Wes Clark Email: Leg-less Iraq Vet - She's Running in Illinois

[Hissyspit]

Support Tammy's Next Mission!

Over the years I've seen many strong leaders who have given more to our nation than taken from it. People who lead by example and embody the values that make America so special. Major Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who just months ago was discharged from the Illinois National Guard, is just such a leader.

Tammy left the service by way of Walter Reed hospital, where she woke up without her legs 10 days after a rocket-propelled grenade exploded in her lap as she flew her helicopter. She spent the next year not only healing her own wounds, but fighting to help her fellow soldiers. She saw first-hand the young veterans who were falling through the cracks of an unprepared health care system, and championed their cause to Congress, earning admiration from both sides of the aisle.

Now Tammy Duckworth is running for Congress as a Democrat in Illinois' 6th Congressional district. As our country faces the many challenges we have, both at home and abroad, we need leaders like Tammy Duckworth on Capitol Hill fighting for what is right. That can't happen without people like you and me stepping up and doing what we can to help turn our country around.

Tammy is a woman who embodies the best of American values and knows what she stands for -- the issues that impact our families, and she will fight on their behalf. Today I'm asking you to support her in winning the open seat in Illinois' 6th district.

Support Tammy on her next mission: the US Congress. Contribute to her campaign today!

Tammy is going to fight to make sure that we invest in our nation's future through education, especially higher education. Right now the one-party Congress is trying to cut student aid by $14 billion. We need Tammy in Congress to fight for our values not Washington's misguided priorities.

Tammy is going to fight to ensure that tax cuts go first to those who need them and those who will put the money back into our economy -- not to the big oil and drug companies.

Tammy speaks personally and eloquently about the issue of health care. She is going to fight to give all Americans access to quality, affordable care. Topping her health care agenda is expansion of the highly successful S-Chip program to cover more kids and fighting for fixes to the flawed new Medicare program.

Tammy wants to add her voice to the debate the next time Congress debates whether to send our troops into another battle -- especially, if this Administration embarks on another war based on poor intelligence, without a plan and without proper support for our soldiers.

Tammy will be the kind of member of Congress who can silence those on the far right who continue to brazenly question our party's commitment to national security.

Support Tammy Duckworth's fight in Illinois -- contribute to her campaign today!.

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/donate.html

Tammy is showing the people of Illinois' 6th district that she has the values, the leadership, and the optimism to make them proud of their voice in Congress. Let's not let her fight this mission alone!

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

[Adelante]

1. Support the Troops

Send them to Congress - Yes!

[madrchsod]

2. thanks wes

there`s another canidate just as good as she is....

[Jai4WKC08]

3. Just as good?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know enough about either of them to judge. But apparently Clark thinks he does. Duckworth is obviously "better" in whatever matters to him most. He wouldn't be supporting her if she weren't.

The people of the district will ultimately decide who they think is better. But it's every citizen's right, even duty, to express his or her own opinions and attempt to persuade others.

[pocket]

4. hmmm, against pulling out now

"The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum."

Sounds like Hillary

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html

[Adelante]

6. Her statement in full

First and foremost, I support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are performing heroically and deserve our gratitude and respect. We must jealously husband the use of our warriors. The most important currency that we expend in times of war is not dollars, but rather the lives of our sons and daughters. When the people of the United States allow us to send their loved ones in to harm's way to support the national interest, it is with the understanding that our policy makers will exercise good judgment, and not expend a single life needlessly.

I was proud to respond when my country called, and I have no regrets. But from a policy perspective, invading Iraq was a mistake. We should have focused our military resources instead on pursuing the terrorists who attacked our country and on capturing Osama Bin Laden. Not only did we misdirect our human and financial resources; we squandered an enormous amount of international goodwill that we acquired after 9/11.

The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists.

Moving forward, we need to make it clear to the Iraqi people that we will leave, sooner rather than later. During my time in Iraq, whenever I had a chance, I talked with Iraqis. They told me that they were glad that Saddam Hussein was gone. Nevertheless, I came away from these conversations with the impression that while they often said what they thought we wanted to hear, they resented what they saw as the occupation of their country. We must understand that this resentment, fueled by insurgent propaganda, continues to grow and creates the conditions for insurgency, making U.S. troops and aid workers the targets.

To bring our troops home, we need a much more aggressive plan and timetable than the Bush Administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.

[FrenchieCat]

11. She is one of the Fighting Dems and a member of the IWA Pac

As far as I am concerned, she is sending a strong message to her district, and considering that she is an double amputee, she will have their eyes, and also their ears. That puts her in a good position to win a seat currently occupied by retiring Republican, Rep. Hyde.

I think that she can stick into this administration's eye and win in the process.

Her statement is clear.....
invading Iraq was a mistake. We should have focused our military resources instead on pursuing the terrorists who attacked our country and on capturing Osama Bin Laden. Not only did we misdirect our human and financial resources; we squandered an enormous amount of international goodwill that we acquired after 9/11.

Moving forward, we need to make it clear to the Iraqi people that we will leave, sooner rather than later. During my time in Iraq, whenever I had a chance, I talked with Iraqis. They told me that they were glad that Saddam Hussein was gone. Nevertheless, I came away from these conversations with the impression that while they often said what they thought we wanted to hear, they resented what they saw as the occupation of their country. We must understand that this resentment, fueled by insurgent propaganda, continues to grow and creates the conditions for insurgency, making U.S. troops and aid workers the targets.

Here's the background on the controversy mentioned by some in reference to her primary opponent. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/17/18506/5938

"This is a story that needs to be shouted at every opportunity. Let America see who our veterans prefer. Let America see Republicans attempt to swiftboat our heroes. And whether our vets, several who face primary challengers, make it to the November ballot is irrelevant. Their decision to fight back against those in DC that are getting our men and women killed in unecessary wars speaks legions about which party is really the party of veterans."

[The Magistrate]

18. You Say 'Sounds Like Hillary", Mr. Pocket, Like That Was A Bad Thing....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Doctor_J]

5. I got this too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=150&topic_id=10880&mesg_id=10880

[madfloridian]

7. I hate that he is coming out against Cegelis.

I am very upset with this whole situation playing out there.

[dogman]

8. Is he against Cegelis, or for Duckworth?

I'm for Duckworth, but not against Cegelis. I don't believe the Bushco line, you're with us or against us, applies here. It is a matter of preference more than anything. The really important thing is that we coalesce behind the Primary winner.

[Adelante]

9. He has his candidate

You have yours. That's politics. May the best candidate win.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. But it was certainly expeced.

Look at the people who initiated his entrance into 2004 Presidential primaries and the people backing Duckworth. See any similarities?

[dogman]

33. Some yes, some no.

I don't believe Obama, Durbin, or Schakowsky backed Clark. Emanuel did, I'm not sure about Honda. Many of the Band of brothers backed other candidates.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. By golly, you're right!

People, both activists and regular voters, who value insight on national security, wise foreign policy, and the courage to take it to the Repubs pushed Clark to run in '04.

Looks to me like some of the same people are backing Duckworth. I think maybe I'll join 'em afterall.

[wiley]

10. She's the best!

:patriot:

[RazzleDazzle]

12. Truly tasteless thread title

IMO. Yuck.

[wiley]

13. Have to agree with that

and with Wes Clark's recommendation.

[Hissyspit]

17. Nah, it was me.

Clark's original title was "Her Next Mission."

[Hissyspit]

16. I didn't do it on purpose! I swear!

I was in the middle of a conversation with someone when I posted it and didn't notice the double entendre until I checked back just now! Sorry! :P

That said, I don't agree that it's all that tasteless. Although, she's probably getting tired of those jokes from her close friends, though.

[JWS]

25. As far as tasteless is concerned

Just wait til the repuke attack ads start.

[Hissyspit]

28. Very few things in recent years more offensive from the right than

the attacks on Sen. Max Cleland.

[Kurovski]

14. Just now donated.

I seem to recall Duckworth on a C-Span broadcast about vets in physical rehab. She was very active in supporting others in their recovery. She was very dynamic.

My home state of Illinois will do the right thing.

[FrenchieCat]

15. You are correct! She is very active....even though she herself is still

recovering!

I think for those Congresspeople to see her on a daily basis will remind them of exactly how their votes affect all of us.

Sometimes it takes a real life sample under one's nose to understand the seriousness of one's position and the related power that comes with it.

It is unfortunate that many of them can't feel the pain of others. Maybe they won't be able to close their eyes to Tammy Duckworth! :patriot:

[PassingFair]

19. Win or lose...

My money went to Cegelis.

DFA backed Cegelis.

[dogman]

20. The AFL-CIO of Illinois is backing Duckworth this time.

Cegelis received fewer votes in the District than Kerry in '04. This is a win we need to gain control of the House in '06.

[PassingFair]

21. So what makes Duckworth the better candidate?

Besides the Dccc money, of course....

[FrenchieCat]

22. Because she trumps the Republican "trump" card.....

that's why!

It's about winning.....everything else until we get the house back is bullshit!

If she running for ol' Henry Hyde vacated seat, means that district needs to do some serious thinking while they are in that Voting Booth after 32 years of voting for a Republican like him!

I think that she provides a perfect snapshot of what happens when we end up living the Republican vision for America!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10842489/site/newsweek/
http://www.katu.com/team2/story.asp?ID=75929
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18.html#a6374
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00616F83D540C748DDDAB0994DD404482
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2006/01/10/this-just-in-duckworth-gets-afl-cio-nod/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539763
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html#economy
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/community_issues.html#healthcare

Tammy received her bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Hawaii and her master's degree in International Affairs from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. She was working on a doctorate in political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb when deployed to Iraq. Her research focused on political economies of Southeast Asia and the region's public health systems. She is a published author, with papers and textbook contributions on the link between environmental health hazards and cancer.

Tammy, 37, was born in Thailand and grew up in several countries in Southeast Asia where her father, Franklin Duckworth, worked for the United Nations and international companies. Tammy's mother, Lamai Sompornpairin, was a native of Thailand. Tammy has one brother, Tom. At the age of 16, Tammy and her family moved to Hawaii where she finished high school and attended college. Tammy followed a long family tradition, going back to the Revolutionary War, of serving in the military. Her late father fought as a U.S. Marine in World War II and Vietnam. She joined ROTC in 1990 as a graduate student in Washington, D.C. and was commissioned to the Army Reserve in 1992 in Illinois. She decided to become a helicopter pilot because it was one of the only combat jobs available to women. Tammy holds the rank of Major in the Illinois Army National Guard.
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/my_story.html

[madfloridian]

37. Where did that argument come from? Of COURSE she got fewer than Kerry.

Kerry was running for president, she was running for a district. Who thought up that argument and why is it relevant?

[dogman]

41. It is in her District.

From the same group of voters, Kery received 3% more of the vote than Cegelis. 44% is not in the game.

[madfloridian]

47. Who thought that one up?

It is not persuasive at all.

[dogman]

50. May be not to you.

But any political analyst looks at election returns to determine trends. She was less popular in her District than Kerry, who also lost the District. This District is a GOP stronghold and Cegelis numbers do not show much hope. No one thought this up, it is what it is.

[madfloridian]

61. So you want a military candidate to appeal to the Republicans.

Ok.

[dogman]

63. I want a Democratic candidate that appeals to Democrats, Independents,

and Republicans with a conscience. I want a Democratic majority in the House.

[Kurovski]

24. Hi, PassingFair!

:hi: Remember that Tammy is going for Henry Hyde's old spot. Here is more from Clark's letter:


"Tammy is going to fight to make sure that we invest in our nation's future through education, especially higher education. Right now the one-party Congress is trying to cut student aid by $14 billion. We need Tammy in Congress to fight for our values not Washington's misguided priorities.

Tammy is going to fight to ensure that tax cuts go first to those who need them and those who will put the money back into our economy -- not to the big oil and drug companies.

Tammy speaks personally and eloquently about the issue of health care. She is going to fight to give all Americans access to quality, affordable care. Topping her health care agenda is expansion of the highly successful S-Chip program to cover more kids and fighting for fixes to the flawed new Medicare program.

Tammy wants to add her voice to the debate the next time Congress debates whether to send our troops into another battle -- especially, if this Administration embarks on another war based on poor intelligence, without a plan and without proper support for our soldiers.

Tammy will be the kind of member of Congress who can silence those on the far right who continue to brazenly question our party's commitment to national security"

[madfloridian]

31. How many now running...over 60?

When do we stop and say that just being a vet does not make one capable of being in the Congress.

I fear our Democrats are about as bad as the Republicans in pushing the national security meme.

This is the Third Way philosphy.

When are too many veterans in Congress too many? When other good candidates are pushed out.

I think every one of our Democrats is guilty in this case, including Governor Dean....of pushing the fear thing, the we can keep you safe thing, the we are bigger and meaner than they are thing.

Everyone says may the best person win...then the DCCC, Rahm himself, Durbin, now Clark...are coming out for Duckworth. She gets the publicity. She gets the big money. I believe I read that Rahm had a fundraiser for her at the DCCC...which is one the 2nd floor of the DNC...or am I wrong on that.

How many veterans is too many?

