heck's the matter with Christian salt?'" Godlewski said, sipping a beer in the living room of his home in unincorporated Cresaptown, a western Maryland mountain community.

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

Mormon Church Email Tells Illinois Followers to Fight Civil Unions Bill

from Querrty.com

the quote from the email:

This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.

perfect bathroom graffiti...

when i was in college, and you'll now know when that was, Nixon was president. see, i told you. in one of the bathroom stalls in a classroom building was one of the two greatest pieces of graffiti i've ever seen. it is appropriate today...


If you voted for Nixon, how can you sit there and shit when your asshole is in Washington.


you can replace Nixon with any politician that fits. for example, if Mcpain becomes president, his name would fit for anyone who votes for him.

i thought of this today because my Congressman, a Bushevik who pretends to be a Democrat - Bill Lipinski. voted against the financial bill today. [NO, i did not vote for him.] actually, i think Lipinski has voted more with Tsar George than Mr. McCain has, and that is reported at 90%!

right-wingnuts may be, umm, right...

from today's Chicago Sun-Times:

North Carolina Democrat accused of satanic rituals — husband charged with rape

URHAM, N.C. -- Durham County Democratic Party officials are shocked about allegations that a local Democratic leader was involved in satanic rituals that included shackling people to beds, caging them, and depriving them of food and water.

Joy Johnson, 30, a third vice chairwoman of the county Democratic party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, was charged Friday with two counts of aiding and abetting.

wait! a question...

can satanic worshipers/religions qualify for faith-based governmental initiatives?

just asking...

fight for freedom and fleeing to Habeas Corpus...

The Chicago Sun-Times today reprinted this cartoon by Pat Oliphant concerning the 5-4 decision to give alleged terrorists and non-citizens the right to be covered by the US court system and most specifically the habeas corpus. I think it sums up quite a bit.



Right now, I can't remember who spoke the words "At what price freedom?" but we've been paying too high a price for the last seven-and-a-half years and I'm not talking about the cost of gasoline.

In spite of differences I have in political areas, we must elect a Democrat president because of SCOTUS. Justice John Paul Stevens has gone above and beyond the call of duty being on the court since 1975. He is 88 years young. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sat on it since 1993. She is 75. They have been protecting us for a long time, while the four in the Pat Oliphant cartoon above have done everything in their power to protect big business, secrecy, and political interests.

The only way to assure our existing freedoms remain and the the fight for ones we have lost are restored is to elect a Democratic president, no matter who it is.

New Hampshire broke the rules too...

I didn't realize that the controversy surrounding the Florida and Michigan primaries was a little more convoluted than people have let us to believe. Either that, or I didn't read things as closely as I thought.

In an OpEd in today's New York Times - New Hampshire Cheated, Too - U.S. Senator Carl Levin from Michigan and DNC member Debbie Dingell state how New Hampshire was told, as part of the reorganization of primaries and caucuses, to not hold an early primary but chose to do so anyway. The purpose behind this was to even out the field with more representative states to be first rather than New Hampshire that does not have a large cross-section of Democratic voters.

Michigan and Florida, as has been reported, will not be seated unless the Credentials Committee at the convention allows it. Florida has already said that they would not redo the primary election because of logistics and cost. Michigan is more than likely to do the same.

The OpEd by Levin and Dingell asks why New Hampshire isn't being punished because they didn't follow the rules either.

Even though I support Senator Clinton, I say, if they don't seat Florida an d Michigan, they shouldn't seat New Hampshire either. Make it fair all the way around.

Comment: Democratic Party fears...

Many newspeople, pundits and Democratic Party members are saying that if Sen. Clinton keeps going and if she wins the nomination by hook or crook, it will tear the party apart and cause lots of internal conflicts.

I heard one of the governors supporting Obama actually say that should Obama not win there will be rioting in the streets.

talk about fear-mongering...

you know what? i'm not so sure that would be a bad thing in the long run.

The Dems took over Congress last fall and so far they have not really done much of what they promised. They have given in to Tsar George on almost everything he's wanted. They have used the excuse that the Republicans have blocked them at every step. Yet they have "compromised" in turn.

