"I voted for this war before I voted against it"

John Kerry's mistake was that he NEVER clarified that statement  in the following weeks, or even in the debates. In fact, I did a better job of explaining that remark to my friends than he ever did to the nation. For example, in the final debate, he said this:
"It was my mistake for not making that statement clear, but it President Bush's mistake for taking us to war."
He should have said,"I voted for the Iraq funding bill when the intelligence showed us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When we realized that the intelligence was flawed, I then voted against it. Just as you should vote against this war...blah blah blah......."

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Apr/20050411News013.asp

Rural victory could hold lesson for state Democrats

By DAVID LIEB of The Associated Press
Published Monday, April 11, 2005
JEFFERSON CITY - He was endorsed by Missouri Right to Life and the National Rifle Association - facts he touted proudly in stump speeches and displayed prominently on his campaign Web site.

But Frank Barnitz was not unique in that regard. His opponent in the rural Missouri Senate race received those same anti-abortion and pro-gun endorsements.

What makes Barnitz unusual is that he is a Democrat - and that he won.

Barnitz's victory over Republican Bill Hickle in last week's special election will make him the only rural Democrat in Missouri's 34-member Senate excluding Sen. Chuck Graham of the not-so-rural Columbia.

And Barnitz contends his win should provide a blueprint for Democrats if they are to have any hope of regaining power in the Capitol. When he and two other newly elected lawmakers are sworn in to their new offices, Republicans likely will hold a 23-11 Senate majority over Democrats and a 98-65 House majority.

Republicans have won their majorities in recent years partly by capturing rural seats vacated by term-limited Democrats, many of whom had been more socially conservative than city Democrats. Guns and abortion have served as fundamental issues.

And with the help of some Democrats, Republican legislative majorities in 2003 were able to override Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's vetoes of bills restricting abortions and allowing concealed guns.

Barnitz, a state House member from Lake Spring, joined Republicans in those votes. In fact, he was one of the lead sponsors of the concealed-guns legislation.

So Barnitz had solid gun and abortion credentials last week for the rural voters of the 16th Senate District, composed of Crawford, Dent, Gasconade, Maries, Montgomery, Osage, Phelps and Pulaski counties.

The district is considered Republican. Last November, Jay Nixon was the only statewide Democrat to win those eight counties.

Republicans President George W. Bush and Gov. Matt Blunt both won about two-thirds of the 16th Senate District's votes. Republican state Treasurer Sarah Steelman, whom Barnitz will succeed in the Senate, won the region with 72 percent of the vote. And even though Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is a native of the district and won statewide, she lost in the 16th Senate District.

"You've got to have the right issues," Barnitz said while explaining his success. "You take the two issues that have divided the parties out of the mix because I've been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and I'm a pro-life Democrat. ...

"And you bring back the conversation to those issues that impact Missourians statewide," Barnitz added. "Those issues are education, health care and jobs."

Some Democrats say they learned another lesson from Tuesday's special elections - the importance of unity.

Complete but unofficial results show Democratic Rep. Rick Johnson lost by a mere 66 votes to former Republican Rep. Bill Alter in an election for a northern Jefferson County Senate seat. But Democratic Rep. Harold Selby, running as an independent out of frustration over his party's selection of Johnson, gathered nearly as many votes as Johnson and Alter. Another independent candidate, Republican-leaning Zip Rzeppa, was much further behind.

From Selby's perspective, Democrats appear to have lost the close race not because he broke their unity but because they picked the wrong candidate for the district. "There's been a glass ceiling for us conservative Democrats - that we can't get on the statewide tickets," Selby said. "Hopefully now, the party has looked at this and said, `That is our future, and it's not just in the rural areas; it's in the suburban areas.' "

Thoughts?

I have always questioned the Pro-choice stance that 'It's a woman's body' for a couple of reasons:

1. It's ineffective against the Republican's stance of  " A culture of Life'  . Any parent is going to be turned off when Democrats make reference to a fetus as a 'medical decision', or the 'Right'  to end a potiential life. It's sounds cold, and doesn't repesct that this is a highly emotional issue.
   
2. Someone on this board said that we should reframe the debate to be less moral/spiritual and more legal and logical. At, first I disagreed with that, but then I thought:
   

How much ownership does a woman have over the fetus, when
a. Half of the DNA belongs to someone else and
b. The woman can sue  the father for support of the child ?

From a pure logical sense,  shouldn't the woman be required to consult the father on the decision to abort since he is one-half the owner of the fetus? And if she doesn't, should she give up the right to child support?
On the other side, if the woman does decide to abort without the consent of the father, isn't she destroying somene else's property?

I wonder how many feminists would feel like it's a woman's decision if they had to give up the right of child support to keep the right of abortion?

Was it an unconditional victory ? No.
But just remember what the alternative was.:
a. All 7 nominees getting through

or

b. We invoke the fillibuster, slow congress to a crawl by having them read hours of drivel each morning, have the Reds paint us with  the obstructionist  brush of which we would NEVER get rid of (just imagine newsclips of them reading the previous minutes each day three times, oh yeah, that will win us some elections in '06) . Then they would take the fillibuster away ( all they needed was 50) and then:
vote all 7 nominees through.

Sure they didn't EXACTLY give up the nuclear option. But we didn't give up the fillibuster either.

4 of the 7 will never see a vote. Net gain:  The Blues.

Ok, I'm sure everyone has heard this already but for the uninitiated, this is episodes 1-3 in a nutshell.

1.The good jedi rule the galaxy and are the keepers of the peace of the Republic and the Senate.

2. Senator Palpatine (who is secretly the evil Sith Lord Darth Sidious ) wants the Sith to rule the galaxy.
   
3. As Sidious, he recruits Count Doku to raise a Seperatist droid army against the Republic. This starts a HUGE war.
   
4. As Palpatine, he rises to leader of the Senate, eventually using the war as reason to artificially extend his term in office and impose martial law.
   

4a. The war also gives Palpatine an excuse to raise the massive clone army that is superior to the droid army.

5. As Palpatine he recruits Anakin Skywalker to the Sith, and renames him Darth Vader. Under Palpatine's orders, Vader kills Doku.
   
6. Finally, as Sidious, he uses the clone Army to wipe out most of the Jedi and replaces the Republic with the Empire.

Folks, just remember which Party was the original 'Big Tent' party, ok? If FDR was able to form a coalition of balanced Northern liberals, intellectuals, organized labor and Southern segregationists, surely liberals can respect my right to be left of center, OK?
It is extremeists like parker and Boatwright which is why the Republicans got everybody and their grandma voting for  them, often against thier own interests. Blacks, Jews, poor people, Big Corporations, "C.M.E." Christians who go to church on Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter.....Why? Because the liberals are pushing the Dems  so far to the left they can't appeal to the masses, who WERE our core base.

 Hell, the 48% that voted for Kerry were really voting against Bush, because Kerry so scared of losing the vote of the extreme liberals, he wound up standing for pretty much nothing. After the election, he was finally free to voice his own views, and they weren't that liberal after all.

Am I wrong?

I am watching C-Span and they are covering the Senate Floor. Dick Durbin (Illinois) is presenting the best, most logical case I have seen yet! He presented three huge  cards that showed the three judges that were never given an up or down vote! He even implied that they kept that slot open for a republican!

Dick Durbin for prez!

(He's going to have to change his first name, though)

After reading one of the blogs about the Democrats making inroads into the south, it dawned on me that the blueprint was already in place. Eliot Spitzer's poplarity comes from the tried and true populist roots of the Democratic party. Norht Carolina Democrat Governor Mike Easly's background is erriely familar.
Anyone who has a track record for taking on big business must be promoted as a friend of the little guy.
Of Course, John Kerry's background in legal law enforcement was yet another wasted opportunity, but that's another story....
Here is an article on Easley...