Here is a link which brings up a lot of talking points about both candidates, Cegelis and Duckworth. It points out that the residency issue will be a big one, that Cegelis debt is mostly to herself, and how the party has systematically shoved Cegelis to the side.

I wish for the best in that IL district. It is unfortunate this is happening. I wish Clark had stayed out of the fray on this. DFA has made me angry on this because they are staying out, though Christine was a Dean Dozen originally. But maybe they are right...let IL sort it out. Clark should have stayed out of this.

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2006/01/30/duckworth-hit-on-residency-emanuel/

[dogman]

35. As long as there are wars there will be Veterans.

As long as there are Veterans there will not be "too many'. Why would Clark stay out of this. He is on the Board of Advisors of IAVA PAC.
http://www.iavapac.org/
That is there goal, to elect candidates who have served their Country and demonstrated leadership. It is something that has been sorely missing in this Country. Look at the history of Democratic leaders in the past. There were numerous Veterans who have done a lot of good for the Party and the Country. Look at the current GOP leadership, not many Veterans at all. Veterans have fought to protect this Country from Fascism. It has been primarily the "chickenhawks" who have sold out.

[madfloridian]

36. I am not picking on veterans. I am pointing out excess.

I am so afraid that our party just takes everything to the limits. One Paul Hackett was good...well, let's have 60 of them. That kind of thing.

It is getting to be a little much, this obsession with the military.

Oh, yes, I am patriotic. I do NOT have to be military to support my country. Don't start that stuff on me.

[dogman]

39. Be real.

I have not questioned your patriotism. I don't believe there is an excess. I wish there were 600. The Democratic Party needs more qualified candidates across the board. there are many races in this Country that go unchallenged.

[madfloridian]

44. Being military does not make one qualified. Sorry, it does not.

In many cases they are qualified, just like those in other fields. Some are,some are not.

I think it is excess. I am very real, and I am not the only one who feels it might be too much.

[wndycty]

101. But you are saying being "military" should DISQUALIFY one from office

In post #46 you write: "I do NOT want military in the white house or overly much in congress."

It speaks a lot of your bias, your character. According to your frame of thought one her serves his or her country in the armed services should not be in the White House or Congress. . .LOL, and I'm supposed to take you seriously.

[madfloridian]

182. OMG it speaks of my character not to want military in the white house?

"It speaks a lot of your bias, your character. According to your frame of thought one her serves his or her country in the armed services should not be in the White House or Congress. . .LOL, and I'm supposed to take you seriously."

Sounds like you are calling me a traitor, just like my church did in 03.

[wndycty]

184. Not calling you a traitor. . .your words not mine. . .

. . .but to think that ones serving the country in the armed services, regardless of their ideology, beliefs, values, etc should disqualify them is bigoted, seriously it is. Lets say there is a candidate out there who reflects all of your beliefs yet he or she served in the military, you would not support him or her. Replace military with black, gay, Jewish, etc. and you have bigotry. You might as well own it, its bigotry plain and simple.

[madfloridian]

189. Amazing how you misquote. I said 60 + was overboard....

I did not say any were not qualified.

You can not equate military with black, gay or jewish, good grief!

Bigotry?

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Nobody said you were unpatriotic

That's just silly.

But it's a FACT that Repubs portray our party as unpatriotic. And it's also a fact that a lot of voters, and not just those on the far right, buy their crap.

Veterans, every one of them, have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice something personal for the good of the country. In Duckworth's case, a large part of her sacrifice, but by no means all of it, is clearly visible.

Yes, I would like that every congressman or woman, from any party, to have served in the military. That's a bias of my own. But I do believe that people who have not served do not know what it's really like and are far more likely, and with only few exceptions, to abuse the people who do. The current administration and the Repubs running Congress being the prime examples.

[madfloridian]

46. We are pandering to the Republican talking points.

It worries me, and I am a very good Democrat. I do NOT want military in the white house or overly much in congress.

[dogman]

65. Veterans are not military.

They have served in the military. They have made a sacrifice for this Country. That is the first indication of their commitment and character, of course it is not required or necessary, it's just an indication.

[Jai4WKC08]

66. No, we are attacking a Repub "strength"

Just like they do, successfully, to us.

We're also building a stronger Democratic party. A "full service" party, strong on all issues, and not just the ones that we've always had an advantage on.

You and I both know the Repubs aren't really strong on defense, but they are perceived to be by most voters. Perceptions are more important than reality in politics. We MUST change the perception.

[wndycty]

69. What's next, no Blacks, women, gays, et al.

"I do NOT want military in the white house or overly much in congress."

One's military service should not prevent them for running for president. That is F'ed up logic, I don't believe one must serve in the military to hold office (I have never served), however I think its F'ed up that you are saying you don't want a veteran in the White House. Explain that logic, that is VERY VERY VERY BIGOTED, we might not be talking race, gender, religion or sexual orientation but it is nonetheless BIGOTED. So based on your logic my father, grandfather, uncle and nephew should not be allowed to run for president, not because they are Black but because they served in the military.

And you wonder why the GOP paints us the anti-military party.

That is F'ed up and it says a lot about your character or lack thereof. . .VERY VERY VERY BIGOTED!

[PassingFair]

56. The "sacrifice" thing worked so well for...

Max Cleland.

Swing voters don't give a crap for military service, and
it doesn't impress our grassroots, either.
'Pukes obviously
spit on vets:



Now what was that strategy again?

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Illinois is not Georgia

And 2006 is not 2002.

GA is about as red as they come. I daresay one of the very things that got Max elected in the first place was his status as a "disabled" war vet. When the GOP painted him soft on terror, it pushed enough of the more moderate Repubs who did respect his service over to the other side.

Another factor with Max's defeat was the desire by red-state GA to support the President by giving him a Republican Senate.

[PassingFair]

76. Salute! Sign me up for the militarization of the Democratic Party!

Not.

[Jai4WKC08]

96. People who served in the military

Are not all militarists. Their inclusion does not "militarize" anything. To think otherwise is pure bigotry.

It's the chickenhawk civilians who got us into the Iraq war. I suspect it will be the vets who get us out.

What do you have against Duckworth other than that she's a vet, is backed by other vets (as in the OP), and the DCCC people (as well as Durbin, Obama etc) think she has a better chance of winning?

[FrenchieCat]

97. This train of thought is somewhat immature.....

Considering that the Democratic party is supposed to be a "big" tent....seems like we should welcome Veterans who are inpired of continuing their life of public service within our government, instead of being frightened by them.

Check your history and understand that those who appropriate military spending and call for military wars are and have been, for the most part, civilians (many without military service).

Would you call Dick Cheney a "Militarist"? If not, why not? And if so, why?...considering that he never served. What about Donald Rumsfeld? What about Condi Rice? and Bush?

Your statement is sooooooo unwise, that it ain't even funny----at all! :(

[PassingFair]

99. When we lose the mid-terms because of yet ANOTHER losing

"strategy", come back and lecture me on how "unwise" my observations were.

When John Kerry began his convention speech saying "Reporting for Duty", I knew
we were headed for disaster (even though I WORKED MY ASS OFF to promote him).

We need PLAIN SPEAKING POPULISTS!

Until the party is willing to back them, we will lose, and lose, and lose.

By definition, the MILITARY is part of the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

I don't want the military running the government. Do you?

No? Then why is the party banging drums for military candidates in SO MANY
slots?

[Jai4WKC08]

104. It was a veteran who coined the term

"Military Industrial Complex" and warned against it.

Duckworth is not in the military. If she were elected Supreme Queen of Everywhere Forever, it would not be "the military running the government."

You make assumptions about people based on simple prejudice. You have ignored my question about what else you don't like about her. I suspect you know nothing at all about her positions on the issues.

[FrenchieCat]

105. The lecture appears to be coming from you......

And so I will demand equal Lecturing time--
The military IS part of the government.
They are the part that follow the civilian congress and executive's branches orders. They do not operate in a vaccum, and they do not establish policies.
The policies of civilians is what runs our government, including the military, and it always will.
A Veteran who has served his country IS NOT a second class citizen, and has EVERY RIGHT TO RUN FOR OFFICE--as Much as any damn attorney or corporate
millionaire.
The Military Industrial Complex is ran by CORPORATION OWNED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS.....HAND IN HAND WITH THE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEES OUT OF THE WASHINGTON CONGRESS.

Your stereotypical cliches about the military demonstrate the depth of shallow thinking that continues to keep the Democratic party from being a Full service party. I hope and pray that most don't think so superficially as you do....that we should just typify all Veterans as being the "same" regardless of each of their personal merits and life story. Is that the same way you think of Women and Minorities (as I am both)? That they are all the same too? And if not, why use a blanket over an entire group of people, but not over another.

DU is full of surprises....NOT!



Chavez over in Venenzuela was a General. He seems to be doing OK.

[ISUGRADIA]

139. Apparently you are unable to grasp the idea of a "veteran"

They have military experience. None of the candidates are active service military, more than a few are in the reserves. There is a difference. So to say the military will be running the government is peculiar.

[Jai4WKC08]

93. Self-delete

Posted in the wrong place

[Vadem]

240. My hand itches to slap the bejuzzis(sp?) outta that woman!..n/t

[PassingFair]

55. Hi Kurovski! Long time no see!

Before you start getting whipped up by another war vet (Kerry, anyone?)PLEASE check out these links regarding Christine. Especially the first one and the last one.
I don't live in your district, but I have been following Christine (and donating what I can "chicken-feed"), when I can. This "vet" strategy is easily "swiftboated". Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" gambit failed. I think Christine has the chops for the long-haul. She has a bunch of meet and greets set up (on her site). Please take the time to meet her before you make a choice!

:hi:

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/
http://damnliberals.blogspot.com/2005/12/deans-wrong-i-dont-have-power.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andy_ost_051117_christine_cegelis_go.htm

[dogman]

62. Your last link contains misinformation.

Th writer blames Emanuel and claims Durbin supports Cegelis. Durbin supported Cegelis in "04. According to all accounts, Durbin met Duckworth and was so impressed he asked Emanuel to back her for Congress. Duckworth has also gained the support of the Illinois AFL-CIO and AFSCME which had supported Cegelis in '04. Also Obama who supported Cegelis in '04 is now supporting and contributing to Duckworth. Cegelis showing of 44% was an improvement over prior races, but is hardly enough to pin any hopes on.

[madfloridian]

64. Right, the party leaders picked and backed Duckworth from the start.

They surely did.

Christine showed the party in 04 that the district could be vulnerable, so they showed her the door. But first they helped destroy her funding.

[wndycty]

67. Keep blaming the party leadership. . .

. . .in case you did not notice she dumped her campaign manager last week, 7 weeks before the primary, obviously if her campaign was being run correctly this would not have been necessary. Was it the DNC, Rahm or the DCCC that caused her to have very little cash on hand? Hell the reason they are running Duckworth is a reaction to the problems her campaign has, not the cause of her problems.

[madfloridian]

70. Many candidates dump campaign managers before elections.

Nothing unusual about that.

I commend Kevin for taking the job on....though we have quite often disagreed here.

This was a concerted effort to hurt her donations, and it has been going on for a long time.

[wndycty]

74. You keep talking about the effort to hurt her donations. . .

. . .but you can't explain her expenses that led to less cash on hand than even Lindy Scott. As long as you can blame Rahm you can avoid looking at what is wrong with the Cegelis campaign. Poor management.

[dogman]

68. So they owe it to Cegelis to lose again?

She destroyed her own funding. Her money was not used effectively.

[madfloridian]

71. Ok, put your money where your mouth is....prove what you just said.

I have seen this repeated over and over, but my impression is that she has been campaigning pretty much constantly since 04...and that she only owes herself.

Could you prove it by facts? If you do, I will believe you.

[dogman]

78. At the end of Q4 she has about $180 net.

Read at
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/page/9
Snip>Cegelis poll

Tuesday, Dec 20, 2005
Snip>Just 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in her district knew who Christine Cegelis was. Remember, this is after her high-profile race against Hyde and a strong effort to keep her campaign going in the months since then. Cegelis has burned through a bunch of money in the past year to keep her name out there, but just over a quarter of Democratic primary voters recognized her name in August.
Snip>Just 15 percent had a favorable view of Cegelis, while 5 percent had an unfavorable view. That’s bad news for someone who thinks that her last race will propel her to victory in the next contest.

The poll is flawed because of its small sample size and weighting, but until someone shows me better numbers and explains to me why underperforming the top of the ticket last year was no big deal, I can see why the DCCC decided that Christine Cegelis wasn’t the best Democratic candidate for that district. <snip

[PassingFair]

87. Just 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in her district knew..

who Christine Cegelis was.

Yet 44% of voters in her district voted for her in the last election.

Wouldn't it have made sense for the DCCC to SUPPORT her and give her the type of EXPOSURE and backing, both in the media and dollar-wise, that they are spending on Duckworth?

Duckworth has NO political experience, and had ZERO name recognition (compared to 28%) that Cegelis (from your own admittedly FLAWED stats)has.

WTF?

[dogman]

98. Many voters vote Party, not candidate.

They are not my "admittedly FLAWED stats", they belong to the blogsite, but I agree with his take on the subject. Apparently Durbin felt Duckworth's qualities and persona were a better choice.

[PassingFair]

100. Aparently the DCCC has their own interests

to protect.

[dogman]

103. Yes a Democratic majority.

That is how you get to set the agenda.

[MrBenchley]

214. I've given you the proof you ask for more than once

Here's the updated FEC form for Cegelis year-end....

She took in $227,746.04 during 2005, and pissed away $199,761.82 in the same year, with no election, no primary,. no campaign advertising, and nothing to show for it....

In the fourth quarter she took in $68,160 and SPENT $77,770, before duckworth even announced her candidacy....

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/198383/

[PassingFair]

72. That DCCC has quite the bandwagon.

And they and our DLC members in the house and in the senate represent us SO WELL once they are installed......

Why doesn't the DLC the DCCC, et.al put their considerable influence and money into races where there isn't a viable candidate ALREADY IN PLACE?

We don't NEED more CongressCritters and Senators that are BEHOLDEN to corporate interests. They are betraying the public trust.

I think Cegelis is clean.

[wndycty]

75. Cegelis was not viable

If she beats Duckworth she will be. Analysts (who despite what some say, know or thing or two) had Roskam (the GOP candidate) running away with it when it looked like Cegelis would get the nod. Now that Duckworth is in the race has become competitive.

[dogman]

81. It seems the fact Illinois is a blue state doesn't matter to some.

It is the job of the DCCC to gain a majority. I think Duckworth is clean.
On edit, why did you ignore the fact your link was dirty?

[madfloridian]

84. What link is "dirty"?

I went to all of them, they look fine to me.

[dogman]

86. Read post #62.

That link contains misinformation.

[Kurovski]

92. Thanks, I'll check them out!

I no longer vote in Illinois. (so it's not my district either)

I never was, and still am not a big Kerry man. (he never really made me "frothy" nor did he add quite enough volume to my bowl of cream):-)

But that Howard Dean? Oh, my! :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

102. Oh NO! Vets can be swiftboated!!

Run away, run away.......

:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

23. What an inspiration.

I want to salute this courageous woman.:patriot:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

26. She MUST BE SWIFTBOATED! I'm sure she lost her legs because

of her lack of competence as a helicopter pilot! :sarcasm:

[henslee]

27. And here's a pic of Tammy.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Kick!

[Adelante]

117. Goodness, that's a strong leg you have there, Frenchie

When I last looked at this thread this morning, here it was at post 30. :wow:

[madfloridian]

32. They had a fundraiser for her at the DCCC...sorry, not a good thing.

Here is part of a thread about this issue. Duckworth missed a meet and greet to have a big fundraiser which was moved from a lobbyist hq to the DCCC.

http://michael-in-chicago.mydd.com/story/2006/1/23/22740/4303
"They are raising it as we speak. In fact, they were going to hold tonight's big Duckworth fundraiser at a Washington lobbying firm until the NRCC found out and issued this press release (the fundraiser has been hastily moved to the DCCC's headquarters in the DNC building):
For Immediate Release: Contact: Press Office

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 [phone]

Pelosi, Democrat Leadership Already Reneges on Lobbying Pledge

Democrat leadership will headline candidate fundraiser at lobby firm

WASHINGTON - Fresh off her condemnation of K Street, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is following the lead of her Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and cozying up to lobbyists for campaign contributions. Just one week after signing their proposal to reform lobbying, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts are hosting a campaign fundraiser for Tammy Duckworth at the offices of a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm.

This fundraiser occurs only a week after Democrat grandstanding in the Library of Congress, which included the conspicuous absence of Rep. Steny Hoyer, who has been actively courting K Street behind the scenes to enrich Democrat coffers.

In addition to his on-going K Street outreach, as reported by Roll Call (7/21/03), Rep. Steny Hoyer conducted a meeting at Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) headquarters two months ago to get lobbyists on board for the 2006 elections. (Roll Call, 11/16/05)

"The hypocrisy of the Democrat party is both staggering and insulting," National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti said.
"Minority Leader Pelosi and Democrats have already reneged on their only announced agenda item just days after its unveiling and before they could even introduce legislation."

by Jim in Chicago on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 01:38:44 PM EST
< Parent >
That explains it (none / 0)

I guess this is why she won't be at another district event - tonight's IVI-IPO endorsement session. This is another opportunity for people in the district to get to meet the candidates. Too bad she's showing what is really important to her campaign - money and DC connections - and not the residents of the district.

Support Christine Cegelis for Congress, IL-06
by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 01:45:29 "

[dogman]

38. The DCCC wants a Dem majority? Shocking!

There would be no reason for Tammy to attend the IVI-IPO event. It is an anti-Democratic Party group whose leader had already written an op-ed condemning her for not yielding to his choice.

[madfloridian]

40. It is anti-Democratic? Did I hear you say that?

Being an independent group does not make it anti-democratic.

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/endorsements

Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO)
National Organization for Women
Women’s Campaign Fund
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressive Democrats of Illinois
Schaumburg Area Democratic Organization
Americans for Democratic Action
Democracy for America of Elk Grove Township
Democracy for America Edgewater
Democracy for America Loop

Rahm got a lot of her endorsements to go away by upping the ante everytime on how much she had to raise. But she still has a lot of good people working for her.

I looked up about the group, and they don't look anti-Democratic to me.

[dogman]

43. IVI-IPO is the group mentioned.

They do not support the Democratic Party.

[madfloridian]

45. I went to their website.

It did not look like an anti-Democratic website to me. I checked it out.

[dogman]

48. They do not support the Democratic Party.

They lean Democratic so maybe anti-Democratic was the wrong word word, I should have written non-Democratic. They are a fine organization. But Tammy was not likely to gain anything from a group that was already committed to Cegelis. Of course she attended a meet and greet with the Democratic Party leadership instead.

[madfloridian]

49. NO, it was a fundraiser, a big one....at the DCCC headquarters.

It was going to be held at a DC lobbyist, until the Republicans yelled foil. Then they moved to the 2nd floor of the DNC which is DCCC headquarters.

So much is wrong with that that I can not even count the ways.

[dogman]

53. So you're taking the RNCC word for it?

Yes if the GOP said it, it must be true.:sarcasm:

[wndycty]

54. Keep looking for reasons to hate Duckworth. . .

. . .that way you don't have to take a hard look at the race and the district and realize she is the better candidate. As long as we focus on Rahm, the DCCC and her being encouraged to run by Dem outsiders it keeps the focus away from Tammy's fitness as a candidate. Cegelis just dumped her campaign manager and her FEC filings show she is BLEEDING money, yet there are those who still want to focus on Rahm and the DCCC. Trust me, Rahm cannot damage the Cegelis campaign the way the that the Cegelis campaign has damaged itself.

[madfloridian]

59. See? You did it. Now I hate Duckworth?? That is silly stuff.

And it does not provide a good argument at all.

[wndycty]

51. Edited due to my knee jerk reaction, some background on IVI-IPO

You live in Florida so yo might not know anything about IVI-IPO. It stands for Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organizations. It tends to lean to the left, but it is not a Democratic organization so Dogman's comments were in fact correct.

On edit: I deleted my unnecessary defense of Dogman, based up my knee jerk reaction.

[minvis]

107. I live in Chicago

Your characterization of IVI-IPO as not a Democratic organization is disingenous. I would argue that it is the only "democratic" (smaller case) organization in Chicago and is made up of progressive Democrats and Independents and anyone who cares about clean, good government.

[dogman]

109. It is either Democratic or it isn't.

It is a fine organization but it does not come before the Democratic Party for a Democratic candidate. Tammy had a Democratic Party function that night, why would she put that off for a non-Democratic Party organization? That is the only relevance of the IVI-IPO in this discussion.

[minvis]

112. She also could have sent a representative for her

and still gone to the fundraiser. She did not. Hey, if she wanted to blow them off, fine. But to say the IVI-IPO is an anti-Democratic organization to make an excuse why she didn't deem it worth her while is just sad.

[dogman]

114. I corrected my characterization.

In later posts I said non-Democratic was what I should have written instead of anti-Democratic. It's really not surprising that a brand-new campaign did not make arrangements for a representative, especially following Dick Simpson's op-ed attacking Duckworth.

[minvis]

127. Why?

You're saying no one else in her campaign can go to a function or meeting in the district she's running in on the same day.

[minvis]

110. That's not true

I'd say 99% of the candidates IVI-IPO supports/endorses are Democrats. Now if you want an organization that supports every last Democrat picked by the Democratic Central Committee, County or Ward Committee, then they are not it. But to make a blanket statement that they do not support the Democratic Party is ridiculous.

[dogman]

111. That is what they say.

They support candidates not Parties. They do not take precedence over the Democratic Party for a Democratic candidate.

[minvis]

113. Look at my post #112

She could have sent a representative for her to the IVI-IPO function. She did not.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

57. Don't use the childish term of "learn to read" against me.

I have seen it used here far far too often.

I very much resent it.

I am resentful that our Democrats are knee-jerking over the military, and not using much common sense about it.

[wndycty]

58. Hey if the shoe fits. . .

:kick:

[madfloridian]

60. You guys get really tough, don't you? Way to go.

Way to stand up for your candidate. I posted things that made sense and did not attack.

I am called a Duckworth hater and told I can't read.

[Jai4WKC08]

77. YOU were the one who attacked dogman

On something he didn't say, but turning what he did say into something completely different.

So yeah, learn to read. And grow up while you're at it. Sheesh.

[wndycty]

80. Touche'

LOL, Like many DFA, PDA, Deaniacs etc. If Cegelis loses its NOT HER FAULT. Dean loses and its NOT HIS FAULT. If Dean does not succeed as the chair of the DNC ITS NOT HIS FAULT. They are worst than the White House.

Wes Clark was not our nominee because he got in too late, was too inexperience and made some major misteps. And my saying that does not take away from my loyalty to him. Its a rant but it had to be said.

I see everyone blaming everyone but the Cegelis camp for the problems with her campaign and it just reminds me of 2004. If Cegelis listened to some of these criticisms she might be the front runner.

[madfloridian]

91. This is really getting ugly now. Undeserved. Unwarranted.

I am stunned by the hatred generated here.

There is so much crap from 04 that if that is how you want to play, I can do that as well.

[wndycty]

94. No hatred just honesty. . .

. . .truth to power does not only apply when someone is criticizing the White House, the DLC, DCCC, DSCCC, Rahm Emanuel, et al. It applies everywhere.

[madfloridian]

82. Where? What?

This is getting ridiculous.

I would probably have not even bothered to post in this thread, especially with all the rah rah military stuff going on...it is useless to fight it anyway. Our Democrats are going crazy with this stuff.

But what got my goat was the horrible subject line even demeaning Duckworth...legless vet running? Oh, please.

Ok, you have your military candidates. Go for it.

[FrenchieCat]

89. The only person saying Rah rah is you......

But what is with all of this Rah rah for a 44% loss?

We have a candidate that has a better chance of winning a general election and therefore help retake the house; That's what we have.

[wndycty]

95. But she is not supported by the PDA, she was not a Dean Dozen. . .

. . .and Rahm Emanuel likes her, so she is bad, bad, bad news! :sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

79. You are making no pragmatic political sense at all......

because the point is to win....

44% is not a win.

The District is OBVIOUSLY a Republican District...considering that Henry Hyde has been in Congress for 32 FUCKING YEARS (doh).

It ain't personal....this is about retaking congress in 2006....

In reference to Veterans running, the number 60 you speak of includes ALL Democratic Veterans running....from all wars.

If you didn't notice, Duckworth is qualified and very highly educated. Plus, she's also an ethnic minority, a woman, disabled, as well as being a Veteran.

Being Progressive and Being a Veteran is not mutually exclusive. And if that is what you think, it appears that you are the one playing into the Republican hands.

[madfloridian]

83. I concede.

I conceded. I have again been accused hating Duckworth...which is silly stuff. I have again been accused of not being able to read..which is stupid.

I have again been accused of not wanting the party to win.

GO, rah rah...how many more military in congress.

[FrenchieCat]

85. So little insight....so little time!

You are such a victim....being attacked on every front!
Poor Thing! :sarcasm: :eyes:

If I follow your beliefs--
Democratic Veterans, Bad.
DCCC, Bad.
Female Minority Double Amputee from latest war running for Congress in a Republican district (for 32 years), Bad.

candidate who lost by 44% the last time - PRICELESS!

What-e-ver!

[madfloridian]

88. You should be ashamed for saying that.

I don't even have words.

The military stuff is overboard.

[FrenchieCat]

90. I should be ashamed of wanting to Win?

Or that there are plenty of Democrats that volunteer in our Armed Forces and want to continue in public service?

Or that I dared called you a victim......as you continue to whine?

[WildEyedLiberal]

106. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous

The ONLY reason you support Cegelis over Duckworth is because Cegelis is a DFA candidate and Duckworth is not. The worst you can come up with about Duckworth is that she went to a DCCC fundraiser and she's a veteran. What happened to all your threads you've posted recently in support of Democrats and the Democratic agenda and how we all need to unite against factional, divisive fringe elements who seek to divide us? I have agreed with those threads, and I applauded you for making that point. But here in this thread, you need to take your own advice and stop attacking Duckworth because she's running against a DFA darling. It only cheapens your other admirable calls for party unity.

Why does it alarm you that she's a veteran? That's pretty insulting to everyone who has ever served in the armed forces, and it's just cannon fodder for the "Democrats are weak and hate military service and patriotism" meme, whether that's how you intended it to sound or not. You can't make broad-brush condemnations of veterans and then not expect people to assume that you're anti-military. I mean, be realistic and read your posts, and admit that it's very easy to come to that conclusion.

The sixth district is relatively conservative and Duckworth would be much more likely to win. That said, if the Democratic voters there want Cegelis, they'll pick Cegelis. If you want to support her campaign and send her money, please feel free to do so. But you need to be more consistent if you want everyone to take your unity threads seriously. This flamewar, which lets be honest, wasn't a flamewar until you started in on the "veteran candidates are bad for the party" theme, is divisive, not unifying. Not everyone has to support DFA candidates to be a Democrat or support Democratic unity.

[wndycty]

108. Well said

:kick:

[minvis]

115. How do you know??

Your first sentence - The ONLY reason you support Cegelis over Duckworth is because Cegelis is a DFA candidate and Duckworth is not. Isn't that a little presumptuous of you to assume that is the only reason Mad Floridian or anyone supporting Cegelis is backing her. That's ridiculous!!

I've read through all the threads and I have not seen anyone attacking Duckworth personally and Mad Floridian never said "veteran candidates are bad for the party" in any of the threads. What was said is that being a candidate that is a veteran in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to support someone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

126. It's not at all presumptuous of me

Why else would someone from Florida give a rat's ass about an Illinois congressional race when there are 435 other congressional races going on, 30 or so of which are in her own state? Someone, mind you, with a DFA avatar and who has brought up DFA numerous times in this thread already?

It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, sorry.

[minvis]

130. It is

when you say it is the "ONLY" reason. Did anyone say the "only" reason you are supporting Duckworth is because she is a veteran? So, why say that about someone supporting Cegelis. That's my only point.

[WildEyedLiberal]

131. I could care less about Duckworth vs. Cegelis

They're both Dems, I hope one of them wins. I don't live in the sixth district.

And you're being deliberately obtuse. You know good and well the only reason anyone gives a wet fart about a random Illinois congressional race is because one was a DFA Dozen last time around and she's being challenged by a vet. There's really no basis for anyone outside of the sixth to have an opinion about this race unless they've been influenced to support one or the other (DFA/Cegelis, WesPac/Duckworth).

[minvis]

133. I care about this race

1) because I live in Illinois in the district right next to the 6th and 2)because I want to win a seat back from the Republicans and she has much of the same views I have on the issues.

I also care about the Rodriguez/Cuellar primary in Texas because I'd like to see a Democrat that votes with the Democratic caucus instead of Bush and the Republicans win.

[WildEyedLiberal]

140. Okay, that's great

You have two Dem candidates to choose from. You should donate to one of them. My point is, there are Democrats trying to get elected in 435 districts across the country - why single one out? You, at least, have some familiarity with the district and its politics. You should support Cegelis if that is who you prefer.

[minvis]

145. Actually there are not Democrats trying to get elected in 435 districts

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/234343/55

This lists 76 Republicans running unopposed at this time.

And this doesn't even include races where the Democrat running doesn't even have a chance of winning.

[WildEyedLiberal]

153. Egh

That's what gerrymandering does. That's why we need to work to be competitive in every district. I live in the 15th district, and the Dem, David Gill, lost 35% to 65%. He's running again, for which I have mixed feelings. I don't think he was a very strong candidate to begin with - he's quite left wing for this district, and I don't think he's prepared to take his candidacy into the rural areas. He campaigned almost exclusively in Champaign County last go-around, and he needs to realize that he needs more than the Champaign-Urbana lefties to help him win. I never, ever heard of him traveling to my home county or any other rural towns in the district, and without a base of support there, he will lose. People are just going to vote for the incumbent, who is a moderate, inoffensive Republican, unless they are given a reason to vote for the challenger. David Gill may agree with me issue-wise, but unless he is willing to prove to the rural voters of the 15th that he is the right guy to support them, he is a bad candidate.

I can't make a comparison to Cegelis because I don't know the political atmosphere of the sixth district or how well she campaigned. We just need all the Dem turnovers we can if we're going to take back the House.

[madfloridian]

116. If I speak what I think, you guys attack DFA and Dean.

Amazing. I am me. Good tactic. Should work quite well.

[Adelante]

119. Did you say DFA is not backing Cegelis?

How come? Unless I misunderstood you upthread.

[madfloridian]

121. The local groups are.

Right now national is only supporting state candidates and local.

[Adelante]

124. Thanks nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. If you have to resort to making up crap, then you've already lost

I did not ONCE attack Dean. Not once. The truth is, you only care about Illinois' sixth district so much - out of the 435 Congressional districts there are - because Cegelis is a DFA candidate. That's the only reason. I said you can back her if you choose. It makes no difference to me who you support.

Why are you so vehemently opposed to Duckworth, then, if it's not about Cegelis being DFA? Why come into every single thread about Duckworth and start the same arguments?

[madfloridian]

128. You just did, you really did.

It is just awful what this thread turned into.

Boy, I sure incurred wrath for saying we were going overboard.

Well, guess what...I will say it again.

And you go right ahead...I now have 3 groups on my butt just for saying what I think. Thought this was America.

[WildEyedLiberal]

129. What on earth are you talking about?

Please make a cogent point. Also, I edited my above post. Please read it again. The first one was too snippy.

[madfloridian]

132. This statement, uncalled for.....

Your quote:"But here in this thread, you need to take your own advice and stop attacking Duckworth because she's running against a DFA darling. It only cheapens your other admirable calls for party unity. "

I did not attack her. That is cheap talk. I did not criticize her. I think Rahm overstepped, and the others went along because Rahm so far is the money boss.

It has nothing to do with DFA....it is about my own personal feelings.

I support the party, but this is getting embarrassing. The subject line is way out of order....otherwise I would not have paid attention. The subject line cheapens it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

141. You did criticize her for going to a DCCC fundraiser

And you indirectly criticized her when you commented that you don't want so many vets to run. What is the point of your comments if not to cast aspersions at Duckworth for her decision to run against Cegelis in the primary? And why bring up Cegelis and the DFA if it had nothing to do with it?

I don't really understand what you expect out of threads like this. You post an opinion but you get angry and upset if someone responds to you with an opposing opinion. DU is a discussion and debate forum, and if your "own personal feelings" are not up for debate, then you should not make them public on a debate forum.

Yes, the subject line is tacky, I agree. But I still don't see what that has to do with the general tone of your responses in this thread. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

151. Don't use simplistic thinking on me.

You do it all the time. It does not work.

[WildEyedLiberal]

154. Stop posting non sequitors

What the fuck are you talking about? What simplistic thinking? Elucidate your point or don't respond at all. Your little one liners mean absolutely nothing.

[madfloridian]

160. Please do me a favor.

Don't ever agree with me again. I will do the same.

[WildEyedLiberal]

166. I will agree with you whenever you make a good point

Sorry to spoil your pity-party. :eyes: You do make some good points. Is it just that you have decided you hate me so you don't want me to reply to you ever again? You're a poster on a message board. I don't know who you are, nor do I care. This is a political discussion board and sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. When I agree, I will say so. When I disagree, I will say so.

If that's a problem, you should rethink your willingness to post in a discussion forum, where issues and discussed and opinions exchanged that just may disagree with yours.

[madfloridian]

187. If that is how you feel, then I guess nothing I do will matter.

.

[derby378]

118. Unfortunately, Tammy will be painted as a gun-grabber

She apparently supported the now-defunct ban on semi-automatics:

http://suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet18.html

We're gonna have to work on that...

[MrBenchley]

147. But only by the lunatic fringe....

Roughly 80% of the country supported that ban, too, quite sensibly.

[derby378]

157. Ever hear of "manufactured consent?"

That's where they got that 80% - they manufactured it by scaring Dems out of their wits.

God, I love Noam Chomsky...

[MrBenchley]

170. I've heard of "gun nut hysteria"

which is whipped up by scummy right wing loonies like Larry Pratt and Wayne La Pierre....

There's no earthly reason to have assault weapons on the market. It doesn't take any sinister cabal to make Americans aware of that.

By the way, chomsky's as crazy as a shithouse rat, and in bed with the Holocaust denial crowd. Such a NICE role model....

[benEzra]

204. Yeah, black plastic stocks are SOOOO dangerous to public safety...

brown wood is just so much friendlier.

You'd have more of a case if "assault weapon" wasn't defined as "any civilian self-loading rifle or shotgun with a protruding handgrip."

How many of that 80% think the "assault weapon" issue had something to do with banning military AK-47's and Uzi's?

I'll bet one could get 80% of the public to support banning "infanticide" also. Then introduce a bill defining "infanticide" as any abortion after the sixth week. "But 80% of the public supports banning infanticide!!" Yes they do, but they don't realize what your little bill actually covers...

[MrBenchley]

205. Jeeze, ben....

If all the assault weapons ban covers is the color of the gun stock, don't you look SILLY crying that you're being oppressed by it? Btu of course, both you and I know what a pantload your argument is.

"How many of that 80% think the "assault weapon" issue had something to do with banning military AK-47's and Uzi's?"
About the same number who know that the reason gun loonies cream their jeans over assault weapons is because they can convert them to full-auto pretty easily. But then, here's the proposed assault weapon ban S.645. Want to tell us what two guns are included in the list?

By the way, you'd think from your silly "infanticide" argument that it was the sensible liberals who stand for public safety who were anti-choice. Tell us, how do the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress stand on the issue? (Answer, they're full our "ban abortion now" loonies also.)

[benEzra]

206. Red herring, of course...

since military AK-47's and Uzi's are already banned by the very strict provisions of the National Firearms Act, which has been on the books for, oh, 71 years now. And under the NFA, the BATFE already classifies any gun capable of being easily converted to automatic fire to BE a machinegun.

The "assault weapons ban," on the other hand, outlaws non-automatic civilian rifles with the stock shaped in a modern-looking way.



Ruger Mini Thirty with brown wooden stock: short-range deer rifle.

Ruger Mini Thirty with black plastic stock with protruding handgrip: deadly baby-killing assault weapon.


Fearmongering, pure and simple. As shown by the difficulty in even stating your case without resorting to vicious personal attacks...


You're too late, though. We already own them...and enough Dems and indies are pushing the hate-filled rhetoric aside and studying the issue that the bait-and-switch is no longer sustainable. And demographics are working against the aesthetics nazis who want to mandate that all civilian guns be traditional looking...Winchester is going out of business as hunting fades out, and we Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers are gravitating to lower-powered but cooler-looking rifles like AR-15's and HK's and civvie AK lookalikes for recreational target shooting and defensive purposes. Guess Karl Rove will have to come up with some other bait-and-switch to divide nonurban Dems and indies from the rest of the party, because the "assault weapon" switcheroo is dying.

Sputter about it all you want, call us names all you want, hate us all you want, but WE OWN THEM and you can't take them. :P

Have a nice day. I will. Maybe my wife and I will go to the range this weekend, too, and enjoy the freedom to live by our own choices.

Later,

bE

[MrBenchley]

207. What about this gun nut hooey isn't red herrings and horseshit?

"AK-47's and Uzi's are already banned"
Funny, the shitheads at gunsamerica.com have them for sale. Six pages of AK-47s and two pages of Uzis....(about 50 to a page, too)....

Floridagunworks.com sells both Uzis and AK-47s as well as Uzi and AK 47 parts kits....

So does atlanticfirearms.com....

And impactguns.com ADVERTISES that its Ruger mini-30 is an assault rifle.

"You're too late, though. We already own them..."
Then there's no reason not to pass a ban, is there? (Snicker) Some people are quite happy to put their crappy hobby ahead of public safety.

"enough Dems and indies are pushing the hate-filled rhetoric aside"
Are they? Funny, every gun owner forum on the web is chock-full of nothing but hate-filled rhetoric and freeper ignorance.

By the way, Karl Rove is pro-gun lobby all the way. so is the Chimp, Cheney, AshKKKroft, Frist, Delay and the rest fo that rotten crew. But then the RKBA movement has such NICE playmates.

[benEzra]

208. The bait-and-switch rears its head again...

AK-47's and Uzi's are already banned"
Funny, the shitheads at gunsamerica.com have them for sale. Six pages of AK-47s and two pages of Uzis....(about 50 to a page, too)....

The bait-and-switch rears its head again...military AK-47's are automatic weapons. Civilian AK-47 lookalikes are NOT, and are internally quite different in the trigger group and receiver. To my knowledge, no civilian AK lookalike is actually called an "AK-47" except informally. My own "AK" is a Romanian SAR-1; it's not an AK-47, but it looks remarkably like an AKM (the later version of the AK-47, with the stamped steel receiver).

Military AK-47 (automatic weapon) = tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934; restricted to military, law enforcement, and a few wealthy civilians who can pass the equivalent of a Secret-level government security clearance.

Civilian AK-47 lookalike (NOT an automatic weapon) = works just like any other civilian self-loading rifle, so the law treats it just like any other civilian self-loading rifle.

Floridagunworks.com sells both Uzis and AK-47s as well as Uzi and AK 47 parts kits....

So does atlanticfirearms.com....

"Parts kits" aren't guns; they are parts kits. Barrels, stocks, gas pistons, and so on, taken from military guns that have had the receiver (frame of the firearm) destroyed in accordance with strict BATFE specifications.

A company can build a CIVILIAN receiver (main body of the gun), completely incapable of automatic fire, and use the barrel and stock of a real AK (parts kit) to finish it--just the thing if you want to own a very authentic looking civvie AK variant. The manufacturer does have to use a U.S. made civilian trigger troup, and usually a U.S.-made gas piston or other parts, to stay under the parts count rule of Title 18, section 922, paragraph R of the U.S. Code. The result isn't an AK-47, it's a civvie AK lookalike that works just like a low-powered hunting rifle.

ACTUAL AK-47'S ARE ALREADY BANNED BY THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, AS ARE ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND AUTOMATIC WEAPON CONVERSION PARTS, as you and the rest of the gun prohibitionist lobby well know.

Same for Uzi's and civilian Uzi lookalikes. An Uzi (a real one) is a submachinegun that fires from an open bolt. A civilian Uzi lookalike is a similar-looking gun with completely different innards, that fires from a closed bolt--an ordinary 9mm semiautomatic pistol, like the ones police carry, in the skin of an Uzi.

And impactguns.com ADVERTISES that its Ruger mini-30 is an assault rifle.

What was it that P.T. Barnum said about a sucker being born every minute?

Ruger Mini Thirty, short-range deer rifle:


An "assault rifle," by definition, is a selective-fire rifle chambered for a reduced-power rifle cartridge, capable of single shot or automatic fire at the flick of a switch. Anyone who knows beans about Federal firearms law knows that all selective-fire rifles, and the parts to convert any rifle to selective-fire, are restricted by the National Firearms Act.

"You're too late, though. We already own them..."
Then there's no reason not to pass a ban, is there? (Snicker) Some people are quite happy to put their crappy hobby ahead of public safety.

No, you're too late. Thanks in part to the 1994 AWB, protruding handgrips on rifles and shotguns are mainstream now. Even "old fogies" are gravitating toward ergonomic styling. (Did you know that Benelli now makes hunting shotguns with ergonomic handgrips?) The "modern looking is eee-villll" mentality is going the way of Raphus cucullatus. The gun prohibitionists tried to cash in while they could, but ironically in so doing, they made modern-looking mainstream.

"enough Dems and indies are pushing the hate-filled rhetoric aside"
Are they? Funny, every gun owner forum on the web is chock-full of nothing but hate-filled rhetoric and freeper ignorance.

By the way, Karl Rove is pro-gun lobby all the way. so is the Chimp, Cheney, AshKKKroft, Frist, Delay and the rest fo that rotten crew. But then the RKBA movement has such NICE playmates.

So you're saying that any Democrat or independent who owns a rifle with a protruding handgrip, or who supports the right to do so, is no better than a freeper or a repub. Nice.
FWIW, I think it's pretty clear in this exchange which side the hate is coming from.

Enjoy your choices. I'll enjoy mine. Live and let live, and all that...

[MrBenchley]

209. So when you said AK-47s and Uzis, you didn't mean AK-47s and Uzis...hokay

"military AK-47's are automatic weapons. Civilian AK-47 lookalikes are NOT"
But can be converted pretty easily...thanks to the scumbags in the gun industry...

"Parts kits" aren't guns; they are parts kits."
No shit, sherlock.

"What was it that P.T. Barnum said about a sucker being born every minute?"
He could have been talkling about the gun loonies, who swallow every lie the NRA puts out.

"The "modern looking is eee-villll" mentality"
Who but the sort of thug opposed to gun control EVER says anything as stupid as that?

"I think it's pretty clear in this exchange which side the hate is coming from."
Yeah, those assault weapon loons are regular love monkeys......all rightaroonie...

"Enjoy your choices. I'll enjoy mine."
Fine. I'm happy to stand with Tammy Duckworth...and you can snuggle up to folks like this....

[benEzra]

210. Real ones vs. fake ones...

So when you said AK-47s and Uzis, you didn't mean AK-47s and Uzis...hokay

I said military AK-47's. Real ones. Not fake ones that work just like civilian hunting rifles or the 9mm pistol your local police officer wears on her hip.

"military AK-47's are automatic weapons. Civilian AK-47 lookalikes are NOT"
But can be converted pretty easily...thanks to the scumbags in the gun industry...

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms says they are NOT more easily converted than any other civilian self-loader. If they WERE easily converted, they'd be illegal under current law.

"What was it that P.T. Barnum said about a sucker being born every minute?"
He could have been talkling about the gun loonies, who swallow every lie the NRA puts out.

So, you think the characterization of a Ruger Mini Thirty as a hunting rifle is false, and the characterization of it as a selective-fire military rifle is true? Interesting glasses you're wearing, there.

True or false: The California AWB and S.1431/H.R.2038 banned all civilian self-loading, detachable-magazine firearms having a protruding handgrip.

True or false?

"The "modern looking is eee-villll" mentality"
Who but the sort of thug opposed to gun control EVER says anything as stupid as that?

IMHO, that's much less stupid than the position that a civilian rifle should be banned based on how the STOCK is shaped...

"I think it's pretty clear in this exchange which side the hate is coming from."
Yeah, those assault weapon loons are regular love monkeys......all rightaroonie...

I am...my wife is...

How many times have I called you sexually deviant, "loony", or compared you to the KKK for disagreeing with me on the gun issue? None? Hmmm, whaddya know...

"Enjoy your choices. I'll enjoy mine."
Fine. I'm happy to stand with Tammy Duckworth...and you can snuggle up to folks like this....

No thanks...but you and Feinstein seem determined to keep getting people like him elected...

You do realize that if Dems weren't trying to ban people's guns, then campaigns would have to be decided on OTHER issues, right? Issues that you SAY are more important...

[MrBenchley]

211. So you want to pretend reality isn't real....HOkay

Speaking of a sucker born every minute....guess this guy has gun loonies in mind:

"Every effort has been made to make this conversion as easy as possible"

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/aku94/akumanual1.html


"you think the characterization of a Ruger Mini Thirty as a hunting rifle is false"
I don't give a rats ass.....what I SAID was that even the pinheads peddling them to paranoids and criminals refer to them as assault rifles. Which they do.

"No thanks...but you and Feinstein seem determined to keep getting people like him elected..."
That IS rich...yes, clearly the only way to defeat a corrupt turd like Tom Delay is to snuggle right up to him and repeat the demented ravings of the loonies backing him. </sarcasm>

By the way, let's see some of that love monkey rhetoric from the peaceful folks who cream their pants over assault weapons....just to see what sort of folks are wailing that they want and need assault weapons. Clearly those are the voters we want to reach....NOT.

http://www.ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=137&t=425861

http://www.ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=137&t=423447

Such NICE playmates....

[benEzra]

212. Maybe you should read your own links before trying to make points w/them

Speaking of a sucker born every minute....guess this guy has gun loonies in mind:

"Every effort has been made to make this conversion as easy as possible"

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/aku94/akumanual1.html

Perhaps you should read your own links before trying to make points with them.

That's a stock and grip set. The "conversion" is a conversion from a standard AK type stock to what is known as a "bullpup" configuration, in which the receiver is inside the buttstock instead of in front of it. These were a fad a couple of decades ago, but they're not all that practical.

Here's one for a .22 caliber squirrel rifle. Left, rifle in standard configuration; right, the same rifle in bullpup configuration. Same rifle, same capacity, same rate of fire, different look.



Might want to check your links a little more closely before assuming that "conversion" means "illegal conversion to a machine gun." The "AKU-94" stock and grip set has absolutely nothing to do with converting a civilian non-automatic AK-47 lookalike into an NFA-restricted automatic weapon.

FWIW, bullpups were something of a fad a couple decades ago, but they aren't nearly as popular anymore. You can still buy the stock sets, though.

"you think the characterization of a Ruger Mini Thirty as a hunting rifle is false"
I don't give a rats ass.....what I SAID was that even the pinheads peddling them to paranoids and criminals refer to them as assault rifles. Which they do.

Might want to read the link I posted on that one. From the manufacturer:

"Ruger Mini Thirty Centerfire Autoloading rifles are proven performers for deer-sized game at short to medium ranges."
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5806&return=Y

"Chambered for the widely accepted 7.62 x 39mm cartridge, the Mini Thirty has proven itself the ideal autoloader for deer-size game at medium ranges. It features side ejection, patented recoil buffer (that help protect a scope), integral scope mounts and includes 1” Ruger medium-height scope rings at no extra cost. The Mini Thirty features stainless steel components and a checkered synthetic stock with a rubber recoil pad."



It's a deer rifle. Magazine capacity of five (5) rounds. Only half the muzzle energy of Grandpa's .30-06, which is why it's forte is deer hunting at ranges under 125 yards.

Look what I found--a web site selling a "1995 Honda Civic Race Car": http://www.my105.com/classified.asp?id=5033

My GOSH, who KNEW that 1995 Civics with tiny 4-cylinder engines were actually RACE CARS that outrun police and run down children. And only $10,000, you could buy it and run the Indy 500 with it, and make MILLIONS!!!!

You don't think that putting a rear wing, wide tires, and levitation lights on a '95 Civic make it a 200-mph race car, do you?

"No thanks...but you and Feinstein seem determined to keep getting people like him elected..."
That IS rich...yes, clearly the only way to defeat a corrupt turd like Tom Delay is to snuggle right up to him and repeat the demented ravings of the loonies backing him. </sarcasm>

Well, we see how well your ban-nonhunting-guns-and-demonize-nonhunters strategy worked for Tom Foley, Bob Dole, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Kerry/Edwards (Edwards lost his own home state...), Erskine Bowles (lost to a no-name repub in the NC Senate race largely on the gun issue), the dems who USED to control the WV state legislature, etc. In fact, we see how well that strategy has worked for nonurban Dems since the early 1990s, and how it's allowed the party to sweep the South and West and capture the Senate, the House, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, wait...

By the way, let's see some of that love monkey rhetoric from the peaceful folks who cream their pants over assault weapons....just to see what sort of folks are wailing that they want and need assault weapons. Clearly those are the voters we want to reach....NOT.

Some freepers own guns, too? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

You know what? Freepers with guns probably won't vote Dem. Neither will freepers who hate guns.

You know what voters you need to worry about? DEMS AND INDIES, LIKE ME, WHO OWN GUNS. Gun owners won't necessarily vote for a candidate just because she/he opposes slamming gun owners with more draconian restrictions, true. But they/we often do vote against someone who promises to take away our rights.

"Get the hell out of my party, gun-loving scum" appears to be the message that you wish to convey to we Dems and indies who own guns. But it's hardly the message that you should be conveying...

I fully understand that you (and Bill Bennett) can't stand the fact that a couple of my rifles have handgrips that stick out, and that my wife's handgun holds 15 rounds instead of 10. I understand that. I might also own some books that you and Bill would find objectionable, or some video games, or some movies. You know why? Because you and I are not clones of each other. You might own or use some things that I wouldn't own or use--I don't drink, for example, because my wife is the daughter of a former alcoholic. We're adults; deal with it. Viva la difference, and all that. I won't lobby the State for them to force my preferences, whims, and beliefs on you at gunpoint; please return the favor.

[MrBenchley]

213. Again, you want to pretend reality isn't real....

Do it without me.
"This is true full-auto! This is NOT a slam-fire conversion. This is NOT a crank. This is NOT a triburst. This is NOT a Tac-Trigger. This is NOT a Hell-fire/Hell-storm 2000; This is NOT a static-fire gimmick. None of these are full-auto conversions. THIS IS. This is the ONLY way to convert a semi-auto AK style weapon into a machinegun without permanently drilling & machining the receiver and installing full-auto parts.
Detailed instruction booklet shows step-by-step instructions (with illustrations) to easily assemble secondary trigger system with common household tools."

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/autowerks.html






"You know what voters you need to worry about? DEMS AND INDIES, LIKE ME, WHO OWN GUNS."
Why? If there are any, they're either scarcer than hens' teeth or no fucking use to anyone whatsoever.

[benEzra]

215. EASY TO CONVERT FIREARMS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL

as they are classified as restricted NFA Title 2/Class III weapons by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms even if not converted, under the National Firearms Act of 1934. That's why there are ZERO (none, zilch, nada) semiautomatic firearms on the market that fire from an open bolt, because they are easily converted to automatic fire.

A skilled machinist with a machine shop, blueprints, and a few hours of time on their hands can convert pretty much any self-loader to an automatic weapon. The same machinist could make a submachinegun from scratch.

I believe the BATFE standard for "easily converted" is a moderately skilled machinist, a machine shop, and 8 hours. And that applies to ALL firearms. Any drop-in "kits" that allow someone to shortcut that process are themselves banned under the NFA, and it's generally recognized that if you ever see one for sale by other than a Federally licensed Title 2/Class III dealer, it's a BATFE sting.




If the AWB had a darn thing to do with ease of conversion, SHOW ME IN THE LAW where that was a criterion. Guess what, it wasn't.

[MrBenchley]

216. In other words, there's no reason to have assault weapons offered for sale

and this crap about them not being able to be converted was the usual dose of "gun rights" rubbish.

[benEzra]

217. The mother of all non sequiturs...

Guns with protruding handgrips, or guns that cosmetically resemble AK-47's and M16's, are NOT easier to convert than any other CIVILIAN rifle. the criteria for difficulty of conversion are set by the Federal BATFE, and ALL civilian firearms (including the ones you want to ban) are built to meet that standard. ALL of them. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler than that without resorting to sock puppets. Again, if ease of conversion were even a factor in the AWB, SHOW ME IN THE LAW. But you can't.


Easy-to-convert weapons are already banned by the NFA. Guns NOT easy to convert are civilian-legal. And the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch had nothing (zero, zilch, nada) to do with either. The "ease of conversion" BS is a red herring to take attention away from what you actually want to do, which is to ban all civilian self-loading rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips, all civilian guns that *LOOK* like military rifles, and all civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds.

[MrBenchley]

218. There's no reason to let assault weapons be sold

Which is why only the scummiest right wing loons in the GOP are for it...and even THEY have to lie to the public and hide behind procedural bullshit.

[benEzra]

219. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTRUDING HANDGRIPS...

you want to ban civilian guns based on how the STOCK is shaped, or whether or not the gun LOOKS like a military gun. With no rational basis other than "there's no reason for long guns with protruding handgrips to be sold."


Of course, you probably don't see a reason for self-loading guns WITHOUT protruding handgrips to be sold, either. Or defensive handguns, or precision rifles, or...anything else on the neoprohibitionist agenda.


Most Americans who own guns own nonhunting-style guns, and as hunting fades out, so will straight wooden stocks made of burnished walnut. Black plastic and ergonomic grips are the future; get over it.



Do you feel the same way about cars? "There's no reason to let Honda Civics with wings and 20" wheels be sold which is why only the scummiest right wing loons in the GOP are for it...and even THEY have to lie to the public and hide behind procedural bullshit." Sounds irrational, yes? Ir is the only purpose of a rear spoiler to make a car a "race car" that can outrun police and run down children. What kind of car do you drive?


BTW, I like Tammy Duckworth. I think she's a great candidate. But I think any energy spent fighting to ban rifles with protruding handgrips, when rifles of ANY appearance are rarely used in crimes, is tilting at windmills...and counterproductive to boot.

The ONLY long gun in the BATFE Top Ten trace list is the 12-gauge hunting shotgun (which can be "converted" to a concealable sawed-off shotgun by any idiot with a hacksaw). The #1 rifle in the trace list is the ubiquitous .22 caliber squirrel rifle...the #1 weapon used to murder police officers is the .38/.357 revolver, which also happens to be the #1 weapon used in all violent crimes...



I am very encouraged to see that her website no longer mentions any support for your precious bait-and-switch...just issues that she, and most everyone else, consider more important...

[MrBenchley]

220. No, I'm talking about assault weapons

"anything else on the neoprohibitionist agenda"
Good thing you've got people like Tom Delay, Bill Frist and Jeb Bush fighting that agenda.

"Do you feel the same way about cars?"
Why would anyone, unless they were obsessed about guns the way Dickens' Mr. Dick was obsessed about King Charles' head?

[benEzra]

221. Define "assault weapon" then... (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

222. Been there, done that....

Even pointed you to the Senate bill by number.

[benEzra]

223. Yup. Like I said, all civilian self-loaders with protruding handgrips...

Been there, done that. Even pointed you to the Senate bill by number.

Ah, so I am correct. Like I said, all civilian self-loaders with protruding handgrips. Plus all civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds, and a traditional-looking small-caliber hunting gun that the prohibitionists are apparently tired of having brought up in pro-gun debates:



I guess the prohibitionists got tired of gunnies pointing out that the AR-15 is functionally no different than the traditional-looking hunting guns they promised they'd never ban, like the mini-14. So they decided to ban them, too...



OK, let's look at your little bill, S.645. The "name list" is window-dressing, just as it was on the original AWB, a list of names under which civilian guns can't be marketed. Most of the names cover guns that are already restricted Title 2 guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (e.g., there's no such thing as a civilian-legal AKM). Looks like the mini-14 is the only gun that the name list would ban (and they didn't ban the Mini Thirty--same gun, bigger caliber--guess they'll get that one next time).



Look past the Scary Name List red herring. The real meat of the proposed ban is in paragraphs (D) through (H):

(D) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE RIFLES- A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E) FIXED MAGAZINE RIFLES- A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE PISTOLS- A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) FIXED MAGAZINE PISTOLS- A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS- A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

Paragraph (D) bans all civilian detachable-magazine self-loading rifles having a protruding handgrip. All of them. As I said. As well as all self-loading hunting rifles with screw-on muzzle brakes.


Paragraph (F) bans competition-style European .22LR target pistols, since the magazine attaches forward of the trigger guard. Obviously an attempt to stop all those mass shootings at the Olympics.



Paragraph (H) bans all self-loading hunting shotguns or defensive shotguns that have a protruding handgrip. All of them. As well as all shotguns with detachable magazines, regardless of appearance.



Thanks for nicely proving my point. A bunch of very popular cosmetic features that the gun prohibitionists don't like, because they make guns look too "modern" for their taste.



Oh, and then there's paragraph (G)--which bans all over-10-round defensive handguns, like the one your local police officer carries on her hip. Gotta get rid of those large, hard-to-conceal home-defense pistols, and push people toward more concealable guns sized to fit the little 10-round magazines. Looks like someone wants to increase the popularity of the Glock 26/27, Kahrs, and single-stack S&W's...just like they did in the '90's...



So, back to square one. You wish to ban civilian rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips, and all civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds. I say that's not only irrational, but political suicide anywhere but in a handful of gun-phobic states. Sheesh, even Massachusetts doesn't ban guns with protruding handgrips...

[MrBenchley]

224. Assault weapons....

"OK, let's look at your little bil"
I did...and it's fine with me.

[benEzra]

225. I knew it would be...

but that doesn't make it any more rational to ban a civilian rifle based on the way its stock is shaped...

[MrBenchley]

226. Cry me a river....

And by the way, if what makes an assault weapon is "the way its stock is shaped" then you don't really need one, do you?

[benEzra]

227. One could require that all cars look like '58 Edsels, too...

Cry me a river...

No, I'm smiling. Because it's still legal for me to go out tomorrow and buy one of those eee-villll modern looking black plastic stocks for my mini-14. I also see that the list of cosponsors for S.645 is a heck of a lot shorter than it was last year, and the year before...

You've got an AWB in New Jersey, so your neighbors already aren't allowed to own aesthetically displeasing guns, yes? You can keep it. Down here in NC, we'll maintain a pro-choice position on the issue--"Don't like rifles with black plastic stocks? Don't buy one."

I'm saving up for an AR, too...probably a Rock River Arms lower with an A3 upper and triangular forward handguard, just to be different. :D Have a holographic sight on the way for the AK lookalike. Maybe my wife and I will go shooting this weekend, too, who knows.

My daughter tells me she wants the mini-14 when she's of age...I'll give it to her when she's an adult, assuming it's still legal to do so (i.e., if S.645 doesn't pass).

Enjoy your life choices to the fullest. I'm enjoying mine.

And by the way, if what makes an assault weapon is "the way its stock is shaped" then you don't really need one, do you?

I suppose one doesn't "need" a black or tan gun, as opposed to a brown gun. Or one with a stock made of Zytel instead of polished walnut. But if one prefers Zytel to walnut, and one prefers a more intelligently designed target-style grip instead of an 1800's cowboy-style stock, that's one's choice, isn't it?

No one "needs" to post here on DU, either. No one "needs" to attend the synagogue/mosque/church of their choice; no one "needs" to use language that Jerry Falwell would disapprove of; no one "needs" to drink wine as opposed to beer; no one "needs" red cars as opposed to olive drab cars. Viva la difference.

I suppose one could propose a law that required all cars to look like '58 Edsels, since no one "needs" a car that doesn't look like a '58 Edsel, but I suspect it wouldn't be all that popular among buyers of cars...

[MrBenchley]

228. Cry me a river.....

[benEzra]

229. How's this?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/wma-pop-up/-/B0002XL1ZI001001/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_001/102-0258221-1245718

Agreeing to disagree. Have a nice day!

:headbang: :hi:

[IA_Seth]

232. Your skill in debate are stellar!

Um...not.

[Kurovski]

120. My position is "the more ex-military running, the better."and here is why:

The administration got us into a war we never should have entered in the first place.

They have failed horribly on many fronts, most egregiously with the treatment of soldiers and Marines themselves. And they don't seem to care. they change nothing, but let the misery continue. They never served in the military, they've never seen war. If they had, and were they sane, they would care. We would not be there at all.

Anyone who has seen war and maintained their sanity has every right to run if qualified. The passion against using the military foolishly will be hard won in an ex-soldier.

They have seen human suffering on a scale that we may only read of in books. They themselves suffered. The compassion and sacrifice for other human beings is forged deep and strong.

And if it isn't, if the candidate is not qualified, the voters will find that out on their own--that is, if they themselves care.

I read the posts here by people I respect, admire, and like--and have more to think about. I read a link that expresses an activist's frustration and unhappiness at having work and effort left behind as circumstances change. ( I don't care much for Rahm, but respect my old Senator Durbin enormously.)

You are all such fine and intelligent people, I hope you will remember that and forgive each other as you move on from this discussion.

I will not respond, but I'm happy to hear from anyone who wants to convince me that qualified ex-military candidates are a bad idea.
I'm sad, indeed, the war is a sad enough affair to drive people insane. It's been a sad few days. I don't want to fight, but I'll listen, and I'll think about it.

You are all good, terrific people.

[Adelante]

123. Graceful Kurovski

:pals:

[madfloridian]

125. This was dirty pool in this thread.

If you want to disagree with me, do it other than saying that what I say will hurt DFA and Dean. That is a big bunch of baloney.

I speak for me, I do speak out for party unity, but I reserve the right to call them out when they are going overboard on something.

If I like policies I say so, if I don't, I don't.

I am so sad that the poor madfloridian victim thing playing out again in this thread. I really am.

The really disgusting part is to bring DFA and Dean into it, like if I DARE say something critical it is going to hurt them.

That is childish, and it is not presenting your side well.

[FrenchieCat]

134. Why do you continue

On dragging Dean into this?

DFA did not even endorse YOUR candidate! :shrug:

[madfloridian]

135. Yes, they did. Here are the endorsements for Cegelis...

Here are the ones left after the party leaders took over. Please note it is progressives and independents. National DFA so far has endorsed only state and local, but the local DFAs are very busy for her. So is PDA.

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/endorsements

2006 Endorsements

Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO)
National Organization for Women
Women’s Campaign Fund
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressive Democrats of Illinois
Schaumburg Area Democratic Organization
Americans for Democratic Action
Democracy for America of Elk Grove Township
Democracy for America Edgewater
Democracy for America Loop

Please note she gives a link to her previous endorsements.

I am wondering why I am not allowed to have an opinion on this subject without it carrying over to primary hatreds.

In 08 we may need to work together and some of those petty issues need to go.

I think it is wrong to run so many military for congress. That is my right to feel that way. It makes me uncomfortable, like so much war and military is overload.

It does not bother some, but it bothers me.

[FrenchieCat]

136. Well, you will just have to be bothered......

But I consider it a small price to pay to regain our democracy!

Get over it....it ain't going away! (thank Goodness!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x362550

[minvis]

137. Get over it???

So that's the response to someone who has a problem with so many veterans running for office? Whether we agree on if it's a problem or not, to simply brush the argument aside by saying "Get over it" is not productive.

Agree to disagree on that point, but don't dismiss your potential friends!

[FrenchieCat]

144. Sorry, But I have already tried reasoning, providing rational,

and stating why I think what I think. I even posted stories, links, and some of Tammy's positions ---

When you say...."to simply brush the argument aside by saying "Get over it", you are wrong because that is not what occured within this thread....Please read the entire thread.....Nothing was "brushed off"...but nobody's got time to go round and round.

So at some point, it IS time to shrug my shoulders and not care as to what my "Potential" Friend(s) think... :shrug:

As to your question..."So that's the response to someone who has a problem with so many veterans running for office?" ....

Hell, I still haven't heard a cogent argument as to why anyone would have a problem with Veterans who have served their country to wish to serve it some more. All I've heard are stereotypes, cliches, and blanket prejudicial statements not even well presented. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

149. Thanks for the kind words about my level of intelligence.

I don't easily forget when so put down when I try to explain.

This is a very deep issue, not about Duckworth, not about you, not about me.

It is not about veterans and not about respecting them.

This thread is getting very nationalistic and flag-waving, and I resent it.

I am a patriot in every way. I feel a discomfort now with the concentration on war and military. Must I really explain? It relates to the Iraq War and the lies and fervor. It is not what I want for the party, I want us to speak out on the things WE believe, and not go along with what the GOP puts on our plate.

I feel like I am going to hear nothing all year but military stuff. After the last few years, I turn off the TV when the "war" is mentioned. I am on overload.

When you talk to and about me as though I am not understanding...then you don't realize that I truly DO understand. I understand we need to think this over a little. I understand that the Republicans are very very smart, and they are not beyond using this.

[wndycty]

152. Talk about PARANOID

There is post earlier in the thread in which a certain DFA/Cegelis supporter said he or she did not want "military" in the White House and thinks there are too many in Congress. Jeeze, if you are calling this thread "nationalistic" and "flag waving" then you really need to GET A GRIP. Many of us are just defending the right of a veteran to run for office its not "nationalistic" or "flag waving."

I know the "get a grip" will get a reaction. . .LOL!

[madfloridian]

155. "get a grip" "get over it" "get used to it"....use them all.

I feel very sorry for that IL district. I have a feeling that people who really cared, really worked, really had hope for something are being treated just like those of us here who disagree.

[wndycty]

162. You feel sorry for the district?

They are going to have a hotly contested Democratic primary which is very good for name recognition (for Cegelis or Duckworth), and they have a chance at turning the district blue. Not much to feel sorry about.

[madfloridian]

169. I have seen a lot of pure anger here.

It must be bad there.

[wndycty]

175. Anger?

Please explain. . .you say there is anger give me examples.

[WildEyedLiberal]

159. Yes, there's a clear pattern

Disagree with Madfloridian and you are attacking her, hating her, demeaning her, etc etc etc.

Apparently her opinions are far too fragile to actually withstand real debate. It's kind of sad.

[madfloridian]

161. Again, going a little over.

QUOTE:"Disagree with Madfloridian and you are attacking her, hating her, demeaning her, etc etc etc.

Apparently her opinions are far too fragile to actually withstand real debate. It's kind of sad."END QUOTE

Not deserved

[wndycty]

163. Very deserved, very appropriate. . .

:kick:

[WildEyedLiberal]

168. Debate, then.

Prove me wrong and engage in debate on an issue. REAL debate.

[FrenchieCat]

172. This is about winning, that's what it is about......

We have to play on the field that is there, not the one we wish we had.

when you say....I feel a discomfort now with the concentration on war and military. Must I really explain? ...my answer, duh....yeah, you need to explain in a way that makes sense.

When you negatively link lies about Iraq directly to Veterans running for office as Democrats, you lose me. You were lied to about Iraq by just about everyone, Civilians mostly, the media, etc.


Tell me, do you know how many Veterans in the House and the Senate voted to Authorize the IWR vs. Non Veterans?

Of course you are going to hear about "Military Stuff" all year......there's nothing I can do about that. So for me, I'll face that reality with the best game plan to date, rather than moan that War shouldn't be an issue....cause it is.

Immigration issue will equal National Security after the RNC/media is done!
Budget cuts will be BECAUSE we need the money for the Defense Dept, they will say.
Deficit blamed on 9/11 and War, not tax cuts
Wiretapping issue blows aways because it was done in the name of National Security.
Abramhoff scandal swept under the rug via distraction by IRAN/Nuke Fearmongering.
Outing a CIA undercover agent...goes poof because we are at war--No time for that...is their excuse!

Bottomline is that the issues in 2006 will be National Defense. Rove has already sent out the memo. Didn't you read it? The media has it and has already started to play.

[wndycty]

146. Potential friends???

Minvis you have had a front row seat for the abuse I have taken for supporting Duckworth (to your credit you have been very cordial to me and we had an great convo after to Goose Island DU get together). If you have paid attention to previous threads you have seen me called a DINO, I have been accused of being "sent" etc. You have to admit the venom on this issue has gone both ways.

[madfloridian]

138. Oh, yeh, I know it ain't going away.

It is all over the DNC blog, it is all over Kos, and everywhere else

It is like in our face as well as in their face. I have legit fears about this, and I am not popular for having them.

I see Kerry is with them tonight as well. So it is all military and if we question we are accused of questioning our country....just like when the war started.

We are fully as intolerant as they were in pre-war times.

What the party did to Cegelis in the name of getting a veteran to run is really a shame. They kept upping the ante on her, she met it each time, and they then put someone else in and upped the ante again.

I do disapprove of the way that was done, and I think we are making a mistake overdoing this. It is not a popular view, but it is how I feel. I am not the only one, I am just the only one who doesn't care what others think...most are afraid to say it.

I am glad you have a military mind set, I just happen to think we could win on standing up for what we believe. But I fear that the national security issue is being overdone.

[wndycty]

148. Nobody DID anything to Cegelis SHE DID IT TO HERSELF

But go ahead blame Rahm, the DCCC, OJ Simpson, the DLC, Jesse, Michael and Reggie Jackson, the MSM, Obama, Durbin, Clinton, Puck (from the Real World Los Angeles), etc. but don't blame Christine for the way she managed her campaign.

[WildEyedLiberal]

143. BTW

I don't really see how you can make this post but then claim to me that DFA has nothing to do with it. I could care less who DFA supports - that's cool, no one's saying you can't support DFA candidates. But the fact that Cegelis is a DFA candidate is very clearly the issue as this particular post of yours proves.

[madfloridian]

150. Don't use such simplistic thinking on me.

It never worked, it doesn't work, it won't ever work.

This is not about DFA and Christine, this is about the leaders of the party hijacking a race right out from under the candidate.

Please do NOT keep using simplistic thinking with me. It does not work.

[WildEyedLiberal]

156. Do you even have an actual point anymore?

You have posted maybe three posts that had an actual point. The rest have been nothing but empty blubbering:

"Stop it. This is unfair."

"Don't use simplistic thinking on me."

"I see how this goes. Attack me again."

"I see how this works. Ok, you win."

Seriously, 90% of your posts are as empty in content as that. Get ahold of yourself. No one has to hold your fucking hand on DU. If you want people to respect you, try making valid points instead of empty, meaningless non sequitors devoid of any content.

[madfloridian]

158. A little over the line with these statements? Why do you do this?

QUOTE:..."You have posted maybe three posts that had an actual point. The rest have been nothing but empty blubbering:

"Stop it. This is unfair."

"Don't use simplistic thinking on me."

"I see how this goes. Attack me again."

"I see how this works. Ok, you win."

Seriously, 90% of your posts are as empty in content as that. Get ahold of yourself. No one has to hold your fucking hand on DU. If you want people to respect you, try making valid points instead of empty, meaningless non sequitors devoid of any content."END Quote

[WildEyedLiberal]

164. Because it's true - you refuse to engage in debate

I tried to have a meaningful discussion with you. I tried to engage you in debate. And ALL I GOT IN RETURN were a bunch of one-line non sequitors like that, some vague bullshit about "here we go again" or some other nonsense that showed that you didn't even bother reading my post. Do you just not want to engage in any sort of debate about this issue? Do you just want your opinion - the the DCCC is evil and trying to strongarm the race - to go unchallenged? Do you even read what people are saying to you? I post a several paragraph post, expecting to at least sustain a dialogue, and all you respond with is a content-free one liner that does nothing to address my point. Do you or do you not believe in differing opinions debating? If not, why come into these threads? You know someone is going to challenge your POV, most likely - if you are not prepared to debate your point, why come in at all?

I feel like I've been talking to myself the past several posts, so meaningless have your replies been. I have been civil, but eventually I get sick of being drug around this endless circle of passive-aggressive crap. Either engage me in debate on the points I raised, or stop replying to me. Please. Dialogue is a good thing, but it is a two-way street. If you don't want to debate, then don't raise issues that are debatable on a public forum and get pissy at everyone who responds to you.

[madfloridian]

165. Whoa, there, I explained my position on this many times.

In this very thread. Apparently you have not read all of them.

The tone of this thread got ugly because someone disagreed with the fighting dems and band of brothers.

Someone posted this thread with a degrading subject line. I feel strongly about the way the party put a vet into that district when someone else was running.

I have a right to post in this thread.

[WildEyedLiberal]

171. Yes, and you've been hostile to everyone who disagrees

You have a perfect right to post your opinion in this thread. Others have a right to disagree with your opinion - that's when things started getting "ugly," the first time someone disagreed with your take on things.

The fact that Cegelis is DFA and that you support her over Duckworth because you think Duckworth is just being recruited by the DCCC to derail Cegelis does not bother me. What bothers me is that any time someone tries to debate you on this position - tries to debate that the DCCC is not all bad, or that Duckworth's candidacy is a good thing - you get hostile. That's what bothers me.

[madfloridian]

179. No, that is just not true.

I tried to explain that, you choose not to understand.

Hostile. I see a lot of hostile here. Most of it is not me.

[derby378]

142. Could everyone here please just chill a little bit?

At least let us agree that whomever we vote for in the primaries, we vote for them because we believe they're the best person for the job, not because they have x years of military service or y amount of endorsements or whatever.

That's why I voted for Dean in the 2004 primaries instead of Kerry. But I still supported Kerry in the main Presidential campaign itself.

[madfloridian]

167. I made comments that they did not like.

I did not insult nor did I degrade. The subject line is degrading to Duckworth, actually.

Chill? I don't think I am the one who needs to chill. This is America, I feel uncomfortable with all the emphasis on military, it is my right to feel that way and say it.

[FrenchieCat]

173. So you've said it.....so there! (n/t)

[derby378]

203. Duly noted

I'll vote for a weatherbeaten rural lawyer with bad credit and even worse breath if he can honestly convince me that he's better suited for a position in government than a nice, shiny military vet.

This is America, after all.

[tishaLA]

174. A Democrat supporting another Democrat....

instead of this thread celebrating party unity, or an example of Democrats NOT stabbing each other in the back (i.e., Lieberman v. Obama), it has turned into another divisive thread and it has largely avoided talking about Ms. Duckworth's many admirable positions, which Gen. Clark described in his letter to supporters.

It saddens me to think that we hear disconnected platitudes about party unity out of one side of our mouths and kvetch about Democratic hopefuls out the other side. I understand that we won't all like the same people, but this radical dismissal of candidates simply because they have served in the military--"I do NOT want military in the white house or overly much in congress"--is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.

I really enjoyed reading the PDA endorsement of Cegalis, BTW, because they didn't make ad hominem attacks against Ms. Duckworth and instead concentrated on talking about what Ms. Cegalis brings to the table. Would that political discourse about our fellow Democrats looked that that more often.

[madfloridian]

177. Not fair, I dismissed no one. I said nothing radical.

Please see my post below.

I feel like I could cry. Here we go again with the flag waving just like before, and none dare disagree.

I can support my party, but I have right to express discomfort.

[tishaLA]

186. As I said in my post, I'm willing...

to listen to arguments about Ms. Cegalis. I think debate like that is interesting and productive, to say nothing of strengthening the party because it actually addresses where we want to see the party go and which issues we think will strengthen the party's national perspective.

What I don't like, though, are ad hominem arguments that dismiss candidates because they have military backgrounds, guilt by association fallacies (i.e., DCCC/Rahm fallacy), etc. The DNC is the recipient of similar fallacious arguments on this board and I reject those as well.

[madfloridian]

188. Here is what I posted below.... a long post. You misunderstood.

Someone just told me to debate my issues. I already have, but here goes.

1. I did not like the subject line at all. It was very distasteful. I might have just ignored the thread, but after all I have a right to post in it.

2. I realize that most are very excited about all the veterans running. That is their right.

3. I am concerned about what we are doing along these lines. I think we are ourselves whipping up nationalistic fervor just like before the war. I think it is something that can get out of hand.

4. I already said all this in this thread, but that was not enough. So here is more.

5. I think demanding I fall in line on this is scary. It is no better than the flag waving that when on in this country before the war.
I respect all these vets running, but I also know that a whole lot of them want to finish up what we started in Iraq. I took the time to call and write their offices, and I heard back from most. They are all good people, but they must NOT take away my right to question or criticize.

6. This is not about Duckworth. I have no feelings about her one way or the other. This is not really about Cegelis. It is more about the party leaders deciding who the candidates will be. It is happening throughout the country, more than you know. It is happening a lot in Florida, very blatantly. The state chair and Rahm recruited a millionaire Republican to run when two Democrats were already running.

7. I want the right to disagree. I have a low comfort level when we try to push military for the white house or for the congress. I have a right to that feeling. I have seen this all over today on all forums, the band of brother and fighting dems....it may be that it takes me back to the day before the war when my church said we were unpatriotic because we did not support the Iraq War. They had signs for yards and we would not take one.

8. I think all those vets are probably very good men, but I reserve the right to question the policy.

9. Some people only make their points by attacking. You would do better not making fun of people.

[tishaLA]

191. I just responded to it

And I'd respectfully say that it just reiterates my earlier critique.

[Adelante]

178. The thing is, PDA is a PAC with an agenda

DFA is a PAC with an agenda. IAVA PAC is a PAC with an agenda. All three have the right to run candidates who support their agendas. This can be done without disrespect and division. Nice statement, Tisha.

[madfloridian]

180. It was RAHM who chose Duckworth early on, and Durbin recommended.

This has little to do with one PAC over another. This is the new party policy set by the Third War with Clinton and Lieberman as leaders.

It is the emphasis on national security.

This is not a PAC to PAC thing.

