Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Impacting hard: NYT-John Mccain perhaps not eligible to run for president

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:58 PM
Original message
Impacting hard: NYT-John Mccain perhaps not eligible to run for president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sorry, I Have To Believe That's A Non-Issue
No way can you deny something like that to a child of military family born on a US base. Won't fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffro40 Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
44. Except for that pesky constitution
You can BET the Republicans would play this one if it were a Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just great...
Now we can look forward to all the wingnuts on the right bitching about the NY Times all day tommorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Non-issue to me.
Interesting read nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Load. of. CRAP.
I see why the Times gets hated on so much - that was as spectacular a piece of idiocy as I've seen in the MSM for quite some time.

McCain's parents are US Citizens, his father outside the country on US duty with his family - he's eligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peaches2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. NYT was only reporting that the McCain campaign
has asked Ted Olsen, Republican lawyer, to look into to see if it is a problem. This question has come up before with other potential candidates and the meaning of 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution has never been fully resolved in law. The NYT is reporting, not initiating, a legal question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Anti-Bush Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. I want John McCain!
I want to rip him to shreds. I hope this isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kokonoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Nice try , but we all know it does not matter if you have an R
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:11 PM by kokono
According to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, a presidential and vice presidential candidate residing in the same state cannot both earn that state's electoral votes. Governor George W. Bush is, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. Since 1995 Dick Cheney has lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas.


And now we know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. I don't see why he shouldn't be considered a natural citizen...
but I wonder how all those "R's" would be reacting if Obama or Clinton had been born abroad to military parents. I'm not having much trouble imagining. When the question involves a Democrat, the letter of the law must be observed - especially when Lindsey Graham is being asked for an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Born on a military base to a military family.
People can make this an issue to their own peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Nah. Military base = American soil.
Total non-issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. ....
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:17 PM by Seen the light
Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the
14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

I got that from:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. That doesn't change my point at all. Automatic naturalization laws grant citizenship...
...to children born on military bases to U.S. citizens. So, in essence, military bases = American soil for all intents and purposes as it concerns citizenship of all us military brats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I agree. However....
there is a difference between being a "natural born" citizen and being "naturalized." Nobody disputes that McCain is a citizen. He obviously is one. It's whether or not he is considered "natural born" that could be open to legal dispute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I'd say the chances of that are roughly a brazillion to one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Well....
Seeing as how The NY Times is reporting on it and lawyers are already weighing in, I certainly think it's possible that something could come of this. Doesn't make it right and I think the Act is complete horseshit, but the possibility is there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Silly things get reported upon all the time.
I will be STUNNED if anything comes of this beyond a little legal conjecture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
40. "Natural born" - are Casearan Section births excluded?
I know, I know, that's stretching things... but it could conceivably be construed that a Cesarean Section is not a natural process, thus making someone born in that manner excluded from being "Natural born".

I know this is far out... but... couldn't it????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. Does it? Where is his birth certificate from?
And what kind of paperwork was required for citizenship?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Here, because it saves me from logging into Westlaw away from the office.
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:38 PM by Shakespeare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Cites the same case law I'd look up for you. I don't have my birth certificate with me at the moment, but it was issued by the military hospital where I was born. There was no paperwork necessary for citizenship; I'm considered a natural-born citizen (born to two US citizens on a US military base). McCain is, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffro40 Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
45. I agree it won't become an issue - but you're incorrect
US bases are NOT US territory. It is leased land with a host country. Only the US Embassy is "American Soil"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffro40 Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. The Repugs would play this is a SECOND if it were a Dem.
He was born outside the US - and a military base is not US soil. An Embassy is, but a base is leased by th host country and is not US territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Whose law is in force on a military base?
The land may be leased, but that very much is considered American soil as long as the base is in operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. That depends on the status of forces agreement with the host country
The extent to which local laws are enforceable is negotiated with the host country whenever we make a base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. True. But those overwhelmingly cede legal jurisdiction to the military.
What happens when they set foot off base is another story, but I can't think of any bases where activity on the base is dictated by the host country's laws. I'm not trying to difficult--I really don't know of any status of forces agreements where we're not controlling legal jurisdiction on the base, but if you do know of specific cases where that's not true, please tell me which ones (because now I'm genuinely curious).

This is a fascinating topic--primarily academic, I think--but interesting nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. NYT is off the reservation on this one. no chance this will play
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Non issue for me as well...
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:17 PM by DearAbby
But I dont believe this has ever come up before, in the history of the U.S. where a person born on a military base outside the United States running for President. McCain could be making history as well, being the first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. He is absolutely ineligible
He shouldn't be and the whole Act is bullshit, but being born on military bases to US citizens does make you a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born one like the Constitution mandates.

I wonder if Huckabee stayed in for this reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peaches2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. You are a citizen if your parents are citizens no matter
where you are born. McCain is not a 'naturalized' citizen- that is only if you are born outside the US of non-citizen parents and you go through the whole immigration procedure to become a citizen. The question here is the Constitution says 'natural born citizen'- does that mean you have to have been actually born within US territory even if your parents are citizens and therefore you are also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Whatever
If I came off as being unclear, I apologize. However, I agree with what you stated. The "natural born" part is what could be sticky and that's what a lot of people are missing in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. That's what the article is about
The issue you bring up has never been clarified in either legislation or the courts. There were some early writings looking at "naturally-born" as being born on US soil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. That's not true; there's considerable case law on the subject. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Here's what the article said:
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:49 PM by housewolf
" The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court."

