10 Reasons to stop pretending the Most Electable candidate is invisible

[lkinsale]

Bob Graham is the only Democrat in the race who

1) brings to the ticket a swing state, Florida, the 5th largest state worth 27 electoral votes, where he has been winning statewide elections by solid margins since 1978. In fact, he has never lost an election. Any Democrat outraged by Bush's electoral "victory" in Florida in 2000 should consider supporting Senator Graham. "I can beat George Bush in Florida and I won't need the US Supreme Court to cast the last ballot," he says.

2) has served as both a governor (1979-87) and U.S. Senator (1987-present). Four of the last five presidents were governors. Voters clearly value executive experience when selecting a president.

3) has proven strong appeal in Southern states that Democrats will need to win the election. Every successful Democratic presidential candidate for the last 30 years has hailed from the South.

4) has served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he has been a leader in beefing up America's defenses against terrorism and in shining light on failures of the Bush administration -- an issue certain to be central in the 2004 election as Americans weigh their sense of security since 9/11/01.

5) voted AGAINST giving Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq , unlike fellow lawmakers Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt. He believes the war in Iraq has distracted America from quashing terrorists networks like Al Qaeda, that are far more of a threat to the safety and security of Americans than Iraq's supposed nuclear materials or weapons of mass destruction. "Osama Bin Forgotten," he quips.

6) doesn't fall into the trap of raising taxes on the middle class. Democrats should have learned from past elections that raising middle class taxes is a certain "loser" issue for them.

7) has a 37-year-record of executive and legislative accomplishments on education, the environment and the economy. He wants to fully fund the "no child left behind" legislation, raise teacher salaries, protect our cherished natural resources as he has done with Florida's Everglades, and roll back tax cuts for the super-wealthy.

8) has produced a comprehensive six-year plan for America's economic renewal. Observers compare it to the "Putting People First" economic plan Bill Clinton unveiled during the 1992 presidential campaign to great effect and success.

9) has tens of thousands of supporters (mostly Floridians who know, love and trust him) eager to volunteer for his campaign.

10) has a strategy to win the nomination. He doesn't need to win January contests in Iowa or New Hampshire (as Kerry, Dean and Gephardt MUST) to break out of the pack of Democratic presidential candidates. His "stomping ground" is much more likely to be February primaries in South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

(Top 10 courtesy of Jim Buie)

******

Let me add that Graham will not divide and alienate this country, but bring it together in truth. He channels his dismay not into shouting and anger but into constructive solutions. He has year--YEARS--of experience in dealing with congress. There will be no learning curve in either legislation or foreign policy.

He has courage, wisdom, tact and statesmanship.

And do NOT claim he's "too old," please. Reagan was older when he was inaugurated for his first term, so age is by no means a negative to the electorate at large. In this case Graham's wisdom and experience is a significant plus.

As to his charisma, I personally think he is charming. Without criticizing any other candidates, I certainly don't think any one of them can claim masses of "charisma" outside the angry Democratic base. The people of Florida adore Graham, even Republicans.

Some of these candidates with less experience would be LUCKY to serve as VP under Bob Graham, and learn the ropes in order to serve as President.

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. He coauthored the PATRIOT ACT...to me

He is invisible.

[lkinsale]

4. He also believes it shoudl be re-assessed

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086642

Graham was principal co-author of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which, among other things, made it easier for law enforcement authorities to conduct surveillance and detain terror suspects. The law passed the Senate unanimously, but most Democrats now say it sacrificed too many civil liberties. In June 2003, Graham said he opposed making the law permanent (it's due to expire in 2005), arguing that Attorney General John Ashcroft "has gone beyond what the Congress intended, particularly in areas such as disparate treatment and what amounts to a form of racial profiling against Americans of Islamic background."

****

No, he's not a peacenik. He is dead serious about terrorism and addressing it, which is something that the country as a whole will absolutely demand from the Democratic presidential candidate. It's naive dreaming to think they won't.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Stop messing around in other peoples business...

