Al From is president of the Third Way...policy presented on C-Span today.

[madfloridian]

Their policy was the one presented by our Democrats today on C-Span.

Chairman, Third Way Foundation: Al From
President, PPI: Will Marshall
Chief Operating Officer, PPI: Paul Weinstein Jr.

So actually, we have not yet made many changes in our party yet. The former head of the DLC, Al From...(I think Carper is head now)....is now head of the Third Way which is in charge of our policy.

It has been mentioned here several times today. It is part of the
DLC/PPI/Third Way group. They are defining our policies still. Even
Governor Dean speaks their talk now..."tough and smart". Tough and smart is a very good idea, so I don't mind that part. I just remember who pushed for the war in Iraq.

Is there anything wrong with this group making policy? I don't really know. I know that Al From was calling us fringe activists in 2003. It just depends on how you look at it. We still have the same people setting strategy who were setting it before we tried to change our party. They told Governor Dean they would set the strategy and policies, that he was not to do so. So they are the same people. The DLC pushed for the Iraq war. I guess I am leery a little.

Here is the link to the PPI page defining the groups and who is charge.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=896

Overview

Organization: The Progressive Policy Institute is a research and education
institute that is a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc., a nonprofit
corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mission: PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics
for America in the 21st century. Through its research, policies, and
perspectives, the Institute is fashioning a new governing philosophy and an
agenda for public innovation geared to the Information Age.

Chairman, Third Way Foundation: Al From
President, PPI: Will Marshall
Chief Operating Officer, PPI: Paul Weinstein Jr.

Address:
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003
Web: www.ppionline.org
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Press Email: [e-mail]

Defining the Third Way

PPI's mission arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an
obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces
re-shaping our society and economy. The Institute advocates a philosophy
that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities
of the Information Age and points to a "third way" beyond the liberal
impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to
simply dismantle government. The Institute envisions government as society's
servant, not its master -- as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise
controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities
where they live and work.

The Institute's work rests on three ideals: equal opportunity, mutual
responsibility, and self-governing citizens and communities. Building on
these cornerstone principles, our work advances five key strategies to equip
Americans to confront the challenges of the Information Age:

Restoring the American Dream by accelerating economic growth, expanding
opportunity, and enhancing security.

Reconstructing our social order by strengthening families, attacking crime,
and empowering the urban poor.

Renewing our democracy by challenging the special interests and returning
power to citizens and local institutions.

Defending our common civic ground by affirming the spirit of tolerance and
the shared principles that unite us as Americans.

Confronting global disorder by building enduring new international
structures of economic and political freedom.

I fear the last one could also mean "spreading democracy" through the middle east and elsewhere.

[Warpy]

1. Same load of bullshit, different day

This is the right wing garbage they've been pushing right along.

These are Wall Street Democrats. Never forget that. They are not our friends.

[cyclezealot]

2. As far as I'm concerned, they are Repugs lite.

Half way to the Republicans= Republican lite.

[flpoljunkie]

3. ..."third way" beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic statu

quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Trashing the "liberals" in our party--"Democrats from the Democratic wing of the party" as Howard Dean put it--it's what the DLC does best. Do you know any liberals "defending the bureaucratic status quo?" Nothing but "liberal bashing jibberish"--totally nonsensical bullsh*t--Al From! Must we "drive a stake" through your free trading, corporatist heart?

Thanks for the post, madfloridian.

[Totally Committed]

4. I agree with you, flpoljunkie...

Al From and the DLC have GOT to go!

TC

[Cha]

5. "Third Way" is Orwellian Speak

for the same ol shite that the dlc has been spreading down the pike for EVER!

Go back to Orwellian School, from, and pick up some new exciting lingo..you're tired.

[madfloridian]

25. I often wonder what they consider the first and second ways.

I agree it sounds tired and old.

[madfloridian]

6. My worry is Al From hasn't changed much since these memos..link

Activists are out of step..statement by Bruce Reed and Al From in 2003

"..."These days, Democrats act as if they're so far gone they've forgotten where they're from.

