Best shots at beating the Republicans and winning the Presidency in 08.

[Constitution]

In 2008, the Democrats won't be running against Bush and they cannot expect the support from Republicans and Republican-leaning declines to state. We are in a minority and will only get a minority unless we re-unite the left. Their only hope is to re-unite the party that gave LBJ that solid victory in 1964. 1964 was a North vs South election where civil rights was the key issue. The North won decisively because their civil rights message was distinct from that of the South. Opposition to the war at that time was not an issue - though the war policy will be an issue in the 2008 election. We need to have a leader who clearly and distinctly opposes most or all of the specific policies of the Bush administration. Simply opposing them on one or two issues, like the war, won't be enough.

First, if most of the candidates from 2004 run, then the votes of the Greens and other third parties and of the declines to state will go elsewhere. We are no longer a majority party and cannot win without a coalition of the left. Everyone trusted us to defeat Bush. The Greens are gloating because the Democrats seem to hate their party right now so much that they are expecting a dramatic increase in membership. Many people I know are simply going decline to state. I'm one of the decreasing number staying with the Democratic Party. However, if a good non-Democratic candidate looks like he/she could beat the Republicans in 2008, I'll probably vote for that person. Make no mistake, 2004 was a dream come true for potential independent candidates. Though the next four years will be a disaster, the Democratic Party may very well have already destroyed itself.

The best hope the Democrats have is to come up with a candidate who is idealistic and someone who inspires loyalty. Of the candidates in the last election season, Dennis was the only one, outside of Kerry, whose people stayed loyal to him through the convention. He released his delegates and they still voted for him. He also had the advantage of appealing to people outside the party and of pulling them together into a coalition that would eventually support the nominee. He kept getting endorsed by people who were not eligible to vote for him in the primaries. Other candidates found that they might be the flavor of the month but their support was soft as evidenced by the crowd that switched to Kerry. The other anti-war candidates either had conservative positions on other issues, causing their supporters to find it acceptable to switch to Kerry, or they had some views that the anti-war community found unacceptable, such as support for the use of depleted uranium. The disadvantage Dennis had was he was the victim of a news blackout that did not affect the other candidates. The press was afraid that if most people knew anything about his positions, they would support him. He was the clearest alternative to Bush of all the candidates. His supporters will not have an easy time getting past that news blackout but they have four years to let America know who he is and what he stands for. Going door to door would be a good idea. The publicity is more relevant to getting the nomination. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, the public will get a good look at him between the primaries and the general election.

In the Senate, the person with the best shot is minority whip Dick Durbin. Durbin's voting record is one of the best. He often votes with Kennedy. Durbin is will become an instant hero if he leads the filibuster against Gonzales and contests the 2004 election. However, if Durbin listens too much to Reid, this could kill his chances. Hillary would be the subject of an undeserved witch-hunt that she would probably lose, if nominated, and she has voted the wrong way on a lot of bills.

The other best option from the House is Bob Filner. He was the only white person to walk out of Congress in 2001 to protest the seating of the Florida electors. His voting record is excellent. He is one of the co-sponsors of the Department of Peace legislation. He is from San Diego and always has an easy time getting re-elected in a conservative district. He is one of the Congressional leaders in the fight to contest the election. He is looking for a Senator to join in.

The kind of person who would have the easiest shot against the Republicans would be an idealistic rabble-rouser like Jessie Jackson but without the personal baggage. He's taken the lead in supporting voter rights and civil rights and continues to be a national hero. He is also the best speaker in the Democratic Party. He is one of the few people whose age will not affect his popularity. However, he needs to convince the religious community that he has cast aside some of his wild personal ways and is now a loyal husband. I have no doubts that he can do this with style and turn the issue into sermons. I also have no doubts that he could beat any Republican opponent in a landslide.


Absent, throwing a movie star into the mix, like Denzel Washington, Chris Rock or Ben Afleck, there are probably the three best chances the Democrats have for a 2008 win.

Of course, if John Kerry wins the 2004 election, he will be re-elected in 2008.

[genius]

1. All four are good choices

I hope that Durbin can put together a filibuster of Gonzales.

[Sara Beverley]

15. Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean

I could go with this. By 2008 most of the country will realize what a mistake they made in smearing Dean who will have been proven right on all issues.