Stop supporting dictators, fomenting wars and riling people up and there will be no more terror attacks.

If you wage war expect war...wage peace...you get peace.

[KG]

5. and he's ready to fire some missiles into syria today

as if blowing up 'terrorist camps' there or anywhere will end the threat of terrorism.

he didn't vote for the iraq resolution cause he was against the iraqi war, it was cause the act didn't go far enuff to allowing the US to attack other places. he is rather more hawkish than the other candidates.

[Ohio Dem]

2. He also calls bin Laden

Osama bin Forgotten.

He's tough on Bush when it comes to the war on terror. I'll give him that.

[Droopy]

3. Thanks for posting this. I've got a few questions.

Where does Graham stand on abortion?

Where does Graham stand on health care? Universal?

Where does he stand on NAFTA and free trade?

What his postion on the Patriot Act?

What is his position on the Isreal/Palestine conflict?

Where does he stand on fiscal issues?

[lkinsale]

7. Good questions

He has voted pro-choice consistently.

Health Care--he takes a pragmatic, let's do what we can realistically get done and get started approach:

"As President, Bob Graham has pledged to find a pragmatic solution for the crisis of the uninsured. Nearly 41 million Americans have no health insurance -- nearly a quarter of them children -- yet President Bush and his Republican colleagues in Congress have ignored them. Since President Bush took office, 1.4 million more Americans are uninsured.

Bob Graham has proposed a three-part program that focuses on the most vulnerable of our fellow Americans:

* First, expand the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and similar programs to guarantee that all children have health coverage.

* Next, permit an affordable "buy-in" to the Medicare program for those nearing age 65 and retirement who have lost coverage from their employer.

* And finally, modify the Medicaid program to offer coverage to the so-called working poor, who currently make too much money to qualify for subsidized health insurance but not enough money to afford coverage on their own.

"That is a realistic yet achievable program that will get us well on the way to universal coverage for all Americans," Graham says.

NAFTA and Free Trade--he said at the AFL-CIO forum that the U.S. has a responsibility to be open to trade, but that he would not sign any agreements without labor and environmental protections.

Patriot Act--see my post above

Fiscal Issues--his detailed economic plan is geared to balance the budget again in 5 years.

******

For a lot of other info see http://www.grahamforpresident.com/

and visit his new blog at http://www.grahamforpresident.com/blog/ to ask him yourself.

[seventhson]

6. Graham was having a gbreakfasmeeting with CIA/ISI terrorist chief on 9-11

and the Pakistani ISI guys are definitely in the CIA/ISI loop tied to Osama et al. Could Graham ever be trusted by ANYONE who undertstands the significance of this? Florida is THE CIA illegal smuggling state (along with Texas and California)


Here is a quote:

NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11

Was it an ‘intelligence failure’ to give red carpet treatment to the ‘money man’ behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ‘routine’?

On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
"When the news came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.



Link http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

[lkinsale]

9. Are you claiming Graham is responsible for 9/11?

He was at this meeting because he was the head of the Senata Intelligence committee at the time, and was extremely versed in the threats looming from Afghanistan. In fact he had just been to Pakistan with Goss in August in an attempt to get bin Laden extradited.

Graham was actually PAYING ATTENTION to what was going on before 9/11 and trying to do something about it. The information about Mahmoud Ahmed's second-hand financial connections came AFTER Sept 11 from Indian intelligence sources.

If you think Graham is somehow untrustworthy because of this, then think it. =shrug= It says to me that he was actually attempting to address that nest of vipers but had no support from the president who didn't even know Musharraf's name at the time.

[seventhson]

14. No I am claiming that it's awfully odd that he was meeting with terrorists

with ties to the hijackers on 9-11 WHILE it was happening.

And the 9-11 faliles thinbk so too. See the link below to their questions. They want to KNOW about this.

And how do YOU know that Graham didn't know this guys was financing terrorists?

Geez -- doesn;yt anybody THINK anymore? This whole crew of bozos in Washintgton is corrupt.

I like Dean and Kucinich.