Every weekend, yet another special-interest group hosts a candidate forum to pressure the presidential candidates into praising its agenda. Some of the candidates seem intent on running applause-meter campaigns, measuring success by how many times they tell the party faithful what they want to hear.

There's one big problem with this strategy: Most of those party activists the candidates are trying so hard to please are wildly out of touch not only with middle America but with the Democratic rank and file. The great myth of the campaign is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of party activists and single-issue groups represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. They don't.

The fact is, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean likes to call it, is an aberration, a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home. That wing lost the party 49 states in two elections and turned a powerful national organization into a much weaker, regional one. ..."

[madfloridian]

7. Here's the Neo Con document from Reid's website.

I wish I trusted this group more than I do. I see in the document they do finally admit there might be some doubt about Iraq, but it is not a strong statement.

"There is some doubt as to whether Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States by 2003."

That my dear Al From, is the understatement of the year.

I want to trust. The trio of groups is setting all our policy for now, and probably will continue for a while.

This is a pdf file.

http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/58/The_Neo_Con_9.5.06_final_electronic_version.pdf

[FrenchieCat]

8. I read the whole thing...and actually, it is a pretty detailed

analysis of Bush's failures in Iraq, far as I can see, with Graphs and bars, etc....

The numbers and the stats speak for themselves......frankly.

Bush's policy in Iraq is a total failure is the conclusion this document appears to say.

I encourage folks to read it. Otherwise, it's just heresy.

[madfloridian]

9. I did not criticize the document.

I am saying I don't trust this trio of groups who got us into the war in the first place.

We are not about to leave Iraq. They will need to institute the draft. This document does a good job of criticizing Bush's Iraq war, and all its failures.

They also do a good job of arguing that we need to build up our military. I don't see anything about redeploying or leaving or anything at all like that.

This is the bunch who told us to say "Goodnight, Vietnam." To forget Vietnam and face the new war which would go on and was very necessary. It is still up at the DLC website. They called us fringe activists, and liberal lefties. I doubt they have changed enough.

But they are indeed setting policy. I hear these words from every Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Understood......

But that particular document is actual pretty damning on the GOP Policies of war.

That's good, IMO.....no matter the "reputation" that you assign to the organization because of FROM.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[welshTerrier2]

10. from www.thirdway.org

i saw the Party's right wingers dancing their little dance on C-Span today ... it was disturbing to see Clark and Reid there ... is this the team they're lining up with?

anyway, i decided to do a little reading about the Third Way organization but didn't know their website ...

so i tried: www.thirdWay.org ...

here was the write-up i found on their Iraq position:

Iraq

We opposed the UK's military involvement in Iraq.

The US was largely motivated by greed for oil. The 'New World Order' is a cover for protecting US/Corporate interests throughout the world. The UK government is wrong therefore to commit our army to this foreign adventure at great cost in lives and money. The result has created more not fewer terrorists. Tony Blair has blood on his hands.

We call for the immediate withdrawal of UK troops and an end to foreign occupation in Iraq.

probably not the same third way as the Democrats' right wing sub-group, eh??

[FrenchieCat]

12. Clark and Reid and Durbin and

quite a few others.

Murtha also signed the Bush letter which uses the 3rd way report as back up on stats cited.

If you want to say that leaders in congress are not allowed to use a report prepared by any organization....then I suggest that Move-On.org get moving with the funding of a report that Democrats in congress can use to bolster their case in reference to this war that is as detailed.

Democrats are starting to fight back....and this is a crucial time....before election 2006. Hell yeah, you saw Clark there....cause he wants to win back congress. Do you?

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress in a letter Monday to Bush called for a complete overhaul of US Iraq policy, including "changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department."

"We do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy," read the letter signed by top House and Senate Democrats.

"Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working," the Democrats' letter continued.

"With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse," read the letter signed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats.

They also called for transitioning the US mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism and force protection, and beginning the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq before the end of 2006, among other measures.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060904/pl_afp/usiraqpolitics_060904185223

[FrenchieCat]

13. Here's a Television report of how the reporters handled this

press conference today.....

At 4:06 p.m. eastern time, Andrea Koppel covered how Democrats are
hitting back hard on national security. She showed a clip of Harry Reid
rolling out a report by Third Way Democrats called "The Neo Con" that
listed all the failures of the Bush administration on the war on terror
and national security. Then she said it helps when Democrats have
"a decorated war veteran and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander
of Europe" to help them make their case. The clip showed Harry Reid
stepping aside and Gen. Clark coming to the podium, then saying, "The
Bush administration has made America less safe."

So you see, at this point.....it's whatever will elect Democrats, including a report from a think tank organization used to back up congressional leaders' claims that the Bush Admin and the NeoCons are all wrong on security. September 11th is almost here....and I personally think we need a reminder of just how much this admin has fucked up, regardless of their chants that "there has not been any new attack" bullshit!

And yes...I'm vert thankful to General Clark for lending whatever gravitas he has earned to the congressional Democrats right before election 2008. Those weren't right wingers you saw at that conference.....they were the current Democratic leadership of Congress acting in concert, i.e., in Unity.

Cause at this point, I can't afford to be a "snob" in reference to who provides me with good and damning data...if the data is sound and helps make the case needed to be made that will counter the bullshit that the GOP is throwing out there. After the elections.....then I will ask Move-On to commission a similar report so that you will like it....but until then......I'll take what I can get.

Washington, DC — With President Bush touring the country on a new public relations campaign designed to sell his national security policies to the American people, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, and Senator Thomas Carper today joined General Wesley Clark and Sharon Burke, Director of the Third Way National Security Project to release "the Neo Con," a new report analyzing the dangerous effects Republican policies have had on the security of the nation. Prepared by Third Way, the study is a damning indictment of Bush Republican failure and incompetence that has left America less safe five years after September 11, 2001.

The new report throws the national security failures of the Bush Administration and its rubberstamp Republican Congress into harsh relief. Shockingly, despite repeated rhetoric from the White House citing the new realities of the post-9/11 world, Bush Republican incompetence has left America vulnerable in an increasingly unstable world. Bogged down in Iraq with its military stretched thin, America now finds itself less able to fight and win the war on terror. Around the world, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea have grown more dangerous. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks around the world have rapidly multiplied.

“We took a hard look at the numbers,” said Burke, “and the numbers don’t lie – the Bush strategy is not working.”

With the five-year anniversary of the September 11th attacks fast approaching, the report serves as a sobering reminder that the President and his Republican Congress have failed to learn the lessons of that terrible day. In a study cited in "the Neo Con," 86% of National Security experts interviewed by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine rate the world as more dangerous for the US and Americans; 83% disagree that the United States is winning the war on terror. A copy of “the Neo Con” can be found online here .
http://securingamerica.com/node/1420

[madfloridian]

14. That Sharon Burke on the platform was special asst. to Dick Armitage

http://www.third-way.com/leadership/sharon_burke

"Before joining Third Way, Ms. Burke was a Special Assistant to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and a Member of the Policy Planning staff at the Department of State"

I am seeing too many right wing connections from that trio of groups.

I watched Andrea Koppel the day before say that another plan by the Democrats was just more of the same. This plan was not as outspoken as the other plan was, and she praised it.

[paulk]

15. So, what's your point? What's the point of this thread?

Do you like the plan?

What?

Is this just more of your usual divisive bullshit or are you actually trying to say something?

[madfloridian]

16. Well, actually, I saw one of their bloggers call for regime change in Iran

It was done facetiously, but he was serious. That got me started. Then I realize Al From who detests the "nutroots" as much as his blogger does....has not moved on from the DLC at all. He is just there as president of the Third Way.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/08/regime-change.html

Then I tried to post nicely that I think the same group that formed our policies in 2000, 2002, and 2004 are still in charge of policy making. I am concerned now there will be no leaving Iraq, and I fear this group might go along too much on Iran.

I admire some of their positions, some I don't. I don't like the constant references they make to avoiding the left.

They are not the Democratic party, yet they do all the deciding. They are the deciders on our side.

