People pretending to be democrats

[liveoaktx]

There's a guy in my town who has been putting ads in the paper. In his first, he said he was a Democrat voting independently who was voting for Bush. His ads (three so far) have been the annoying "God bless Bush, we've gotta go over there and kill 'em all before they come get us" type baloney. His cousin is a Dem and told us that no way is he a Democrat.

He did it again today, noted he was a Democrat. I happen to have the list both of all registered users in this county as well as a breakdown of who voted how in the primary. He didn't vote. Not as a Dem and not as a Rep. Did... not... vote.

Got to wondering how many of the so-called crossover Dems are ones like this that are full of hot air?

[Cha]

1. They're fulla Shyte! And they're

Lyin' to make it seem like a Dem would be that STUPID!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. you might want to

write a letter to the editor with this information.

[liberalmuse]

3. Time to write an LTTE...

and expose the fraud.

[the Kelly Gang]

4. write a letter to the paper and tell them the truth

[jpgray]

5. Read the Daily Howler's 'A Girl Named Bruce'

It gives an interesting look at this phenomenon.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121603.shtml

[tishaLA]

28. Please! That wench is on the air here

in LA and she gives wenches a bad name. She has a particularly virulent form of the pseudo-dem disease. And she talks about it interminably.

[Minimus]

6. maybe he thinks he using psyop, trying to make

to sway undecideds. maybe some "republicans" need to say they are supporting Kerry?:evilgrin:

I agree, definitely let it be known this guy is not a Dem.

[Warpy]

7. They just interviewed one of those morons on local news

here in Albuquerque, at a rally for that poor senile fool Zell Miller. The giveaway was that he was talking about how the Democrat Party had gotten too liberal for him. Good lord, who do these idiots think they're kidding?

Zellout hiccupped his way through the interview (all 10 seconds of it) so I guess we need to ask whether it's senility or dipsomania. What the right wing dimwits at the station aired were an Elmer Gantry type soundbite ruined by hiccups from Zellout and an illiterate complaint by the fake former Democrat.

You can tell this bunch of loons is terrified, which means they know the polls are junk, too.

[kokomo]

8. right-wing Letters to the Editor are flooding local papers, it seems

Yes, I have read several folks who claim to be long time Democrats and claim the party has left them, and traditional values behind.
Beware of Freepers and Naderites in sheep's clothing. I suspect an organized letter writing program. Democrats need to get organized to rebutt them. However, some editors seem to post right-wing letters at about a 3:1 ratio in my local papers....some days the left is never heard from.

I am a former Republican who became a Democrat in the mid-60's when the racist Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party en masse to become Republicans, folks like Strom, Jesse Helms, and other bigots who were out of sorts with LBJ's civil rights programs. I still believe in old Republican values like smaller/local government, a balanced budget, the Bill of Rights, ideals which BushCo long ago forgot about. It is the neoCons who have left the old Republican Party of General Eisenhower who warned us of the dangers of a military/industrial complex taking over.

[AmyStrange]

9. There are some of those folks here in the DU...

many of them are high in the post count (many 1,000+) and they pretend to be behind Kerry, but they NEVER (very very rarely anyway) start any threads and all they do is insult and are disgustingly mean and scummy towards anyone (and not just the obvious freeper) who ask critical questions about Kerry.

It's almost as though they want to shut up anyone who has legitimate questions about Kerry. Legitimate questions that I have been asked by fence sitters, and questions that I'd like to know how to respond to also. It's almost as though they figure if we dems don't know how to address these concerns that will mean that a lot more of these fencesitters won't be able to come to the obvious conclusion that Kerry is the right man to take over bushit's job and send the pretender back home to Crawford Texas.

I wouldn't think this way if most of these folks atleast put up some positive post about Kerry once in a while, but I have NEVER seen any of them do this. Not a single one. Most of their high post counts are the results of sh*tty insults towards our fellow DUers.

Don't bother asking me who these people are,

d

[Night Gal]

13. Thank you!

many of them are high in the post count (many 1,000+)

Virtually ALL who have given me grief for my thoughts have had over the magic number. As supposed "respected elders" of DU it's certainly not the way to attract new posters no matter if they are solid Dems or undecideds.

Thanks for your words. With you being a 1000+ poster, maybe it will be enough to have some of those here lighten up a bit on us newbies.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

14. Maybe if you stopped putting forth

paranoid fantasies about the Clintons trying to kill Kerry's campaign so Hillary can run in 2008, you wouldn't get so much grief.

[Bridget Burke]

15. I say judge somebody by what they post---more than post count.

The Search function is a wonderful thing.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

16. I agree

the search function is a wonderful thing and it reveals interesting patterns.

[AmyStrange]

17. Lots of folks (if not most) react to only the subject line...

and don't bother reading or trying to understand where posters are coming from by ACTUALLY reading what the poster actually wrote in the message. Search function only reveals subject line. If most posters here tried to understand what everyone else was saying and not posting knee jerk reactions all the time, this would be a better place for it.

Of course those who are only pretend Kerry supporters don't care about trying to understand those they "vehemently" disagree with and that's another way to "tell" they are only here to disrupt and not to help Kerry. THOSE people don't want to help. THEY just want to kill with insults and it's like a game to them.

You can also tell those who really are here for kerry, because they don't just insult you. They try to have a dialogue with you and more times than not those folks come to agreement with each other and more times than not they both end up with a post saying basicly, "now I see where you are coming from."

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

20. Sorry but search function does NOT only show the subject line

you can read every single thing they have posted and very often, you see a pattern of RW talking points.

[AmyStrange]

21. Not unless you click on the link it doesn't...

many people don't bother doing that. By the way, you don't have to be sorry, but I forgive you anyway,

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

23. Sorry was meant rhetorically

and I bother to click on the links. How do you KNOW people don't bother doing that? How would you know something like that?

[AmyStrange]

25. How do you know folks are even using the search function to begin with...

unless they tell you and even then how do you know for sure? Only the admins (and maybe the mods) know for sure. For all you know no one but you actually uses the search function?

It's quite a conundrum isn't it? It's like trying to prove to someone else that you exist outside of your own knowledge that you exist,

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

27. Well thank you for proving MY point

that being that there is no way you can know that people don't read the link.

The search function is there (advanced search to be specific) to be able to search a persons' past postings. It is quite helpful when you have noticed a particular poster advocating right wing talking points more than once. More often than not, it reveals a pattern of this behavior, which more than likely means a disruptor.

What's your problem with people using the search function?

[AmyStrange]

31. Where exactly did I say I had a problem with people using...

the search function? By the way, you can tell they don't read post, because they usually miss the part where the poster explained what the other poster was either complaining about or insulting or a million other things that are a tip off that only the subject was read. You know what I mean don't you?

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

34. Of course I do

because I DO READ THE ENTIRE POST.

Sheesh. You can stop with that now. You know, honestly, I have tired of this subject. It wasn't much of one to begin with, in my opinion. What's all this about "pretend" Kerry supporters with high post counts? It's usually pretty easy to tell, and once they hit the high post counts, they usually feel relaxed enough to start making their anti-Dem, anti-Kerry statements and get tombstoned. So what is the problem, exactly?

[AmyStrange]

36. I never said you didn't read the whole post?

I have no problem with you or anything you do. You started off by responding to MY post, not the other way around.

The "problem" (as I explained in my original post) is that they don't make anti-dem and anti-kerry post. They just pretend to be Kerry supporters so they can attack people (and they attack criticism so fewer and fewer people want to discuss the doubts they hear while canvasing for Kerry). There are people like that you know and they are here on the DU - again - as I explained in my original post,

d

[deckerd]

49. Perhaps you could name names

So I can judge for myself, as a newbie, what you guys are talking about.

No need to make any accusations, just "I am skeptical of the posts offered by X, Y, and Z."

Otherwise, maybe describe the sort of posts (as I and others have done) that you think are so disruptive and unproductive as to amount to (a) an obvious troll or (b) flamebait from a misguided regular who is just encouraging the trolls.