Graham andf Kerry and Lieberman and the whole "democrat" crew who suck Bush's ---- can go straight to hell.

There are exceptions.

But Graham is as war mongery as they come.

[lkinsale]

17. Yes indeed, I THINK

And I come to different conclusions. No, I don't think Graham knew the guy was financing terrorists. I think he was making his best attempt to address the terrorism that he saw threatening, by meeting with the guy PAKISTAN sent over to meet on this issue.

You might consider the possibility that Pakistan is and was riddled from top to bottom with guys who supported the Taliban and bin Laden, and it wasn't possible to deal with the issue without talking to them.

While Bush was sitting around in Crawford on his hands, Graham and Goss were making SOME attempt to DO something.

I come to the conclusion that it's naive to suppose a candidate who doesn't have a strong, reasoned stand on terrorism is going to beat Bush. A peace monger isn't going cut it, but a man with a rational approach to the whole issue of the realistic threats in this country has an excellent chance.

I want to beat Bush, and I don't want anymore of this "we can't afford to spend money on air marshals" baloney.

I think your point of view is unlikely to resonate with the majority of voters. It doesn't resonate with me. Maybe that's why it seems to you other people don't "think."

[seventhson]

20. You are very naive IMHO

The head of the Intelligence Committee was mneeting with the money man for the Hijackers.

And you try to justify it or explain it away.

I am not trying to resonate with voters.

I am trying to warn them this guy cannot be trusted any more than Kerry or Lieberman.

[lkinsale]

23. We each agree to think the other is very naive

n/t

[GBD4]

29. And

This was public knowledge however this threatening terrorist was not apprehended by the federal authorities? I don't know the entire story, but it would seem to me that if this meeting was held for purpose of conspiracy, the CIA would've done something! Additionally, if it was some conspiracy, why on Earth would the meeting be allowed to be made public knowledge?

[sandnsea]

8. Graham's war vote

"But Madam President, tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism." <snip>

"Madam President, the resolution that I had hoped we would pass would contain what the President has asked for, relative to the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq – and more. It also should provide the President all necessary authorities to use force against all international terrorists groups who will probably strike the United States as the regime of Saddam Hussein crumbles.

I offered an amendment on this floor yesterday that would have given the President the authorities he needs to deal with the threats posed by the five deadliest terrorist organizations, in addition to Al Qaeda, that would gladly join Saddam Hussein in his retaliatory strike." <snip>

http://graham.senate.gov/pr101002.html

This is what he said on the floor of the Senate on October 10. It doesn't seem to me he was against the war at all. I'm confused by people who think he was.

That said, I think every Senator used their best judgment with the intelligence available to them, which we now know was fraudulent and manipulated. But I really think the only candidates who can be fairly portrayed as thoroughly anti-war is Kucinich and Sharpton and maybe Mosley-Braun because I don't know what she's said.

If I missed something Graham said BEFORE the war, I'd be glad to hear it. We need to know exactly what each candidates position is regarding Iraq, terrorists, the war, and preemption because it will affect foreign policy and our country's future for decades.

[lkinsale]

11. Yes, he was against the war in Iraq, if you read the whole statement

Graham is not "anti-war." But based on his knowledge of the intelligence, he reasoned that Saddam was not the guy to go after at the time, and that going after Saddam would INCREASE the threat to our security.

From the same senate statement linked above:

The United States has many challenges, threats and priorities to respond to, particularly in the region of the Middle East and Central Asia. The Israel-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistan, the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Even if we say the number one issue should be containing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, I frankly do not believe that Iraq should be our first concern.

We do not know the full capabilities of the state of Israel, although we believe it has the full capability to defend itself against attacks or the threat of an attack. We are aware of the significant threats posed by India, Pakistan and Iran. But I can say without fear of contradiction, all of these possess substantially greater capability and means of delivering weapons of mass destruction than does Iraq.

****

Misfiring in the War on Terror

October 13, 2002

Congress has granted President Bush the authority to use all necessary force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. I voted against the resolution -- not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way.