We know that the Republican Party is in dire straits after the disastrous past seven years - if not the last 30. Maybe, just maybe, the Dems need to be shaken up also. They have been enabling the Reps all the way with their inaction and whining.

Maybe Obama and Clinton or Gore or Richardson or any of the others are the answer.

Maybe what we need is to throw all the bums out or begin subversive activity maneuvers to wrest the country back from all of them. They all only represent their own special interests.

what about our interests?

tax increase, tax increase, tax increase...

Why isn't anyone asking the really simple question of

HOW IN THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO PAY OFF THE $4-5 TRILLION THAT THE BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION HAS PUT US INTO DEBT FROM A CLINTON/DEMOCRATIC BALANCED BUDGET WITH A SURPLUS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

So?

Why isn't anyone asking that question?

The Republicans won't touch it with a trillion foot pole. Obama, Clinton and Edwards all said that they were going to let the Bush/Cheney tax cuts on the wealthiest expire. That's not a tax increase. That cut is a gift being given to people who don't need a gift.

If you or I, assuming that you don't make over $200,000 as I don't [especially being retired now], need to pay for things we either go into more debt by borrowing more money - Bush/Cheney owe the Bank of China lots of money, get another job to pay for the bills, or spend less.

Of course, we also need to eat, put a roof over our heads, educate our children, insure ourselves and families, etc. You know, all of the "regular" stuff that the rich don't even have to think about; they pay people like us to take care of it for them. Why are you and I paying the full tax rate and they get all the breaks, that are called loopholes? They are more like nooseholes around our necks than loopholes for the wealthy.

And now Tsar George wants to send me a check for $800 to spur on the economy. You know what I'm going to have to do with that check? The same thing you probably will have to do: pay off some of the bills we already owe. It's really only going to help Visa and Mastercard, not you or me.

I know. Why don't we all invade another country? Say, Canada? No, wait. Mexico!

The Republicans all bitch that all of Mexico is living here right now. Instead of deporting them. Why don't we make Mexico the 51st state. That would work. An untapped source of additional taxes because they don't make over $200,000 down there. They would then double the amount of money the IRS collects.

sounds like a plan to me. what do you think?

just asking...

Iowa Caucus history...

A little fact checking of past Iowa Caucus results:

1980
DEMOCRATS
Jimmy Carter* 59%
Edward Kennedy 31%

Republicans
George H.W. Bush 32%
Ronald Reagan* 30%

1984
Democrats
Walter Mondale* 49%
Gary Hart 17%

Republicans
No vote Reagan unopposed

1988
Democrats
Richard Gephardt 31%
Paul Simon 27%
Michael Dukakis* 22%
Republicans
Bob Dole 37%
Pat Robertson 25%
George H.W. Bush* 19%

1992
Democrats
Tom Harkin 76%
Paul Tsongas 4%
Bill Clinton* 3%
Republicans
No vote Bush* unopposed

1996
Democrats
No vote Clinton unopposed
Republicans
Bob Dole* 26%
Pat Buchanan 23%
Lamar Alexander 18%

2000
Democrats
Al Gore* 63%
Bill Bradley 35%
Republicans
George W. Bush* 41%
Steve Forbes 30%
Alan Keyes 14%

2004
Democrats
John Kerry* 38%
John Edwards 32%
Howard Dean 18%
Republicans
No vote. Bush* unopposed

bold* = became the party candidate
italics = was elected President

So, can someone please explain why Iowa is/was so important? There doesn't seem to be any pattern in these historical results. The most bizarre is 1992: Bill Clinton* 3%...!

[Source: Chicago Sun-Times]

Rice - the outrageous lie...

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would not directly respond to Ahmadinejad's remarks, but told reporters in Ethiopia's capital that the U.S. intelligence report's public release showed the Bush administration was committed to transparent democracy while Iran was not.

Where shall we start? You know, I'm not sure that the server has enough room to start listing the transparency of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Oh, wait. That's wrong. The server doesn't have enough room to list the un-transparency of the administration. Let's just name a couple of the minor ones - U.S. Attorneys, WMD's, FISA,... got the idea?

def. au·dac·i·ty (ô-dās'ĭ-tē) noun:

1. effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness;
2. aggressive boldness or unmitigated effrontery;
3. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.