[genius]

20. With all due respect, you might want to check where Dean stood on issues

Dean said he was to the right of Bush on the economy. If you have doubts, ask Dean what he meant by this. He was for capital pushishment. He backed Yucca Mountain. He regularly backed the industry over the environment. He normally backed corporations over labor. He was opposed to ending NAFTA. He was opposed to Universal Health Care. A few days after 9/11, he gave a speech wherein he said we needed to question the importance of our civil liberties. This is just where he stood. Go do your own research rather than taking anyone's word for it. Check out his record. My sensewhen I was backing Dean was that a lot of his supporters were like me, looking for an easy win and willing to go along with the stuff we didn't like. I finally decided I couldn't go along with his positions and then switched to Dennis because of the issues. Here are just a few of the articles on what Dean was like as governor of Vermont.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/13593.html
http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Aug/946.html
http://www.vtce.org/deanenvironmentomya.html
http://www.vtce.org/deanoncoal.html

[Radical Activist]

52. Sure, let's nominate another New England Ivy League Millionaire

who doesn't connect well with people because that sure worked well last time!

Dean was right when he said we need to appeal to voters in the South based on economic issues (even if he said it the wrong way) but he is the LAST guy who can do that effectively.

[elperromagico]

2. Do you *really* think a "non-Democratic" candidate could beat a Repub,

when no third party candidate has ever done better than 27% in the last 100 years?

I won't beat a dead horse by getting into the necessities when it comes to building a nationally-strong third party. Let's just say none of the third parties right now meet the criteria. Some have local strength, yes, but none are anything close to competitive on the national level.

Absent a strong party that can compete in most of the 50 states (by "compete," I mean "can come close to winning," not "can get 1.3% of the vote"), you need a candidate who can either finance himself/herself or is famous enough nationally to get both financing and votes.

In recent memory, Perot comes closest to meeting both criteria, and even he didn't make 20% of the vote.

Sorry for addressing just one point in your post, but I think people should understand what it takes.

[genius]

3. She's right. Jessie Ventura did it - though I can't stand him.

She's also right about people deserting the party. I attend rallies and people are now blaming the Democrats for Bush.

[elperromagico]

5. Jesse Ventura won in one state.

Where does a third party candidate pick up the other 260 electoral votes?

Let's say that the Republicans and the Democrats have about 180 electoral votes each from solid Rep and solid Dem states. 360 total. Where does the third party candidate pick up 270, if 360/538 are already "spoken for"?

[trillian]

4. You're missing the most obvious choice!

Wes Clark!

He still has thousands of loyal supporters.

He was anti-Iraq War.

He appeals to moderate Repubs and Indys in spite of being very Liberal.

He can talk about faith and family values without sounding phony.

He appeals to Security Moms.

I could go on and on.

[pleiku52cab]

6. Best shot ? - prove the FRAUD in this election

Not only would this get rid of the neocon cabal but, being in a magnanimous mood toward our political foes, it would help real conservatives and true republicans regain control of their own party.

[genius]

28. Right. I don't think the US will survive got four more years

[Karenina]

38. It's NOW or never.

Those dern machines are MANDATED by 2006 IIRC. 2008 is a joke. Look at what the *cabal has accomplished in 4 years. You will be STRIPPED of any power you have to FIGHT BACK if TODAY'S ISSUES are not appropriately dealt with. Some nights it's really difficult for me to comprehend how my homies got SO FUCKING STUPID! Maybe it was that arsenic in the water thing... :argh: :argh: :argh:

[Totally Committed]

7. WES CLARK!

He's the best bet, imo.

TC

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. Durbin woud be great, but naaaahhhhh...

He's my Senator and I love him to death, but I don't see him bringing any meat to the table, so to speak. He's far more valuable to our party right where he is. Our governor, on the other hand, is one of those blue-state Democrats who knows how to talk to red voters successfully. Watch him, especially if he wins re-election in 2006...

[JI7]

26. he is also in line to be Dem Senate leader when Reid retires from Senate

and by that time Democrats might have the majority in the Senate which would make Durbin especially powerful as Majority Leader of the Senate.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. He should be dem leader RIGHT NOW

Reid has no spine.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I've heard your governor's approval is LOW

But maybe that was a false source. Also, and I know this is one of the dumbest superficial things when considering a candidate, but his name is IMPOSSIBLE to pronounce.