I can't vouch for whether that's correct or not, but that's what it says. If you are a lawyer and know better, then I conceed the point.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Arguing the issue hasn't been definitively resolved doesn't mean there isn't a TON of case law.
Heck, wikipedia only dips a toe in the water of what you'd get on a good Westlaw/Lexis search. There are probably a couple of scholars out there who think they can make an academic issue of this, but there's really not much chance of the citizenship of the children born abroad to military parents coming into question, even as it concerns eligibility to run for president.

Believe me, I'd love nothing better than to see McCrazy declared ineligible, but it won't (and shouldn't) happen on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. I agree, this would be a horrible issue to fight in a campaign season
And I think the term "natural born citizen" needs to be clearly defined.

Thanks for helping to clear things up.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Oh, I certainly don't disagree with that.
I don't think the author of the 14th amendment had any way of knowing what was going to happen regarding US military presence overseas; I think it's unfortunate wording, but not ultimately anything that will become an issue.

Oh, and :hi: Always good to see you! I was so busy making my points that I didn't realize it was you I was talking to at first! :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Thanks!
Always good to see you too! You were pretty busy darting here and there, putting out all sorts of fires on this thread. Easy to get lost trying to pay attention to who it is you're talking to when you're moving so fast. You did a great job! Pretty wild topic.



:toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. Found this Freeper thread from googling around about the issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1967533/posts

Interesting responses to say the least.

Make sure and take a bath before you come back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. I had to bathe in Lysol. Soap just didn't get it done.
Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Jesus Christ, they really hate McCain over there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hmmmm.... they need to fix this
If you look just at the wording, "natural-born citizen", could that possible be construed to mean that someone born by Casearean Section doesn't qualify? Logistically, they're not "naturally-born" - Casearean Section is not a natural process. It's a human intervention and delivery.

I know, it's stretching things, but as some people always say, "words matter".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Strict Constructionism
I had the same thought - a child delivered by C-Section is not "naturally born" right?

I mean, if you are a strict constructionist, you can argue that he wasn't born in the U.S.

If you take the Constitution as a living document and don't parse every word, well, there's no doubt McCain qualifies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. "Words matter"
Could you imagine a legal issue about this that needs to be brought to the Supreme Court??? OMG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. wait, which Shakespeare play is this from? the whole not of woman born thing... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Julius Caesar. Thus, Caesarian section.
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 11:23 PM by Shakespeare
Caesar was allegedly born via this method, and it now bears his name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. duh, of course! :) I think I was thinking about the woods moving in MacBeth and knew that wasn't it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. It does seem to be a bad luck charm.
The issue has been brought up before, but none of the candidates in question won, making it a moot point.

Let's hope that trend continues!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. it was a U.S territory, thus U.S. soil. plus a military base is also U.S. soil
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:22 PM by Johnny__Motown
If it were not U.S. soil then maybe McCain isn't even an American? Are they trying to say he is not American by birth? Where is his green card? OMG McCain is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT from Central America. No wonder he supports immigration reform.













http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
19. LMAO. Is the NYT *trying* to make itself look irrelevant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. No, they are really trying to help elect John McCain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Christ, it seems like it.
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:36 PM by Occam Bandage
I said the day of the "affair" leak that it couldn't have come at a better time for Mac's campaign. Whaddya know, it helped him. Now this kind of bullshit. Jesus, guys...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
22. Could be Huckabee's wet dream he's been hinting of .....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. That's actually a very good article.
In my view, he is ineligible. It's unfair, but I prefer a strict interpretation. I respect the fact that he probably should be eligible. Now how the hell do you challenge this?

Funny talking point against Republicans... At least Obama was born here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tropics_Dude83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. I don't subscribe to the strict constructionist view
of the constitution on other matters so I guess sadly I can't be a strict constructionist when it suits my interests. It'd be nice if Mccain had been clearly ineligible though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
42. Maybe there is something
Hmmmmmmmm...if he is not American how can he be the President? I like the angle of this. Hero or not, he needs to be asked this question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
50. that's pretty sad.
that being born on an American military base to American citizens serving their country, should somehow preclude someone from running for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
powergirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
57. JFK was born in Germany
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I want the truth Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. JFK born in Germany?!
Get your facts straight Powergirl. JFK was born in Brookline, Mass. No US President has ever been born outside the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thepricebreaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Barry Goldwater was born in AZ before it was a state. Just a territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Well that's not true.
The first seven U.S. presidents were not born in the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. No he wasn't!!!
Why do people just make shit up and think nobody will call them on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thepricebreaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
59. Impacting Hard? Give me a break.. he was born on a US Military Base - US Soil.
Edited on Fri Feb-29-08 07:11 PM by Thepricebreaker
They going to revoke his citizenship and Birth certificate? LOL.. No... We should drop this now before we look like fools.

On a side note:

Abraham Lincoln was the first US president born outside of the original thirteen colonies.

BARRY GOLDWATER was born in the Arizona territory in 1909 which was not a state at the time.

LOWELL P. WEICKER JR., of Connecticut, born in Paris, was told he was eligible for the Oval Office.

GEORGE ROMNEY, born in Mexico, ran for the presidency in 1968.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toallwhoshallsee Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. What a bunch of hot air!
As long as both of "your" parents are American Citizens at the time of "your" birth.......You could actually be born on Mars...And be an American citizen by birth. Now concerning the Martian thingy' you would have to take that up with the little guy chasing the "space modulator".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC