Howard Dean is first.

 ron paul is number one!!!

Seashell check DFA link messages.

Youtube | November 12, 2007

On December 16th a grassroots campaign fund raiser is being held for Ron Paul, Republican candidate for President. The event is taking place on the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party. For more information visit: www.teaparty07.com

McClatchy-Tribune | November 10, 2007
MICHAEL DOYLE

WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly.

Behind closed doors, the nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions.

"If the court decides to take this up, it's very likely it will end up being the most important Second Amendment case in history," said Dennis Henigan, the legal director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Henigan predicted "it's more likely than not" that the necessary four justices will vote to consider the case. The court will announce its decision Tuesday, and oral arguments could be heard next year.

Lawyers are swarming.

Texas, Florida and 11 other states weighed in on behalf of gun owners who are challenging D.C.'s strict gun laws. New York and three other states want the gun restrictions upheld. Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban. A Northern California gun dealer, Russell Nordyke, filed a brief opposing it.

Full article here.

"Battle For The Republic" Exposes Real Immigration Agenda
Elite using balkanization strategy to destroy American sovereignty and create third world cesspit

Prison Planet | October 30, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Alex Jones' Battle For The Republic exposes how the elite are using illegal immigration and pushing amnesty as a means of pulverizing the American middle class and ensuring that U.S. citizens, black, white and hispanic alike, are forced to sacrifice their freedom and sovereignty as America is sunk into a third world cesspool.

The mini-documentary lifts the lid on how the backlash against rampant illegal immigration in America is a major concern for the Bilderberg Group, posing a threat to their plans to lower the living standards of U.S. citizens of all colors and creeds into second or even third world status.

What is the real agenda behind last year's massive pro-illegal immigration demonstrations and who is really behind them? Battle For the Republic traces the legacy of the movement back to the Plan of San Diego, a shocking blueprint for race-based genocide directed against blacks and whites in America.

(Article Continues Below)

The goal is to divide America by bankrolling the Aztlan movement, an extremist separatist plan on behalf of Mexican Ku Klux Klan style groups like Mecha and La Raza to "reclaim" the southern and western U.S. states, in order to eventually merge America, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.

Battle For The Republic shoots down the myth that Mexico has any rightful claim to the south western states by carefully documenting the history of how the west was won, bringing it up to the modern day and highlighting how the elite are using the enraged Mexican mobs as a weapon of conquest to slit America's throat and sacrifice its sovereignty on the altar of globalism.

Hispanic Radio and TV stations owned by huge corporations based in New York spew hatred and division as Mexicans are radicalized and told that all their problems stem from the racist American middle class while ignoring the fact that the elite are the true cause of their misery, as taxpayers are sucked dry to fund welfare which only subsidizes the corporations that employ the illegals.

Talk of Worst Recession Since the 1930s

NY Sun | November 12, 2007
DAN DORFMAN

After what Los Angeles money manager Arnold Silver called "a brutal three days," the question is: What now for the market?

A Wall Street superstar this year who runs Balestra Capital Partners, Jim Melcher, says he's "worried about a recession. Not a normal one, but a very bad one. The worst since the 1930s. I expect we'll see clear signs of it in six months with a dramatic slowdown in the gross domestic product."

Balestra Capital, a $350 million New York hedge fund, was up 3% for the past three market sessions, when the Dow Jones Industrials, spearheaded by widespread declines in financial stocks and fears of more billion-dollar-plus asset write-downs, tumbled more than 677 points, or about 4.5%. The Nasdaq fared worse, skidding about 7%, triggered by across-the-board declines in those fast-stepping technology stocks.

Balestra has increased in value by 175% so far this year, Mr. Melcher tells me. A 9-year-old fund, it has posted compounded annual growth of about 30% since its inception.

Mr. Melcher, a market bear, had some pretty discouraging words. "What I think is not good for the country, but good for me." he says. His basic advice to the country's roughly 80 million stock players: Run for the hills � the worst is far from over. An investor's stock portfolio now, he believes, should be only about half of what it might normally be.

With the housing market in a state of collapse � and he says he believes it is far from over � Mr. Melcher argues that average homeowners will not be able to withstand the kind of recession he sees, given the added burdens of rising energy and food costs, and continued deterioration in the credit markets.

Noting that consumption is already slowing, Mr. Melcher figures sharply rising unemployment is inevitable. Another of his worries is that central banks around the globe, America's included, are debasing their currencies, which is setting the stage for a new round of higher inflation. Our bear figures the next six to 12 months will be awful for investors as the market goes down "pretty substantially." His frightening outlook calls for an additional 20% to 30% decline from current levels. A drop of that magnitude would put the Dow down in a range of roughly 9,100 to 10,400.