[Radical Activist]

50. He's very unpopular

in many parts of the state and among a good number of Democrats. If he gets re-elected it will only be because he's managed to raise $10 million for his campaign, not because people like him.

[Cuban_Liberal]

55. His approval is over 60% right now, and he has $12 million in the bank.

His approval rating WAS low, but since the spring budget battle, his numbers have continually gone up. The last I heard (like last week), his numbers were in the low 60s. He also has $12 million already in his re-election war chest.

:)

[Radical Activist]

43. I think you've got it backwards

A lot of people in Illinois hate Blagojevich. Durbin is much more popular in Illinois and in DC.

[Cuban_Liberal]

56. A ham sandwich Democrat will win IL, regardless.

I'm thinking in terms of appealing to voters outside of IL. Balgoevich 'talks blue' to 'red' folks in ways that can get their votes.

[Radical Activist]

61. I wouldn't be so sure

Blagojevich won last time by carrying downstate. He's ignored and pissed off most of downstate in the last few years. If the Republicans put up a decent candidate he may very well lose the downstate swing voters and the election.

I'm not sure what you mean by being able to talk to red "folks." His main tactic seems to be picking a not-so-popular group or person to badmouth. His grandstanding gets media coverage but even the downstate press hates him.
Over $10 Million in campaign cash will make up for a lot though. Otherwise he would probably lose in the primary.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. Three things needed to win in 08

1) Dismantle all electro-fraud voting.

2) Overhaul the primary system so a corrupt caucus full of Republicans and DLC shitbags doesn't pick our candidate.

3) Nominate Howard Dean.

Do these three things and I guarantee a victory.

[OneBlueSky]

10. irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant . . .

there will be no 2008 for the Democrats unless we win the election fraud battle of 2004 . . . by uncovering and exposing every single incident of voter fraud and convincing the masses that the voting system has to be changed . . . without that, we could run Jesus Christ in 2008 and we'll still lose . . . as long as Republican corporations control the voting and the vote counting, we have no chance in hell of winning another national election . . .

[Mike L]

11. The Left WAS united this year. We lost because we didn't get enough

votes from the middle. What you propose would end up in a defeat equaling McGovern's unprecedented disaster in 1972.

[FubarFly]

29. Actuallly, we didn't divide the right.

If we presented clear, well-articulated differences and combined that with a no-holds barred, blistering attack, we would've STILL had the left, but we would have placed doubt with the muddled middle Bush voters- many of whom voted for the candidate with the least amount of "negatives."

Bringing up McGovern is a massive red herring. He ran a crappy campaign as well.

[radar]

12. Someone working outside Washington

...Probably has the best chance. Looks like a governor has success usurping the incumbent party - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II.

I think anyone who currently works in D.C., and is going to represent the Dems next time would have to stand up and show some "intestinal fortitude" in order to avoid being lumped in amongst all of the Washington politicians as the problem - politics as usual.

...Attack the repugs policies instead of "not rocking the boat."

[cali]

13. I don't live in the same world as you.

Nothing you said makes any sense to me. First of all, I think democrats are more united than I've ever seen them. I expect bushco's policies to further cement democratic unity. Second of all, there's been remarkably little bitterness and recrimination over Kerry's defeat. The talk about running a movie star is utterly absurd. I personally, am not now, and never have been, a Jesse Jackson fan. I'm hardly alone. He never stood a chance. He stands less of a chance now. None of us has any idea of what the political landscape of 2006 or 7 will be. Sure, we can conjecture, but we're just not going to know until we get there. DK is a great guy, I love him to death, but this year proved he doesn't have what it takes to rise above the media black out. All this speculation may be amusing, but it's essentially fruitless.

[LittleClarkie]

22. I think we're neighbors

I thinks sometimes the politicos as represented here don't represent the rank and file dems as a whole. I see what you see. I also see people whom I never heard talk about politics before saying that Bush is a Hitler, that there's no way he won Ohio. I'm talking church going moms and dads here.

I'm not finding alot of recrimination of Kerry either. Mostly people I talk to say that they think the election was bogus, but they don't see what choice Kerry had at that point. I guess provability is the thing with them.

How do you count votes that were suppressed? How do you count the air votes from the Diebold machine? I think Madsen is our hope there, but probably not in time for the election.

Personally, I as a Wisconsin resident need to fight the felon list people.

[Blue Wally]

14. Jesse Jackson

Would take DC and maybe a handful of other states as Democratic nominee. Dean would get more votes.

1964 was not about civil rights or race. LBJ was able to portray Goldwater as a "mad bomber" who would start WWIII. Remember the little girl and the flower petals commercial???

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Sorry....

I find your premise hard to follow and somewhat quirky. Your solution to how to pick a winner bordering on the ridiculous.

Since 2008 is not 1964, your idea of creating similar "unity" is challenging. I believe that we were the most united this election than we have ever been in many years. But the extreme left did not cost us the election this year...the middle moderates did. Back in 1964 you had the Dixiecrats voting with the mainstream Democrats...and that's how you got a victory. Those Dixiecrats are now Republicans....so your whole strategy seems to be aimed at the wrong group of voters.

The part about Dem's best hope is to find a candidate who is idealistic and inspires loyalty sounds OK...but I don't know if that would really win an election...I tend to doubt it. It's a complicated job, and the candidate needs more than just those things. Plus....idealism and inspiration are relative. Who ideals? and what inspires you may not inspire me.

Without trying to patronize...although I can't seem to help it...based on the content of the your post....I recommend that you re-read your post, read a few books, and try posting something similar but that makes more sense later.

[dobynsbc]

19. Kucinich

Gotta' say it, he's the most principled, progressive, and passionate candidate from the 2004 season. He's the first politician in my lifetime who's truly inspired me. Dean and Clark have their high points and I liked what they did at the grassroots level, but if you truly want change and growth, Dennis is the way to go.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi dobynsbc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Zynx]

31. Do you truly believe the country will elect a hard-core liberal?

Do you really believe that?

[American Tragedy]

53. He inspires YOU.

Would he inspire a majority of the electorate?

[formernaderite]

21. I pretty much agree with you....except on the movie star thing...

...that would not unite the left, and irritate many of us.
If anything we should learn from the repubs. They expanded their base, and said to hell with the mushy middle.
If we had the balls to do that( no sexism here...just an expression)we'd have attracted NEW voters to the process. Yes, I know we did get some of the "youth" vote. I'm not talking about attracting "New" as in just 18 year old voters. How about the 50 % of the country that doesn't bother voting.
But you're right...I know plenty of Greens who are actually smirking more than your average republican, because they've been arguing that a real populist progressive message would attract larger numbers of voters.

[sambird90]

23. Electronic voting machines

as long as thees devices are in use and no paper trails, our beloved country will never see a fair election again.

[Blue Wally]

25. Do you spend all of your time on DU

running around to each and every post about election strategies, post mortems, and possible candidates posting that statement??? Everytime there is a serious discussion, we get that same message that it doesn't matter because of the voting machines.

[CatWoman]

32. because IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER

as long as those machines determine the vote.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

27. You seem to assume "soft support"

based on supporters of other candidates "switching to Kerry"?

This strikes me as an illogical (and incorrect) assumption.

The majority of those who "switched to Kerry" did so out of a desire to oust the Evil Twig...not because they had a sudden epiphany that Kerry was the "best" candidate to be had.

ABB played the biggest role in the switch even though the majority of us who had done the research knew full well that Kerry would be pilloried on his record and the "Northeastern Liberal" label.

Front loaded primaries and the Presstitutes handed us a candidate. Never-the-less he was the candidate and that made it important that we work to get him elected.

I think it's obvious in reading these boards that "soft support" is NOT a discription of Clark, Dean or Edwards supporters.

[Zynx]

30. This post assumes that there is a liberal majority out there.

There simply isn't one.

Running a hard-core lefty will not make us do better, particularly an actor or actress from Hollywood. They would get crushed worst of all.

The country is currently center-right and the Republicans are outright on the right. However, we are a center-left party and we need to aim for the center in order to win. We don't need to co-opt Republican positions, but we do need to take ones that a clear majority support. People support our progressive economic positions and we can draw clear distinctions on those. We need to take our stands strongly, but at the same time we can't be out of step with the country. That's why someone like Kucinich would not win.