What is our greatest responsibility? The answer is easy -- securing the peace and safety of our homeland. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 -- not Saddam Hussein.

******

International Terrorist Networks A Greater Threat Than Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Graham Says

October 4, 2002

Senator Bob Graham, D-Florida, who chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence, said today that the War on Terrorism should be a higher national priority than action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq.


*******

Graham has a great concern, which he has repeated over and over, that we address terrorism as a threat. He has introduced bills to address failures in the intelligence community, port security, and funding first responders.

These are issues that American voters are doing to insist on seeing addressed.

[sandnsea]

16. Are you sure?

I see what you're saying, his statement was actually a bit confusing to me. Iraq was a threat but not the main threat, do you know what he did propose to do specifically about Iraq? Are you sure he didn't mean, we need to go to war with Iraq at some point, but we need to go to war with alot of countries that harbor Al-Qaeda terrorists? And, he does still support pre-emption, would you agree with that and do you know under what circumstances? This is a fact-finding thread, not an argumentative one, btw.

"The President should be in the most advantageous position to protect Americans – to launch pre-emptive strikes and hack off the heads of these snakes. With the resolution before us, we are denying the President that opportunity. And we are sending confusing signals to our people and to our allies as to the sincerity of our commitment to the war on terrorism."

[lkinsale]

18. sand, I understand you

Again, those are good questions.

From the senate statement:

"...the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him {Saddam} and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack {Italy}..."

I read this to mean that Graham felt at the time that Saddam was sufficiently contained and it didn't make sense to attack him. (The "Italy" statement is in the context of metaphors about WWII, Italy as metaphor for Iraq, Germany as metaphor for al Queda--apparently some other senate statements had referred to the rise of Germany in WWII and he was replying to them.)

I do think he supports "pre-emption" against the TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS themselves. NOT against governments or countries. When you read through these statements, what he states most frequently is his concern about the terrorists who have already struck at the U.S. and demonstrated that they want to kill Americans.

"Madam President, the CIA has warned us that international terrorist organizations will probably use United States action against Iraq as an indication for striking us here in the homeland.

"You might ask, what does the word 'probably' mean in intelligence speak? It probably means that there is a 75 percent greater chance of the event occurring. And the event is that international terrorist organizations will use United States actions against Iraq as a justification for striking us here in the homeland. Let me read a declassified briefing of the CIA report presented to the Select Committee on Intelligence:

"Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the U.S.

<snip>

When our allies gave the President their whole-hearted support for the war on terrorism after September 11, they cheered our efforts against Osama bin Laden and the government of Afghanistan. A year after we commenced that war, action in Afghanistan has ground to a virtual halt, Osama bin Laden remains at large, and we have not moved aggressively beyond Afghanistan to gain knowledge of Al Qaeda operatives in other parts of the world. We also know of sanctuaries "training camps" where the next generation of terrorists are being trained and they are going unattacked.

******

I think Senator Graham is honestly and deeply worried about what is going on in Pakistan and around the world "under the surface." Unlike Seventhson, I don't see his meeting with the Pakistani general as some nefarious conspiracy, I see it as one of the things (among many)that drives his passionate concern about our vulnerability to more strikes, and the provocations such as Iraq that Bush has given which increase the threat instead of decrease it.

[seventhson]

10. The 9-11 Victims' families want to ask ol' Graham a few questions too

http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html.

Was he meeting to protect our rights or to sell them out? ISI is notorious for suppoting Osama as well as murder and terrorism.

Give me a break. Graham is probably worse than Kerry. And THAT is tough.

Your original post shpould say Boib Graham is the ONLY candidate who was actually meeting with the (BFEE) terrorists who attacked us on Septemeber 11th and is covering up for them.

Like Kerry, these dems get into positions on the intelligence committee and other power posts to protect the spooky elites.

[lkinsale]

13. Yes I believe he has been working with the families of 9/11

I will look into the specifics, but his efforts to get the 9/11 report made public in a timely manner has involved the families.