This has been the most dishonest, secretive and least transparent administration that this country has ever had. It makes the Harding administration look like a model of openness, candor and accountability.

I had a semblance of some respect for the woman. I thought that she might be working behind the scenes with some sane notion of the process of government. No more. She is just another hack like all the rest of the Busheviks. Worse.

i want to let go with a mouthful of expletives because i find what she said to be so outrageous.

oh, okay, just one expletive - 

f*** you, Condi!

Edwards health plan Gestapo-like?

The Democratic candidates aren't immune from proposing things that are forced on people either.

Edwards says, "every time [people] come into contact with either the healthcare system or the government, whether it's payment of taxes, school, going to the library, whatever it is they will be signed up."
Edwards Gets Into The Mandate Scrum -- Jonathan Cohn, TNR, 27 November 2007

How would this happen? What if I don't want to? Why do I have to do it? How much will it cost?

Why not just socialize the entire thing?

wait... that would be, ummm, undemocratic?

just asking..

DO THEY REALLY MEAN IT? "Democrats Say They Won’t Back Down on War"

That's the headline in today's New York Times.

There are all kinds of quotes from various Dems in the article signifying that they are going to be relentless.

“We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“There is a lot of unease and disappointment,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who is running for president. “The perception is that we are not leading on this issue. I get it every single day, wherever I go.”

But Mr. Murtha, one of the most respected voices on military affairs, said Democrats would not relent in their effort to pull out the troops.

“For two years I have publicly fought for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq,” he said. “Congressional Democrats will not stop championing the will of the American people until our troops come home.”

big words, but is there a bigger meaning?

The Republicans, on the other hand, are retorting with their usual stand:

“The commander in chief is the guy in charge of running a war, and they can’t affect that,” said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. “And they are not going to get the votes to do what they are trying to do, so I don’t see why they continue.”

Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, echoed his party’s contention that Congress should not interfere with the making of progress in Iraq. “The American people, I think, would rather have General Petraeus running the war than members of Congress,” he said, referring to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. “He has proven his strategy is working.”

The GOP is making one additional push against what they perceive as a purely political strategy by the Dems:

“The Democrats have been pursuing a very political agenda, rather than a get-things-done kind of agenda,” Mr. Martinez said, adding that the vote on Iraq last Friday was “designed to satisfy Moveon.org,” in a reference to the liberal, antiwar group.

Well, I do declare, Miss Scarlett. Isn't that what the GOP has been doing for the last several years? Aren't they the ones who were touting a "Republican" government forever? A major fear of the Founding Fathers was not just monarchy but also a terror of the majority. Mr. Rove made comments over and over about a permanent Republican government.

My, my, how times change...

So, the Dems are keeping up the rhetoric that they mean business. I've done two previous posts on this: what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say? and then an UPDATE. But just a couple of days isn't proof in the pudding...

i want to see this continuing when the money runs out that the Pentagon has. i want to see the Dems sticking to their guns to use a well-worn cliché. i want to see, ultimately, the process of government forced back into use, where the Tsar and his minions start talking to the Dems about compromise. not threatening and throwing tantrums that it's their way or the highway.

talk is cheap. action speaks a thousand times louder.

hhhmmmmmm? i wonder, if any Dems are reading this, that they got the point that i used all the italicized clichés in a cynical/sarcastic way?

just asking...

pulse of the nation on Iraq?

A Gallup poll taken at the end of October focused on how much longer Americans believe we will be in Iraq after the 2008 election.

The question asked:

Suppose a [Republican/Democrat] is elected president in 2008. From the time that [Republican/Democratic] president takes office in January 2009, for how many more years do you think the United States would continue to have a significant number of troops stationed in Iraq?

Some results:

4.1 - average more years predicted for U.S. troops in Iraq if a Democrat is elected president in 2008

7.4 - average more years predicted for U.S. troops in Iraq if a Republican is elected president in 2008

39 - percent who believe America's time in Iraq will be "more years than it should be" if a Democrat is elected president in 2008

57 - percent who believe America's time in Iraq will be "more years than it should be" if a Republican is elected president in 2008

Here's the weird part:

5 - percentage of people with No Opinion if Republican is elected
4 - percentage of people with No Opinion if a Democrat is elected

weird, you ask?