I'm sorry, but the country is MUCH different today than it was in 1964. The country today much more resembles 1924 than 1964.

[bvar22]

35. Isn't that the strategy that was.....

...sooooo successful for Democrats in 2000?...2002? ...2004?


I dispute that "the country is center right".

The Cons, through a much better marketing and campaign strategy (not to mention fraud and dirty tricks) has been able to get Conservatives elected. That is VERY different than the country being center right.

When questioned on individual issues, the country overwhelmingly supports liberal positions. The liberal majority is not a myth.



Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
-- Steven Wright

[Zynx]

36. The liberal majority is a myth.

Example: We ran hardcore liberals here in Wisconsin against Thompson in 1994 and 1998 and we lost horribly. They were unabashadly in favor of every liberal position there was and got 27% and 39% of the vote respectively. We won in 2002 because we ran a centrist candidate who was able to win northern Wisconsin.

People are not in the mood for another Great Society experiment right now. There is no great clamoring for a big liberal agenda. This will change in time, but it is stupid not to recognize that this is not the 1960s all over again.

[bvar22]

39. Once again....

The political strategy you are advocating was exactly followed by the DNC/DLC in 2000....2002....2004!

I don't get it. Help me understand why you think this is a good idea?
Are you advocating the status quo?
or running republicans instead of Democrats?

[Zynx]

40. Prove to me that running an unabashadly liberal candidate works.

In 2000 and 2002 we didn't articulate our positions well enough. We need to have a positive agenda, but a plain old left of center agenda will not sell. We should emphasize those positions we have that are most popular such as progressive economic issues. Those are things we have abandoned for some strange reason.

People support Universal Health Care. People support progressive taxation. People support education funding. People support balanced budgets. Campaign strongly on those and we will win. I'm saying we should run to the center, but in a passionate way with a positive, pragmatic agenda. In all the recent elections, we have not been able to define the central theme of the Democratic party. No one can say what we stand for. We should declare ourselves the party of individual freedom(in EVERY area including gun rights) and economic opportunity. That is a winning, pragmatic, centrist agenda that we have failed to define in recent elections.

[bvar22]

41. ?

Universal Health Care
progressive taxation
education funding
balanced budgets

I see you are a Kucinich supporter.

The majority of Americans also support STRONG Environmental Protections.



The issues didn't decide this election. The republican Marketing did.



If Democrats want to win an election with the American electorate:

1) Go find that guy that modeled for the Marlboro Man.
Run him and guys that look just like him, the dumber the better.

2) Forget the issues, forget the debates.

3) Have the candidate speak in monosyllables as often as possible.

4) Have the candidate repeat over and over at every opportunity:

"I believe Americans love freedom.
They don't want alot of people telling them what to do.
The Republicans are weak and helpless.
The Republicans are stealing your money.
Pardon me while I ride off on my horse."

None of it has to be true.
It just needs to be said over and over by the Marlboro Man (preferably while sitting on his horse).

[Zynx]

42. Universal Health Care is not really a liberal position anymore.

Americans support Universal Health Coverage, but the mechanism is what they don't agree on.

I do not support Kucinich though, not just because I know he couldn't win, but also because I don't agree with his stances on some other issues.

[Radical Activist]

45. You seem to contradict yourself

You're arguing that we can't elect a hard core liberal, but then you suggest we can win by focusing on issues that only hard core liberals will talk about. I think you're right that we need an economic populist who will focus on our best issues. The DLC has been telling us to do the opposite of that to chase moderate swing voters and it doesn't work. It sounds like we agree that you can win over moderates with a progressive message if we simply focus on our best issues. That's what Paul Wellstone did, and he was very progressive. Conviction politics works. Running moderates is not necessary to appeal to swing voters.

[Zynx]

46. Our problem is not economic liberalism. Economic liberalism is popular.

Our problem is cultural liberalism. Our problem is that we can't get people to vote for our candidates because they can't stomach their cultural positions.

Progressive economic stances coupled with rational budgetary policy is the way to go. Our position should be that we first balance the budget and then we can start pushing our economic agenda.