[wndycty]

181. So does that mean she is not a good candidate. . .

. . .there really is no reason to bring that up unless you believe that makes her a bad candidate. So I ask what is wrong with her having Congressional supporters?

[madfloridian]

183. I feel sorry for that district.

If that is how people are treated there who disagree.

[wndycty]

185. Is that all you got? The district does not need your pity. . .

. . .you can give it some other district. LOL

[WildEyedLiberal]

202. Exactly my point, thank you n/t

[madfloridian]

176. Someone just told me to debate my issues.

I already have, but here goes.

1. I did not like the subject line at all. It was very distasteful. I might have just ignored the thread, but after all I have a right to post in it.

2. I realize that most are very excited about all the veterans running. That is their right.

3. I am concerned about what we are doing along these lines. I think we are ourselves whipping up nationalistic fervor just like before the war. I think it is something that can get out of hand.

4. I already said all this in this thread, but that was not enough. So here is more.

5. I think demanding I fall in line on this is scary. It is no better than the flag waving that when on in this country before the war.
I respect all these vets running, but I also know that a whole lot of them want to finish up what we started in Iraq. I took the time to call and write their offices, and I heard back from most. They are all good people, but they must NOT take away my right to question or criticize.

6. This is not about Duckworth. I have no feelings about her one way or the other. This is not really about Cegelis. It is more about the party leaders deciding who the candidates will be. It is happening throughout the country, more than you know. It is happening a lot in Florida, very blatantly. The state chair and Rahm recruited a millionaire Republican to run when two Democrats were already running.

7. I want the right to disagree. I have a low comfort level when we try to push military for the white house or for the congress. I have a right to that feeling. I have seen this all over today on all forums, the band of brother and fighting dems....it may be that it takes me back to the day before the war when my church said we were unpatriotic because we did not support the Iraq War. They had signs for yards and we would not take one.

8. I think all those vets are probably very good men, but I reserve the right to question the policy.

9. Some people only make their points by attacking. You would do better not making fun of people.

[tishaLA]

190. And this post lays bare a few things

You're not actually debating Ms. Duckworth vs. Ms. Cegalis ("This is not about Duckworth. I have no feelings about her one way or the other. This is not really about Cegelis. It is more about the party leaders deciding who the candidates will be"). That's fine. But that's not what Gen. Clark said: he is talking about what he thinks makes her a good candidate worthy of support from his supporters and other rank and file Democrats across the country, particularly in her district. In this way, Gen. Clark joined with other Democrats, like Sens. Obama and Durbin, who support Ms. Duckworth; it is what happens in all elections.

Your stance against Ms. Duckworth, even though you claim it's not about her, is that she is "another veteran" among so many who are running. But that doesn't say anything about HER, really, except that she had a job for X number of years and that she ended up disabled because of it. In other words, it says nothing about her positions as a candidate, which is what I thought we looked at candidates for.

Well, we also look at them for a visceral connection, too, but that's something sorely lacking in today's too-polished political world.

[madfloridian]

192. Lays bare what?

That I don't want military playing such a prominent role in govt?

I think I explained myself well. My view is not at all popular here, but then that does not bother me.

I think it needed to be said.

[tishaLA]

194. As you say in your post:

"This is not about Duckworth. I have no feelings about her one way or the other."

So you prefer to rail against her in a thread that celebrates one Democrat supporting another and giving his reasons why? And you can't come up with something better than her old job? I think Democrats would do better if they talked about issues and about which policies would make them stronger at every level than to dismiss each other because of their former jobs.

As I said, I liked the PDA endorsement of Ms. Cegalis because it discussed her position on issues. That's what will move us forward, not ad hominem attacks.

[madfloridian]

196. I did not rail against anyone. That is an unfair statement.

The way I get misquoted alarms me.

[tishaLA]

197. I quoted directly.

There's no misquote there.

If you want to deal with the issues instead of ad hominems about Ms. Duckworth, I'm all ears. Errrr. Eyes.

[madfloridian]

198. You are right. I have no opinion on her.

That is ad hominem about her? I don't think so. It is not about her per se.

[tishaLA]

199. That quotation specifically is not.

They are scattered throughout the thread.

[FrenchieCat]

193. In this post of your here.....the 2nd for you in that thread.....you asked

a lot of questions....and you got a lot of answers....
I think that you should be grateful for that.

When do we stop and say that just being a vet does not make one capable of being in the Congress.

I fear our Democrats are about as bad as the Republicans in pushing the national security meme.

This is the Third Way philosphy.

When are too many veterans in Congress too many? When other good candidates are pushed out.

I think every one of our Democrats is guilty in this case, including Governor Dean....of pushing the fear thing, the we can keep you safe thing, the we are bigger and meaner than they are thing.

Everyone says may the best person win...then the DCCC, Rahm himself, Durbin, now Clark...are coming out for Duckworth. She gets the publicity. She gets the big money. I believe I read that Rahm had a fundraiser for her at the DCCC...which is one the 2nd floor of the DNC...or am I wrong on that.

How many veterans is too many?

Here is a link which brings up a lot of talking points about both candidates, Cegelis and Duckworth. It points out that the residency issue will be a big one, that Cegelis debt is mostly to herself, and how the party has systematically shoved Cegelis to the side.

I wish for the best in that IL district. It is unfortunate this is happening. I wish Clark had stayed out of the fray on this. DFA has made me angry on this because they are staying out, though Christine was a Dean Dozen originally. But maybe they are right...let IL sort it out. Clark should have stayed out of this.

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2006/01/30/duckworth-hit-o...

So I have some questions for you:

1. The Subject line is not really as important as the content of the thread. Whether in good or bad taste, no one is debating the issue of the subject line.

2. I don't know if anyone is "excited" about Democratic Veterans running, but I think it may be a sound strategy considering the political atmosphere.

3. Democratic Veterans running equates to "whipping up nationalistic fervor just like before the war" is over the top totally. Maybe they are running BECAUSE MANY DEMOCRATS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO AIR THEIR VIEWS.....AND WERE CALLED UNPATRIOTIC. Why would you be scared that many want to stand up and disagree with this administration on such a serious issue as war. Maybe our problem during the War built up is that we DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH VETERANS DISAGREEING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION....Which may be how he got a blank check.

5. Where did anyone DEMAND that you fall in line? Why would you be so singularly important where you would think that such efforts would be attempted. Everyone knows that you can't be talked into anything, no matter how much sense it makes...so why would anyone even try? Are you pointing to folks making a persuasive case via posts? Why is that a bad thing. In the end, you choose to do what you do. Doubt if anyone can stop you.

6. Could it be about winning that Republican district held by the GOP Henry Hyde for the last 32 years?


7. Where is it said in this thread or elsewhere that being a Veteran is the ONLY requirement needed?

Do you think that Democrats are really PUSHING the National Security Theme....cause I just think that they are addressing THE ISSUE because they need to.....

Democrats are sick and tired of being told that they don't have a National Security Theme, Idea, wherewithall, solution, etc., etc., etc....

[madfloridian]

195. Look up "national security democrats" and "third way".

It is a policy.

[FrenchieCat]

200. Your answers to my questions

are sorely lacking.

In essence, you are telling me to "look it up".....meaning "answer your own questions"....

Does this mean that you don't have the answers?

[Joey Liberal]

201. I've seen her on CSPAN

She's very impressive, and thank goodness she is a Democrat!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

230. This whole thread bothers me

First of all, by getting a bunch of veterans to run, and deliberately making sure that you get veterans to run, you're playing into the Republicans' meme of "Dems soft on national security." Why? Because it is, in effect, a direct answer to that meme. It comes off as defensive, just like nominating Kerry to be "tough on national security" or Lieberman to be "strong on moral values."

Second, there's an obvious and nasty tag team here ganging up on madfloridian, who happens to support another candidate, a woman who got 44% of the vote her first time out against an ancient incumbent. That is an amazing accomplishment compared to say, Peter Buckley, a DUer from Oregon, who ran against a Congressional Republicanite incumbent and got 25% in 2002.

I've seen races where a first timer scored in the forties the first time and whipped the incumbent the second time. Why can't it happen this time? Why is the DCCC pouring money into the district to run a non-resident veteran just because she's a veteran? (And before the gung ho types jump in, being a veteran is fine, but by itself, it's not a qualification to run for office, and yet the DCCC is acting as if it is.)

The Dems who buy into the Republicanites' framing of the issues, are pushing all these veterans because they're scaredy-cats. They really believe the Republicanite meme of "the Democrats have no ideas."

The vet candidates may be fine people, perhaps even qualified, but by pushing them so hard, the Democrats come off as paradoxically weak. "We think we can win only by putting on a bigger macho act than the Republicans. See? We're okay by Republican standards! We're patriotic! Won't you love us now?"

Yeah, whatever. That approach worked so well last time. (And I just KNOW that someone is going to chime in with "But Kerry win." Yeah, but not by a cheat-proof margin.)

[minvis]

231. Bravo!

You hit the nail on the head!

[wndycty]

233. Given your logic. . .Kerry should be the nominee in 2008. . .

. . .cancel the primaries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

234. I don't see how that follows from my post

:shrug:

I precisely do NOT want to cancel the primaries. I want them to be replaced by precinct caucuses, like we have in Minnesota, which are unhackable. Packable, but not hackable. :-)

[Adelante]

235. Republicans have one advantage going into the elections

Only one. They are trusted more on security than Democrats. That's where we need to hit them, on their one advantage. Veterans running for public office is nothing new in wartime or following wartime service. That these veterans are choosing to run as Democrats smacks the Repugs where they live. It is offensive, not defensive.

I agree being a veteran is no especial qualification to run for office, but it's not a disqualification, either. Besides being veterans, they are lawyers, teachers, business people, just like anybody else who is a first time candidate. They should not be dismissed because they have served in the armed forces, no more than, say, a teacher who has served in the education system. What they want to do is continue to serve their country when they could go into private industry and make the bucks. They have my gratitude and support.

I want to make something clear, and this is directed more at the thread overall, than at you, Lydia Leftcoast. As somebody who is involved in this movement, I can say the notion that the DCCC or the Democratic Party is behind it is not true. I was there from the beginning and I can tell you these candidates organized themselves with grassroots supporters. Nobody from the DCCC asked them in. And aside from Duckworth, as far as I have seen, they receive no financial support whatsoever from the Democratic Party in any of its parts. I hope this changes, but that's the situation.

My view is that it's the DCCC's job to find what they judge are viable candidates and support them, so I'm not crying over it, but I think they are in for a surprise come November.

[AtomicKitten]

236. Attack their strength.

I can't really say whether it's a plus or minus to run vets because that determination can't be made until after the fact (although there is never a shortage of predictions here at DU :)), however, considering we are in a military quagmire, I think the idea (and the picture) resonates nonetheless. It puts a knife right into the heart of the GOP's perceived strength.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

237. I repeat:

The vet candidates may be fine people, perhaps even qualified, but by pushing them so hard, the Democrats come off as paradoxically weak. "We think we can win only by putting on a bigger macho act than the Republicans. See? We're okay by Republican standards! We're patriotic! Won't you love us now?"

Let's be honest with the voters and say, "The Chicken Hawk Chicken Littles are trying to scare you. You're so less likely to die in a terrorist act than you are to get killed in a car crash that terrorism isn't even worth worrying about. Isn't it odd that people in New York and Washington, the places that actually suffered the 9/11 attacks, voted Democratic while people in the vast rural areas and suburbs voted Republican out of fear of terrorism?

"Terrorism isn't a country. Terrorism isn't even a belief system. Terrorism is just a tactic that all kinds of people have used throughout history. Spain and the UK caught their terrorists through police work, not by military might, and even though the U.S. spends more on its military than the next 18 countries combined, that didn't prevent 9/11.

"You know why? Because the Bush administration was asleep at the switch. They got warnings from the Europeans and the Israelis, and they just said, 'Yeah, yeah, let's find an excuse to get Saddam Hussein.'

"But man oh man, once 9/11 happened, they sure milked it for all it was worth. They invaded Iraq, even though they've admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and over 2,000 young Americans have died for their lies. Yes, their calculated and self-serving LIES. Let's tell it like it is for a change. They've decided that they can snoop on anyone they want without a warrant. They tried to say that they could hold an American citizen without charges and without visits from a lawyer, but thank God, the courts put a stop to that. They've been playing you guys like a violin, hoping you won't notice that they're chipping away at the Constitution and wasting billions of dollars every month on a war that everyone knows is a disaster.

"Here's what we could have done with those billions of dollars..."

Of course, the Bush idolaters will reject that message, but it would serve two purposes:

1) If every Dem candidate across the country campaigned on that theme, it would help break through the media barrier that everyone complains about.

2) It would give the disillusioned "a choice, not an echo," because if the Dem candidates just say, "I'm a better terrorism fighter," they're going to fall into the same trap that Kerry did. If they call bullshit on the War on Terror, they'll make voters sit up and take notice.

[Adelante]

238. You're describing a defensive strategy

I say it's an offensive strategy.

By the way, many of the Fighting Dems are saying much of what you're wanting candidates to be saying.

[CarlSheeler4U]

239. Sheeler I'm telling you Go Vet in Politics

Here's a positive outlook, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2450397&mesg_id=