Please bear with me as a sort out some cognitive dissonance I’ve been experiencing recently in this public forum, and please feel free to comment in response. Among what is largely a group of supporters of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, there has been a detectable trend recently, illustrated somewhat by the DFA’s presidential pulse poll. It involves favorable sentiments for Kucinich’s current campaign, joined with some more or less reluctant support for John Edwards, as either the next best thing or least objectionable alternative.

The case with Edwards, while mysterious, at least is explained more easily. He reformed. Obviously, supporters are comfortable in the theory that he responded to new or greater information about the war debacle by changing his views, and react to the phenomenon as a type of redemption or epiphany. I find this naive when you consider the arc of this transformation, from authorization bill co-sponsor as a newly minted presidential candidate, to critic of the war’s conduct as a candidate who had to shift his view along with popular disapproval of the war, to embarrassed former war supporter, completing the changeover to the 2008 model of his candidacy, of course after the 2004 disaster lay in ashes. This could be either sincere or politically convenient, I suppose, but I don’t see how it can compare favorably to not supporting the war in the first instance since it reflect, if nothing else, gullibility, as Dean pointed out to us.

Which brings me to Kucinich. He didn’t vote in favor of authorization. Under the above reasoning, he is preferable to Edwards, despite his slight profile nationally, but I still have this question. Many of you were Dean supporters during 2004 when Kucinich and Edwards were both candidates. Why did you opt for Dean over them? Dean said he was representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but Kucinich thought that was trash talk and showed his resentment by bargaining away his nonviable voting bloc to Edwards, away from Dean, in Iowa. Did you agree with Dean or Kucinich?

Many also think Kucinich is a better choice because he promotes single payer health care insurance legislation, but wasn’t that his position in 2004? Dean didn’t champion the same type of law for what he regarded as pragmatic reasons, i.e., it wouldn’t get passed, and health care legislation covering 90% of young people was more attainable. Yet people cite this as a reason for their support of Kucinich and antipathy towards other Democratic candidates, whose positions on this issue more closely mirror Dean’s. Worse yet, they threaten to vote for a third party candidate as their next option, an alternative that Dean emphatically opposed during his debate with Ralph Nader following the demise of his own campaign. I’m confused by what is, by appearances, the inconsistent logic. 

Is Mukasey's seemingly getting Bush to allow access to Justice Department ethics officers an important step ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/washington/14justice.html?hp

Tom Bearse
Wed, 11/14/07
9:07 am
__________________________________________________________________________

Ill be pleased as punch to answer you why I wanted Dean over DK........my rationale and acute insight into the 2004 presidential campaign told me that we needed a somehat of a novelty to beat Bush..........Dean fit the mold.........let me explain......to me he represnted all that was wrong with the Democrapic party much less the republicans......image wise he could go one on one with bush (who was all image anyways) up until the media got hold of him and the cream doomed Dean........

Dean was the guy that image wise rolled up his shirt sleeves and pushed for a fight......he was right on most issues but not all, but my thinking was it was imperative Bush get beat in 2004 and only someone like a Dean could do it......in fact, Dean was on a collision course with destiny until he was too honest with Chris mathews when he said he would reighn in the media...............that was the end along with the Gore endorsement...............Dean then made some foolish gaffes too but againm if given the chance to go one on one with Bush he would have given Bush a run for his money................

DK, image wise (again the idiotic American voter comes into play here) never stands a chance.........this is how the Dems will lose in 2008, image, incdentally the experts are now saying the same thing Tom.......the Repubs will pounce on this, probably put Mccain war herp, pow, vietnam vet, flag waver, hero to the fatherland over a woman..Hillary, that will say enough in itself.............the average yahoo out there in war mode and scared of his or her shadow will want to be protected (Ive never known a people so scared of boogeymen) and therefore it will be a strong male domineering candidate like a Mccain, Romney etc...............

This is how I see it happening..................

Tom: Your logic appears sound. I would consider that elections are not purely logical or rational events...emotion, identification, desire, and probably a few other forces, are also in the mix.

Mike wrote "Dean was the guy that image wise rolled up his shirt sleeves and pushed for a fight......he was right on most issues but not all, but my thinking was it was imperative Bush get beat in 2004 and only someone like a Dean could do it."

I can follow this logic easily, but I can't see how that would lead you or anyone, as a 2004 Dean supporter, to promote a Kucinich, Edwards, or third party candidacy in 2008.

Lenny wrote “I would consider that elections are not purely logical or rational events...emotion, identification, desire, and probably a few other forces, are also in the mix.”

I agree with you and, further, I think emotional instincts were fundamentally part of Dean’s popular support in 2004. I’m trying to comprehend how this would transfer to support for Kucinich, Edwards, or a third party candidacy in 2008, unless you’re suggesting that emotion or some other factor could completely displace logic or other, more pragmatic considerations, if they didn’t for some reason in 2004.

Tom.....

You really shouldn't be confused by what you perceive to be inconsistent logic. Dean is not a candidate, if he were, I would support him because there just isn't any match out there.

There are many similarities between Dean and Kucinich on the main issues. Dean expressed approval of single payer under Medicare as an end goal. If Dean had stayed in the race, I would have supported him had he not won more than the one state, in order to support his issues.

Today, Kucinich best supports my issues, and I will vote wherever my interests lie. Nothing inconsistent here. Howard always said to vote our interests.

audrey wrote “Today, Kucinich best supports my issues, and I will vote wherever my interests lie. Nothing inconsistent here. Howard always said to vote our interests.”

Okay. Assuming this, in what way did Dean, not Kucinich, best support your issues in 2004?

Anti-war protestors are put on FBI fugitive terrorist list and denied entry into Canada.

One by one, our liberties are eroded. Speak out. Next, they will come for us....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/13/224337/04

The Bushites are trying to intimidate us and keep us from speaking our minds -- but the women of CodePink are fighting back.

When they tried to visit Canada, Wright and Benjamin were detained by Canadian customs officials and told that their names were on an FBI no-entry list. Even though this list is meant to stop fugitives, potential terrorists, and violent felons - not peaceful protesters - they were told that they would have to apply for "criminal rehabilitation" and pay a fine if they ever wanted to enter Canada.

Tom....

I once heard a speech where Dean was addressing the problems of Vermont when he was running for Gov. He made so much sense, that I wondered back then why we couldn't have someone like that who could fix America. So, I was already convinced by the time he announced. There was a great trust in the candidate for me.
Like I said, we don't have Howard this time, and I'm finding myself agreeing with Kucinich more than any other.

When I take those online polls, Kucinich always comes out on top in agreement with my views on the issues. He's not my choice however and it's a gut thing and I think it has to do with authenticity if I had to put a word to it. The thing about Howard was, right or wrong, I always felt like he was telling us the truth.

There are a lot of things to consider when voting for a President. Their values, their stands on the issues are important certainly. But you almost must consider some other intangibles like character, personality, ability to get things done, compromise without abandoning core principles, and temperament. There are others.

Kucinich is great on the first two. Most of us agree with him. However, I don't support him because of the intangibles. He is a much more effective legislator than I think he would be as President. Perhaps because of his clearly principled stands, he would be unlikely to get much done.

Dean had all ot it. Gore has most of it. But neither of them are running.

Here is the source of the cognitive dissonance. People here who supported Dean, not Kucinich, Edwards, or a third party candidate, in 2004, fail or refuse to recognize the identity of the Dean and Obama campaigns. It’s a unique but very discernable phenomenon.

In 2002, Dean had no national profile. He described his own campaign as an asterisk, and said he was running to raise awareness of issues, primarily the need for health care reform, although the Iraq war was just about to emerge as an issue and he was on the right side of it when it came to the forefront in the consciousness of Americans.

He transformed campaigning forever in 2003 by relying heavily on an internet campaign strategy and grassroot support that he developed on the internet. All of a sudden, there were record crowds appearing at his campaign rallies, and he made headlines with the improbable poll numbers he was generating against establishment candidates.

Yet, all the while, liberal commentators and Democrats in his own state were hammering him as a conventional, moderate politician, whose policy positions as governor were total DLC campaign material. I’ve often tried to chronicle this here in the past, and the reaction is, almost invariably, either that these critics are stupid and biased or though Dean is no saint, we still like him anyway.

Obama was such an insurgent candidate in 2004 that he was a Dean’s List selection. Along with Dean, he actually stood up to decry the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when other Democrats seeking office, including Edwards, would tell you it was not the politically expedient position to take at the time.

I don’t know about Paul, but Obama has more garnered internet support than any other Democratic candidate. He has by far the most internet contributions, particularly small dollar contributions from people who will be able to give again in the primaries, and the crowds of people who come to see him have set records. He is presenting a genuine challenge to the veteran and establishment candidates in this cycle.

He’s a black person whose lived among people in foreign cultures, former Harvard Law Review president, constitutional scholar, and community activist. Yet many liberals have scoffed at his credentials as a progressive candidate. In general, the reaction here hasn’t been that the critics are ill-informed or that Obama is a flawed candidate with a hopeful message. It’s been a non-stop, uncritical reproduction of the complaints.

Look, I supported Nancy Skinner in the Illinois primary. Just a speech at the convention didn’t do it for me. I was a skeptic about Obama who had to be convinced. When I looked over the evidence I’ve outlined, and checked out what we have for a candidate field in 2008, I concluded that he is the candidate who most closely, substantively resembles the candidate Dean was in the last cycle. It wasn’t identity on the issues because, I have mentioned before, I supported Dean in 2004 even though I felt closer to Kucinich on many issues. It’s more. A lot more. More than anything, as with Dean, it’s the inspiration and sense of promise I get from the campaign. I don’t get it with the other campaigns. I’m sorry, but I don’t.

A BREAK FROM ALL THE ANTI-KUCINICH TRIPE

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=45576

"SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATS"

DETROIT -- The "San Francisco Democrats" are the handmaidens for President George W. Bush: feckless, short-sighted and cynical. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., both wealthy San Franciscans, are leading voices in the congressional chorus that chooses convenience over principle and perceived political advantage over certain political truth.

Pelosi wants no talk of impeachment for Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other war criminals. She has done nothing to block funding for the war in Iraq, the only way to end the occupation, save Iraqi and American lives and let the Iraqi people determine their own destiny.

Feinstein made sure we now have as our nation's chief law enforcement officer a man who refuses to condemn drowning torture and believes the president has unlimited authority and need not respect the laws of the land.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 11/14/07
10:59 am

Thanks for your substantive post. I could support Obama for many of the reasons you do. And I will support him if he emerges as the alternative to Clinton.

But there is something about his experience and his faltering style that prevents me from choosing him this year. He will be 50 in 2012 if Dems lose (not likely) or 54 in 2016. I think he would be seasoned then and overcome the resistance people have now.

Still, for now, I believe Edwards is taking on the special interests that we will need to do to make large changes -- in Iraq, foreign policy, health care, energy, global warming, etc.

Edwards / Obama in 2008

Obama / ????? in 2016

21.

Main difference between the Dean and Obama campaigns is that Dean made meaty and unambiguous statements on the issues, some of which came back to haunt him thanks to DLC-inspired misinformation.

Obama, on the other hand, writes and speaks in soothing generalizations with no real substance. He also refuses to recognize the very real contemporary racial tension in this country, which is why the majority of African-American leaders are passing him by.

audrey wrote “I once heard a speech where Dean was addressing the problems of Vermont when he was running for Gov. He made so much sense, that I wondered back then why we couldn't have someone like that who could fix America. So, I was already convinced by the time he announced.”

This was true for me when I heard Dean as he launched his quixotic campaign in New Hampshire in 2002 and I’m quite certain it is true for many other people here. In fact, I’m certain it’s true of many people who thought Kucinich may have more truly represented their own views on a host of issues. Certainly, Kucinich’s policies more closely matched the Vermont state legislators and left-wing critics like Josh Frank and Keith Rosenthal, who have practically made a living maligning the records of Dean, as well as Al Gore.

Complicit Democrats

I’m confused.....

We've noticed. 

John wrote "Main difference between the Dean and Obama campaigns is that Dean made meaty and unambiguous statements on the issues, some of which came back to haunt him thanks to DLC-inspired misinformation."

Sorry, but you're way off.  Go read Keith Rosenthal to educate yourself that Dean is just a DLC shill on the wrong side of the issues of social security, health care, women's rights, gay rights, education, the environment, civil rights and the war.

Big Bro

Anni and all else.........

Please pay no attention to Tom today......his Detroit Red Dings lost to last place powerhouse St Loius last night, even after leading 2-0..............

 :+/

Edwards is taking on the special interests that we will need to do to make large changes.....

In word, perhaps. but when he had the chance to do it in deed as a US senator, he didn't. Record speaks louder than rhetoric. 

I want to express my appreciation to John and Sitka, who can illustrate in a few words what took me paragraphs to address.

27. I was there Tom, so were you!

I want to express my appreciation to John and Sitka, who can illustrate in a few words what took me paragraphs to address.

Confusion always takes longer than clarity. 

Indy wrote "there is something about [Obama's] experience and his faltering style that prevents me from choosing him this year."

What experience of Edwards' convinces you to choose him over Obama?

Sitka wrote "Confusion always takes longer than clarity."

I read you loud and clear.  Thanks again. 

Record speaks louder than rhetoric. 

Depend on how much you're willing to forgive, and how much you trust the rhetoric.

John wrote "I was there Tom, so were you!"

I'm still here.  Where the hell did you go?  

just a popp in to say, GREAT news. Al Gore's Generation Management company has secured space in New York, to move from Longdon to the US.

And now that he is bringing Doerr as a partner, he will have more time and less commute. :)


Gore Scores 48th Floor at Bank of America Tower
Posted on November 14th, 2007 Green Office Space, Green Real Estate, LEED, New York City, One Bryant Park by Stephen

Back in September, we noted a report in Crain’s that Al Gore’s investment firm, Generation Investment Management LLP, was looking for LEED-certified office space in New York City. Today, Generation announced that it has secured a 5,000-square-foot lease on the 48th floor of the Durst Organization’s Bank of America Tower, which expects to receive the first-ever LEED Platinum rating for a commercial high-rise once it opens up next May. As we’ve noted previously, asking rents at the Midtown tower, which was designed by Cook + Fox, are hovering around $185/square foot; it’s unclear how much Gore’s firm agreed to pay for the space, but as of July, this was the asking price for the only two remaining floors in the building. (By way of comparison, according to Cushman & Wakefield, the average asking rent for Class A office space in Midtown is $70/square foot).

Generation was founded back in 2004 and has offices in London and Washington, with another to open in Melbourne next year. The firm donates five percent of its profits to The Generation Foundation, a non-profit organization “dedicated to strengthening the field of sustainable development and sustainability research worldwide.” Inking such a high profile tenant as Mr. Gore and his firm is obviously terrific news for both Durst and the Bank of America Tower itself as the building prepares to accept the mantle of America’s greenest skyscraper.

http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2007/11...

and this, while I'm here.

...yes, you folks just keep this war going. How many years now?

NOW over 4 MILLION Iraqi's displaced. Wonderful. What we are doing to these poor people.

http://current.com/items/85305331_secula...

off

Hope is stronger than fear.

The only thing we have to hope for is hope itself.

Just one comment: who cares what this Rosenthal person you keep referring to thinks?
He'll just have to take his place with the Rep. Party, half the Dem Party amd the CM.
That's why we fight them.

I think it’s helpful, by the way, to have this dialogue. Not everyone reaches an opinion by the same means. Sitka, for example, maybe as NCDean, I can’t remember, warned people here that they might get what they wished for after if they supported Obama in the Illinois senate race. He supported a staunch Dean advocate, Nancy Skinner.

I mention this because Nancy is running again against Clueless Joe, Joe Knollenberg in Michigan’s 9th District, the incumbent to whom she narrowly lost in 2006. This is an excerpt from Party Builder at the DNC website:

“Bringing our troops home once and for all will take a Congress that is willing to do what's right despite the right wing's spin and the cautiousness that often cripples members of our party.  Senator Barack Obam called Nancy 'his sharpest opponent' in his race for the US Senate when he endorsed her bid against Joe Knollenberg last year.”

Down with fear.

audrey wrote “Just one comment: who cares what this Rosenthal person you keep referring to thinks? He'll just have to take his place with the Rep. Party, half the Dem Party and the CM. That's why we fight them.”

Nobody. He’s stupid and ill-informed. I had the same opinion of Josh Frank’s hit pieces on Gore, Dean and Obama. I only added it to the discussion because, with one exception, no one called Josh Frank stupid or ill-informed when his critical analyses of Obama got reproduced here.

Instead, criticism of Josh Frank was described as “shooting the messenger.”

Too bad we didn't endorse Skinner instead of Obama.

Sitka, for example, maybe as NCDean, I can’t remember, warned people here that they might get what they wished for after if they supported Obama in the Illinois senate race. He supported a staunch Dean advocate, Nancy Skinner.

Wrong again.

I preferred Skinner in the primary because I knew more about her, but didn't have a bad opinion of Obama -- and still don't except on a few relatively minor particulars like his comments about attacking Pakistan and that Democrats need to be more like Republicans. He's certainly preferable to any of the IraqDems.

And I've never been anyone called NCDean -- especially since I'm in AZ. 

Gotta go to dentist but sexiest man alive -- Matt Damon???? PLEASE!!!!!

Great to see many more bloggers will be active at the convention which means we will have lots more input.

~~~~~~~~~~

bbl - when the stench of negativity is hopefully less smelly.