[Radical Activist]

47. I think you're right

for the last two decades the DLC has been getting the party to stop talking about economic issues in a meaningful way in the name of winning over moderate middle-class voters. So when you suggest we can't run a liberal it sounds as though you want to continue the losing strategy of letting Republicans make elections about social morality issues because Democrats are too afraid to use economic populist themes.

The only Democrats who ran for President in 04 that I saw using economic progressive themes like you're talking about were Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. I think either one would make a good candidate in '08.

[Zynx]

48. We dropped the economic populist themes for donations.

That was a mistake. We should minimize the social issues and make economic issues the main thrust of our message.

[NewJeffCT]

49. I think you're getting closer

It's not that voters couldn't stomach John Kerry's cultural positions - it's that our party is the one associated with those 'decadent' Hollywood liberals and their cultural values. So, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Hollywood. We just didn't do enough to articulate a difference between the two.

Also, while a majority may (and I say may) support the idea of universal health care, the Republicans have been beating down the mainstream for 30 years now with stories of how Canadians have to wait months just to see doctors & how they have to ration basic and potentially critical surgeries, how people drop dead from the long waits, etc. John Kerry brings up only expanded health care during the debates & Bush cancels it out with one word - rationing.

[American Tragedy]

54. True, but it is a delicate balance

Pursue the path of economic populism, and avoid the divisive social issues, but also take care not to alienate the civil libertarian Democrats like me with any anti-freedom rhetoric.

Because, despite the fact that I almost always vote Democrat, I will refuse to vote for one who clearly articulates authoritarian moralist positions, and I know many others who will do likewise.

I will only compromise so far. When it comes down to individual privacy from an invasive government, my partisan loyalty to the Democratic party is a very distant second.

[Zynx]

57. I think we should be a civil liberties party.

We don't have to become authoritarian in order to win. As a matter of fact, that would probably hurt. We should take the stance that we support personal freedom in all areas. Regarding things like abortion, we should say we support reducing the number of abortions and that personally we don't like the fact that abortions happen. Nobody likes abortion and nobody wants abortions to happen so that is a non-contraversial position.

[TankLV]

59. Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so.

But the facts prove otherwise.

Choice between repuke lite and a real repuke - the repuke always wins.

[TankLV]

58. So - which group or principle would you throw out?

Equality?
Choice?
Justice?
Gays?
Muslims?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Itchinjim]

37. Clark. eom.

[Radical Activist]

44. Dick Durbin would have won in '04

had he chosen to run and been our nominee. He would have had an easier time winning Iowa and Wisconsin, which would have allowed Democrats to move their resources to winning states Bush got in 2000, instead of playing defense like Kerry did.

Durbin was one of only two Democratic Senators up for re-election who voted against the war in Iraq. He could have attacked Bush on Iraq without the hypocrisy of having voted for it. He has shown principle and courage. Durbin has a great voting record with plenty of support from unions and environmental groups.

He's great with the media and can raise money. Durbin would be a winning choice to lead a heartland ticket that can appeal to red state swing voters. His old Congressional seat was a rural midwestern district so he knows how to appeal to moderate voters without selling out.

Durbin would be an excellent choice in '08 if he chooses to run.

[Pepperbelly]

51. Wow. A bit premature I think.

There is absolutely no way to tell what the landscape will look like in 08. So many unknowable variables that are there. There are far more overarching concerns between now and then. Right here and right now, I think that the party is at the end of the rope, nothing left in the government except the fillibuster in the Senate, and they'd best tie a fucking know in that line and hang the fuck on.

IMO, of course.

Far more at stake than elections, particularly one so far away.

[melnjones]

60. Clark. nt

[Nashyra]

62. Learn how to "Frame the issues" FIRST

After taking care of the BBV, then we need to come up with the "soundbites" that frame the issues and put the repukes on the defensive. Right now the Dems should be shouting from the highest, "*'s foreign policy poster for terrorist recruits" as per the pentagon report. How about "lead the UN don't destroy it" the reasoning behind framing the issues is to make people ask questions so that we give the answers and the repukes have to rsponse, not the other way around.

[genius]

63. This is a good analysis.

If it's okay, I'll forward it to a couple of people.