For the benefit of other readers (since I'm sure nothing I could provide would reassure seventhson as to Graham's integrity) the link posed above merely lists further questions for the independent 9/11 commission, to which answers have not been made public, and does not make any accusations such as seventhson is implying.

Draw your own conclusions.

[seventhson]

15. That;s bullshit, The 9-11 family's want to know what Graham was doing...

with the ISI terrorist who had klinks to terror groups on the day of 9-11.

THEY are asking these questions: what the hell was graham doing? WHAT DID THEY DISCUSS?

to imply that I am lying is flat wrong. Go to the links, folks, and you will see the wuestion.

IT is ADMIITTED vy you that the guy had terrorist links to the hijackers/

C'Mon people. Why in the hell trust Graham - especially if this is the case?

[lkinsale]

19. Fine, Seventhson, you think what you think

I am not of your opinions. Both Goss and Graham have said they were discussing terrorism in that meeting. Seems to me they at least had their eyes on the ball, when everybody else was on vacation.

The others are certainly free to draw their own conclusions too.

[seventhson]

21. And I will keep reminding them

nt

[arendt]

22. Pardon my late entry, but could you comment on the online journal story?

i started a thread about that article, but it is not being
answered, probably because all the discussion about
Graham is in this thread.

I don't know much about Graham, and if this OLJ story
is accurate, it worries me.

The problem is:

anyone close enough to intelligence to know what is going
on is either dirty or can easily be "dirtied up". So you can't
trust them.

anyone far enough away to be clean doesn't know anything
or can be credibly accused of not knowing anything or not
being patriotic enough.

How can you have a democracy when all the really critical
information you need to make informed electoral decision
is classified "top secret"?

arendt

[lkinsale]

24. What thread?

Not sure what you mean.

[arendt]

27. The one in Gen Discuss, titled Online Journal: 911 Joint Inquiry Chairmen.

..are in conflict of interest.

arendt

[ewagner]

25. I wasn't going to jump in

but.........

I understood Graham's position before the war to be very much like my own. When dubya declared war on terror, he left Hamas, Islamic jihad and several others off the list, for what reasons, I don't know but they weren't added back onto the list until shortly before the invasion of Iraq. (I'll have to check the exact dates.) It was odd to me then that these groups which were spawning much of the terrorist activity against Israel, with or without help from Al Queda, were excluded . What I believed I head Graham saying then, was, if you are going after terrorism to protect the US, then you'd better be going after these guys. Being on the Intelligence Committee, I'm sure he had seen the satellite photos of the training camps in the Bakaa Valley like everybody else. (they weere on TV) I also assumed that Graham had intelligence briefings that caused him to believe that Iraq was at least some threat, but over and over he pounded that Iraq was not the first priority of our war on terrorists, it was these known terrorists organizations. It's a very nuanced argument, but it makes sense.

As I've stated before, I knew Bob Graham when I was much, much younger, and I never had any reason to doubt his sincerety. He is a cautious, thoughtful person and I believe his position on the war was reached after a careful analysis of all the facts available to him at this time.

Go ahead, flame me....I don't care.

[gully]

26. Here's the Graham speech ...

http://graham.senate.gov/pr101002.html

[GBD4]

28. My thoughts

What Senator Graham has said on the Face the Nation, etc, etc, was that attacking Iraq would cause terrorist groups to be motivated to launch more attacks. He was right: al Qaeda-connected groups have now bombed embassies inside Iraq as well as the Jakarta Marriott. Hence, forget going into Iraq, take out terrorist cells elsewhere rather than incite them by seeking war against Iraq.

Further, for those who have problems with the 9/11 report and the like...Graham is not the sole author of that report nor is he the sole Congressman who has access to the report's information. The Democratic Leader--Pelosi--is a fellow co-author who had equal access to the classified portions. An entire chunk of Congress is privy to the information and there would have to be one heck of a bipartisan conspiracy if there is any foul play on the part of the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Second, Graham has been against the numerous civil rights violations caused by PATRIOT. He authored portions dealing with intelligence sharing and foreign governments, NOT the nonsense regarding detainees. Third, Graham held a meeting with 9/11 families the other week, on the day of the release of the 9/11 report. And so, they have spoken with him.