[FrenchieCat]

17. So are you criticizing the document used, the fact that Sharon Burke

was in charge of some of the research, the fact that Democrats, the leadership anyways are no good, that General Clark is involved so it must be suspect....what? That Al From, who was last seen working for John Kerry is involved? I mean, I understand your distrust and distaste in everything other than a few of the Dems.....and that's great...but unfortunately, in order to regain the House or/and the senate, it's gonna take more than the few you trust standing there with a mike.

In the end, I hope you have accomplished what you wanted though.....and I hope that you are satisfied with yourself for now.

Nite! :hi:

[madfloridian]

19. Yes, Burke was with Armitage, yes, that bothers me.

Al From quotes bother me. I don't want his group setting all our policy. Yet I fear that will happen. He is what he said about Gore in 2001:

"Second, in the 2000 election Gore chose a populist rather than a New Democrat message. As a result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an advocate of big government. Those perceptions, whether fair or not, hurt him with male voters in general and with key New Economy swing voters in particular. By emphasizing class warfare he seemed to be talking to Industrial Age America, not Information Age America."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919

He was wrong on this interpretation. He is still saying the same things.

He was concerned about Gore and populism. This is what he said about the 2000 campaign.

"Also left with sharply reduced influence was From, who recalls with resignation his inability to bring the Gore-Lieberman ticket home to its New Democrat roots. "Once Joe got on the ticket, I worked mostly through him," says From, ticking off the names of campaign staffers through whom he tried to reach Gore. "I talked to Shrum, Greenberg, Eskew, and Tad Devine," he says. "I did a memo to Gore. I actually gave him a game plan to try to contain the populism in a way that would do the least damage."

From the same article:

"the DLC maintains that with the telecommunications and computer revolution, the "rising learning class" of individualist new-economy workers will resist populism, reject Big Government, spurn unions, and abandon the social contracts of the New Deal and the Great Society.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

I am not attacking, I am questioning that this group who according to From scorns populism....is still setting party policy. It really does concern me. I have no other motives. I thought the C-Span presentation was good, Clark did a good job.

I just am not over my concern over the DLC/PPI/Third Way. They are dominating the policy in every area. I see it in the way Howard Dean speaks sometimes, and it worries me.

The GOP got where it was today by never questioning their leaders. I think we must do so.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Are "they" setting the policy that was presented today?

I say that they aren't.

I say they wrote up a report scathing of Bush's policy.

Democratic leaders of congress are asking for redeployment by December 2006 (that's in 3 months), and have written a letter to Bush in which they state just that. They are using the report to back them up on stats of the failures of Iraq.

Those are the facts.

I don't like Al From that much either.....but at the same time, I don't just knee jerk due to the fact that he has some kind of affiliation with the report that was put out to back up the Congressional leaders' demands of this administration.

If you are so knee jerk about certain organization due to who associates with it, how do you feel about APAIC and anyone with ties to it?

[madfloridian]

21. I don't have problems with associating....it is the leaders.

I am not going to get into personal stuff about different candidates. That is not the point of my post.

Yes, this was policy by that group. They said so at the press conference, they showed the cover of the document that said Third Way, and it says so at their website.

http://www.third-way.com/press/release/27

Yes, I know their overall plans are to redeploy eventually, but I said the document does not appear to address redeployment. I could not find it.

[FrenchieCat]

22. You couldn't find that in the documents because those documents

ARE NOT THE POLICY PAPERS....even if you want to think so, cause it will make you appear rational!

The document is a set research papers containing stats.

Did you read it, or did you just look at the cover? Look at it again!
It called "The Neo "Con"- The Bush Defense Record by the Numbers"
The document lists no "policy" cause that's not what it is. It's 26 pages of tables, graphs and facts (then vs. now). :eyes:
Don't be afraid. :scared:
Look at it! Be daring!
http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/58/The_Neo_Con_9.5.06_final_electronic_version.pdf

The policy announced was that of the Dems leadership in congress....which is why Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the others were standing there....which was originally announced back on in March...and it hasn't changed!
REAL SECURITY AT HOME AND OVERSEAS
Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world. Require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq in 2006. Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda. Rebuild a state-of-the-art military capable of projecting power wherever necessary. Implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission proposal to secure America's borders and ports and screen 100% of containers. Fully man, train, and equip our National Guard and our police, firefighters and other first responders. Honor our commitments to our veterans.
http://democrats.senate.gov/agenda/new_direction/



Here's the letter they sent to Bush reieterating the Dem's policy above?

you won't find the policy in the documents...cause they ain't the same thing.

The Dem leadership of various defense committees signed along with the general leadership of congress:

September 4, 2006


The President

The White House

Washington, D.C.


Dear Mr. President:


Over one month ago, we wrote to you about the war in Iraq. In the face of escalating violence, increasing instability in the region, and an overall strain on our troops that has reduced their readiness to levels not seen since Vietnam, we called upon you to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success.


Although you have not responded to our letter, we surmise from your recent press conferences and speeches that you remain committed to maintaining an open-ended presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come. That was the message the American people received on August 21, 2006, when you said, “we're not leaving , so long as I'm the President.”


Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working. In the five-week period since writing to you, over 60 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed, hundreds of U.S. troops have been wounded, many of them grievously, nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and the cost to the American taxpayer has grown by another $8 billion dollars. Even the administration's most recent report to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq indicates that security trends in Iraq are deteriorating, and likely to continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse.


Meanwhile, the costs of a failed Iraq policy to our military and our security have been staggering. As you know, not a single Army non-deployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the Marine Corps faces equally urgent equipment and personnel shortages. Lieutenant General Blum, the National Guard Bureau Chief, has stated that the National Guard is “even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Your recent decision to involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to serve in Iraq is but the latest confirmation of the strain this war has placed on our troops. At the same time, the focus on Iraq and the toll it has taken on our troops and on our diplomatic capabilities has diverted our attention from other national security challenges and greatly constrained our ability to deal with them.


In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.


Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year.


We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere –consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration’s mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.


Mr. President, staying the course in Iraq has not worked and continues to divert resources and attention from the war on terrorism that should be the nation’s top security priority. We hope you will consider the recommendations for change that we have put forward. We want to work with you in finding a way forward that honors the enormous sacrifice of our troops and promotes U.S. national security interests in the region. We believe our plan will achieve those goals.


Thank you for your consideration of our views.


Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262426&

But I know that you don't really want to "get it"...so I'll stop wasting my time.

[madfloridian]

24. Yes, they are setting policy...they say so at their website.

They are laying out the strategy and talking points on Iraq and Iran, and one of the main authors is Dickie Armitage's former special assistant.

Further they are aided by at least one of their bloggers who thinks we need a regime change in Iran.

Here is the link to the page at their website.

http://www.third-way.com/projects/national_security

The DLC is still in control of our national message while all folks here do is worry about who is running in 08.

They don't give a you know what who runs in 08. They don't have to disclose their money, their sources. They can effectively set the message, and they are. This group is in my mind the Republican vehicle for taking over the Democratic party. Odd statement, maybe. I am not sure even half their members are really aware of the situation.

Are their plans good? Some are some are not. But look at the statement on their page about National Security. The usual the left is suspect and weak type of rhetoric.

The Third Way National Security Project is designed to address one of the most serious problems facing progressives today: their lack of credibility and a compelling vision for protecting this nation and its interests both at home and abroad.

I don't think our "progressives", our "Democrats" have even been weak on national security. But that is their talking point.

[wyldwolf]

28. "Yes, they are setting policy...they say so at their website."

WHERE on their website does it say they are "setting policy?" Are you trying to say they are "setting policy" for the DNC? If so, give us an example of policy they have set for the DNC in the last, oh... six years.

Further they are aided by at least one of their bloggers who thinks we need a regime change in Iran.

So do I. Imagine that.

And 52% of the US supports military action if Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. *Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 24-27, 2006.

The DLC is still in control of our national message while all folks here do is worry about who is running in 08.

How so?

Put up or shut up.

[PresidentWar]

18. So wrecking the Democratic Party wasn't enough for him.

Man, these guys have an insatiable appetite for self destruction.

[alvarezadams]

23. Damned 5th columnists

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

27. show me some policy the DLC is setting

... just another example of leftist dumpster diving.