First, who does not have a opinion on Iraq? Second, wouldn't it be great to say that you don't care? Third, I'm not really sure what third would be...


You can see the complete article here: Most Americans Expect U.S. to Be in Iraq Several More Years

UPDATE: what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say?

So the funding bill approved by the House is rejected by the GOP in the Senate. It's same old, same old that has been going on for the last year, The Washington Post reports. No surprise here. The Bushdogs will wag their tails, pant in fear, and drool all over themselves.

The Democrats now have to put OUR money where their mouths are -

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he may bring the Democratic bill back to the floor in December. He and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided that Bush will not receive more war funding this year unless he accepts Democratic withdrawal terms.

This is what 60%+ of all Americans want.

The White House response?

That is out of the question, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who dismissed the Democratic vote as a political stunt.

"Once again, they tried to pass a bill that provides incremental funding, tries to micromanage the war from the halls of Congress," Fratto said. Democrats "know that such a bill will be vetoed, should it ever come to the president's desk," he said. "They know this because we've been through this dozens of times now."

And they need to keep going through this over and over and over and over OR not even consider a special funding bill for Iraq. The Constitution clearly states that the Congress has the only power to fund war. If they don't fund it because they can't pass a bill or no even present a bill for a vote, they are doing their job as proscribed by the Constitution.

The Tsar needs to understand this. The Tsar needs to get over it. Maybe, then, he will somehow realize that there really wasn't anything to get over except his self-serving, unadulterated hatred for the Constitution...

One thing that would help is for each of the Democratic candidates for president to make a definitive statement saying that they support the Congress in this. Enough of the rhetoric of My presidency will get us out of.... They need to make a strong statement each time the Congress takes the action it did and each time Bush vetoes what they do, that they support the continued effort of the House and the Senate to reinstate and reinforce the process of government that Bush has nearly destroyed.

just do it...

Obama just stepped in it...

with all the hoopla with Hillary at the last debate saying that she understood Spitzer's wanting to give undocumented immigrants but she was against it, Blitzer point blank asked, "Do you support giving undocumented immigrants driver's licenses?"

He was looking for a "yes or no" answer. Obama said yes and put his foot further down his throat than Hillary did by saying he favored it when he was in the Illinois Legislature.

Blitzer went down the line and asked all of them the question. Only Hillary and Biden said, "No." The others all qualified their answers.

what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say?

The Democrats gained control of Congress last November on the promise of bringing troops home and ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The power that they have is the power of the purse. Congress is the only branch of the government that can authorize spending bills for conflicts.

Tsar George says that the Congress is trying to micromanage the war on terror when it wants to put time limits or conditions on funding. HE is the commander-in-chief and, consequently, the only one who can lead the fight. There is a definite conflict.

Since last November, every time that George has asked for money for Iraq, aka the war on terror, the Democrats have put up a fight only to back down with the rhetoric that George and the Republicans use accusing them of being un-American, putting the troops in harms way, or supporting terrorist.

There has also been quite a number of Dems who just seem to agree with whatever George wants. [I live in the IL-3 Congressional district and Lipinski is known as a bushdog when he really a lapdog] These Democrats have forsaken the principle's of the party platform and forgotten the process of government set out in the Constitution.

Now, Senator Reid has made one statement and suggested one move that would severely cramp Tsar George's style.

First, via Huffpost:

Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.

"He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check," Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader, told reporters.

"Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House," he said.

Reid and other Democrats, who hold slim majorities in both houses of Congress, accused Bush of wanting a free-flow of hundreds of billions of dollars for the Iraq war, all the while being tight-fisted on the home front.

"Every dollar we spend in Iraq comes at the expense of people in America," Reid said

They've even gone ahead and said that the Pentagon can use some of the $450 billion it just gave them. Of course, the tsar and Pentagon says there isn't that kind of money and needs supplemental funding specifically for Iraq.

Along these lines, the Republicans have attacked a report released yesterday that the actual cost of the war is about $1.5 trillion dollars when the hidden costs are included with the most important being the rising cost of oil. By the time the current bills are paid on the war it could total $3,500,000,000,000.00 by 2017, if there are no more charges made. That is $3.5 trillion!

Of course, the House did just pass a $50 billion Iraq bill and Bush says he's going to veto it. Good! Let him veto it. Let them pass it again. Let him veto it again. If he's playing the game, play the game better.

The second thing that Senator Reid has hinted at is putting an end to recess appointments that Tsar George is good at doing. When the Senate does not approve an appointee, he has merely waited until a recess making the appointment that he wanted anyway. [He took a different stance with Mukasey, saying he wouldn't appoint a AG at all if he didn't get what he wanted. It would have been interesting if it happened. After all having no AG was better that Gonzales. The bushdogs gave him what he wanted though.]

From Rawstory:

A plan engineered by "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to eliminate all extended recesses except for the traditional August break during the 110th Congress may have an added benefit for Democrats," Roll Call reports.

"It could be a back-door way of preventing President Bush from unilaterally installing controversial nominees in key executive and judicial branch posts through recess appointments, a favorite tool of the president over the past six years," John Stanton writes.

Now this would be interesting. It might just force the Tsar to negotiate with Congress, as the process of our government intends, or he would have to fill vacancies from within the existing department as an acting status until he's gone.

But here is the real dilemma - are the Democrats going to find the cajones to stand up this time and will they keep to them once they find them? It's a big question.

if they really want to win the 2008 election, they better...

this is just brilliant on Mike Gravel's part...

MSNBC eliminated Mike Gravel from the debate last night because, according to them, he failed to meet even one of the three criteria they required for participation - polling, fund-raising and travel. Senator Gravel says it's because MSNBC is owned by GE and they don't really like the things he is saying. Whatever.

He brilliantly decided to hold his own debate, or someone from his campaign did, and it is pure brilliance. You can watch what he did here -



I have posted the entire scene from Network previously that is used in Mike Gravel's video above. I've personally heard Senator Gravel twice. I do like the things he says, but the problem is people don't like to hear the truth. As my father used to tell me, "Don't bother to lie. No one believes the truth anyway." I've found it to be so true. No lie.

Can you imagine a country led by Gravel and Kucinich? It would either be the second coming or it would be a total disaster because of all the flak they'd get from the powers and money that be.

it ain't gonna happen no matter what...


Thanks to Andy Towle at Towleroad for the heads-up on the video.

watching the MSNBC debate...

After saying that I'm tired of watching the debates [I still think it's to early.] I'm watching it. I'm working as I watch it, so I'm probably missing specifics, but the Let's hit Hillary campaign is continuing. She is handling it well. She is answering with specifics yet not giving away the schoolhouse.

Obama, on the other hand, is answering with pie in the sky answers, IMO. Change, change, change. There has been a couple of times he seemed to be stumbling on his words. He seems nervous.

Edwards is playing the "I have nothing to loose, so I can go all out" game. He's using things like, "if you believe in Santa Claus, if you believe in..." to come back at Hillary and others.

Richardson again is putting his foot in his mouth by saying things like, "I'm the only one on this stage who engaged in foreign diplomay." to groans and "I beg to differ" from the others. Though he did say it's time to save the rhetoric for the Republicans and get off the "Hillary" attacks.

Great line from Hillary to Obama - "Change is just a word if you don't have the experience to make it happen." And Obama talks about what he did in Illinois. [Being from Illinois, I still only hear all talk from him.] He only talks about what he's going to do.

Dodd's not been saying too much but bringing out his bipartisanship history.

The big discussion, and it's an undertone more than anything else, seems to really about "Let's get on with it. We need to elect a Democrat. We need to take the country back to constitutionality. Move beyond the fear tactics of the last six years."

Biden - "there's only three words Guliani uses in a sentence - a noun, a verb, and 9/11. We need to focus on preventing him from getting in the White House.

Kucinich? Lord love a duck! He just keeps putting it on the line with nothing to loose but everything to gain by positioning himself - win or lose!

I think that there is one thing that we need, or rather do not need. We do not need another governor as president. We need someone who knows the process of government, who works the ins and outs, sides and frontals going on in Washington to fix what is broken.

I'm not going to finish watching it. I'll read about the rest in the morning. There will be amusing comments and quotes, not to mention the spinmeisters take.

Great timing. There's a commercial break.