[Bombtrack]

30. Edwards could also very well win Florida

and NC, TN, and AR

You're wrong he's the only candidate that can do that

He also has charisma, which Graham is lacking of

[ewagner]

32. charisma

Graham is a nice guy but I'll agree with one point: he doesn't project "star power". Edwards does project that but I just can't "feel" the substance. It's a personal thing.

[arendt]

31. As a Massachusetts person, I am really tired of being told...

...how important the South is.

(This has nothing to do with the 911 stuff. Just my reaction to some
of your ten points.)


> 3) has proven strong appeal in Southern states that Democrats will need to
> win the election. Every successful Democratic presidential candidate for the
> last 30 years has hailed from the South.

The South has reverted to backwoods fundamentalism. It is out of step
with the rest of the country. Al Gore lost almost all of it, and still almost
won.

Next election, the people of Nevada, who Bush screwed with the Yucca
Flats nuclear waste dump, will vote the other way- net swing there is
8 electoral votes.

I say: screw the Southern Strategy. It is paralyzing the Democratic party
and holding it hostage to the most conservative elements in the party.
Write it off and spend efforts to win other marginal areas where the
people are not delusionally religiously insane.

Tell the rest of the country that their tax dollars are subsidizing all the
Southern hypocrites who are "against" big government while they
rake in the pork - like Trent Lott's shipyard.

The Republicans have targeted California. I say the Democrats should
target the South. Read Michael Lind's "Made in Texas" about the
Southern "cheap labor" economy. Pacifying the South is killing
industrial America.

As for the great Democratic presidents from the South: LBJ was a
total disaster for the party. Carter was another disaster. And, Clinton
was nothing but trouble.

I want to see a sensible big city person from the North running, and
not apologizing for having been born a Yankee.

> 1) brings to the ticket a swing state, Florida, the 5th largest state worth 27
> electoral votes, where he has been winning statewide elections by solid
> margins since 1978. In fact, he has never lost an election. Any Democrat
> outraged by Bush's electoral "victory" in Florida in 2000 should consider
> supporting Senator Graham. "I can beat George Bush in Florida and I won't
> need the US Supreme Court to cast the last ballot," he says.

Florida is so corrupt that jesus christ would lose to jeb bush. I don't
care what Graham says. they would screw the voting system so bad,
he wouldn't know what hit him. They've done it twice already. They
must be getting pretty slick at it.

Once again. Screw the South. It isn't worth the effort . And I am sick
of pandering to their prejudices while everyone tells the Northerners
that they are worthless liberals who are out of step.

> 2) has served as both a governor (1979-87) and U.S. Senator (1987-
> present). Four of the last five presidents were governors. Voters clearly
> value executive experience when selecting a president.

Sorry, this is hair splitting. He is not a governor now. He is a senator.
He is an insider's insider - on the intelligence committee.

Just my two cents worth.

arendt

[GBD4]

33. Respect your opinions but...

There are liberals in the South! South is not required to win, but by ignoring it the party would alienate liberal voters who call the region home. Unfortunately, the South is not as liberal as would be in an ideal world, but it should not be written off. I'd prefer to eek out victories in a whole bunch of states rather than pour loads of money into non-Southern swing states and ignore the entire 11-state South. Dean's strategy of targeting Texas is smart, in my opinion. Austin is rather Democratic, and an energized base can make Texas competitive enough that Dubya'd have to put some money into the state. Home state is never guaranteed to go for the favorite son. Ask Al Gore.

[arendt]

35. I understand your point, but this situation is desperate

I'm sorry that you have caught me in mid-rant. Its nothing
personal, and if I wasn't so angry, I'd probably be more
sympathetic, but...

As I said, pandering to the South steps all over the Democrats
message and pulls the party too far to the right. It de-energizes
the shock troops of the party - the same way a Republican
pandering to Northern sentiments like separation of church
and state de-energizes their shock troops.

The Republicans *attack*; they differentiate, demonize, and
destory. To them, its war, holy war; not politics. I don't see
how the Democrats win by letting all this Southern crapola
go unchallenged.

The Southern judges who refuse to get the Ten Commandments
out of the courthouse. The anti-evolution campaigns, the
ridiculous anti-Harry Potter campaigns, and the entire "faith-base"
assault on the Constitution are all plays for Southern votes.

The Democrats should draw a line in the sand on separation
of church and state. If that looses the South, so be it. If they
don't stand up now, we will all be run by fundamentalist
ayatollahs soon. They ought to target that nutcase Ashcroft -
a born-again Torquemada. He is incompetent, brittle, and
lost an election to a dead man. I would love to see him back
in the limelight - he really is a screw up.

Then they ought to target all the hypocrisy about no big government,
while they hand out military pork to the South like there is no
tomorrow.

And the hypocrisy about law and order except they won't touch
Enron (Texas) World Com (Mississippi) and (Williams? some
telco kickback). All these Southern crooks get a pass from
Ashcroft, while he goes after Martha Stewart - the liberal.

Sorry. It is way past Munich appeasment time. The Democrats
need a Winston Churchill to tell these Southern-fried Nazis
to go to hell.

The southern liberals are not being written off. A national
democratic victory will help them more than whatever it is
you think can be accomplished by pulling our punches on
the South.

respectfully,

arendt

[GBD4]

36. Well

I think we can target church/state, Ashcroft, and hypocrisy and still win Southern states! Southerners are hurting big time, just as other Americans are, too. Many are furious over loss of jobs to foreign nations. I am the last person who will say kill our core values to win over the South. My feeling is that we can stand up for our beliefs and still have a populist appeal that can pull off narrow victories in Southern states. Never hide what we as Democrats believe in. Your post reiterates how the current administration is targeting liberals. Democrats do not have to act tough on Martha Stewart to win votes in the South. If the Party's values aren't acceptable to a majority of Southerners, then we lose every state. But if people wake up and say wait Republican rule has done nothing to help us, we can win in the electoral college with a sweeping mandate. As I've said before, I want to see the Party crush Dubya in the Nov 04 election. We can do it by holding firm on what we believe in.

[arendt]

37. Fine with me

I'm assuming you live in the South.

It would help to know what subjects can pry the voters there
out of the Republican column.

Is there a backlash against the crazier fundies there (like the
backlash in Israel against the ultra-orthodox)?

Can we separate moderate Southerners without alienating
the core of the party?

What are the topics? What are the wedge issues?

arendt

[GBD4]

39. Some thoughts for now

1. The Economy. The South is on average a poorer region. In other words, tax cuts for the rich have no impact on many Southerners, especially since the tax cuts were not a result of downsizing the federal government. Manufacturing/textiles--industry is suffering. Unemployment is up in the North. Unemployment is up in the South. Working class Southerners are equally against free trade as Midwestern unionized factory workers. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Stress job creation and that will intrigue plenty of voters anywhere in this nation.

2. Health Care. Southerners are just as much in need of health care as everyone else.

As Governor Mark Warner (D) of Virginia said in his campaign, the debate is only about abortion, etc., if you let it be about that. In other words, if pro-choice doesn't win in the South, don't make it a focus of stump speeches delivered in the South. Focus on the issues that DO help convince Southerners to vote Dem. Portraying Dubya as too entrenched in Beltway politics might work, but that depends on who the Dems nominate of course. Faith-based stuff is important to plenty of voters, sure, but voters who are out of work and uninsured would much prefer to have a job and health care before worrying about whether some local charity will get a large enough tax credit from the federal government.

[arendt]

38. Sorry to bail out, but its way past bedtime n/t

n/t

[ewagner]

34. Enjoy

Sir,

I may not agree with your points, but I sure do enjoy the way you present them.....especially the bit about Jesus vs Jeb in FL...laughed out loud.