E.g. I think people who pile on a confirmed troll sighting are misguided and counterproductive. Don't feed the freepers. If someone else believes what they have to say is NOT a RW talking point, let THEM respond. You'll quickly be able to judge from the freeper's response (or non-response) whether you were right.

[AmyStrange]

22. Besides I wasn't just talking about the search function...

but of course I'm sure you knew that because you read my "whole" post didn't you. I knew you would and thanx for being so nice,

d

[AmyStrange]

24. RW talking points...

I always thought the DU was here not to only give each other support, but to help each other argue effectively against RW talking points. Now if you don't bring up the RW talking points then how exactly are you suppose to get advice on how to effectively argue against them?

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

26. Bringing them up

and ADVOCATING them are two different things. Most people can tell the difference.

If you bring them up to discuss what a good response would be, that is COMPLETELY different than USING them in your arguments here at DU. That second thing is what I am talking about finding.

[AmyStrange]

29. I agree...

see we had an actual dialogue and listened to each other. Wasn't that fun and more constructive than just yelling insults at each other? Not that I'm saying that's what we did. It's just that a "pretend" Kerry supporter wouldn't do that. Don't you think?

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

30. Who said you were a pretend Kerry supporter?

I tend to have actual dialogue. Maybe you have me mixed up with someone else.

Glad you clarified that no one was yelling insults.

[AmyStrange]

33. Where did I say that someone said that about me?

I never said you or refered to you in any way? I wasn't refering to you in any of my post in reference to me being a "pretend" Kerry supporter or to you being a "pretend" Kerry supporter.

d

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

35. You said "it's just that a 'pretend' Kerry supporter wouldn't do that"

who are these "pretend" Kerry supporters? Just trying to figure out what the heck you are talking about....

[AmyStrange]

37. I said that and qualified it with other things...

which I explained in my original post. "pretend" Kerry supporters only live to disrupt and they pretend to be kerry supporters so they can continue to hang out here at the DU. All of them NEVER (or very rarely) started their own threads helpful to the Kerry campaign or make real positive post about Kerry that doesn't first attack someone - which I explained (or thought I explained) quite clearly in my original post,

d

[AmyStrange]

18. Well I hope I've helped...

but chances are the ones who are attacking you and are not "real" Kerry supporters won't NEVER admit it, because they'd be banned from the DU and that would be the end of their game,

d

[AmyStrange]

19. !!! WELCOME to the DU !!!

check out the DU's officially "unofficial" slang dictionary put together by yours truly:

http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/

d

[deckerd]

41. There are several types of infiltration techniques

inherited by FR protest warriors passed on from their Nixonian SwiftLiar daddies:

1. Agent Provocateur -- Makes increasingly wild and crazy allegations
in an attempt to get the targeted activists to do the same.

2. Disruptor -- constantly comes forward with unproductive questions and complaints in an effort to sidetrack and confuse the group about which issues are important, which issues need to be addressed, etc.

3. Infiltrator -- racks up points with the group in an effort to get in everyone's good graces,
then uses position of power to divide people in the group, scapegoat those with the best ideas,
and shut down all criticism, accusing newbies and legitimate complainants of being
disruptors (see #2), thereby creating an insular, narrow-minded group that is too paranoid
to be a threat. People made paranoid by all of the above flock to the banner of these person(s),
who end up presiding ofer the group's dissolution as more broad-minded people drift away.

I am not joking, they teach these strategies in counterintel.

It's unfortunate that they're beginning to be used for political purposes. It goes beyond normal trolling and enters the realm of
bulletin board warfare that "protest warriors" seem to excel at.

If this goes on much longer it'll lead to the sort of intrigue that
infected and ultimately brought down democracy in ancient Rome. :-(

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

43. Well I doubt DU will bring down democracy

but that was a good post. The people who fall into group #3 are obviously the most dangerous.

The best thing to do to combat this, in my opinion, is to not get "enmeshed" in the group. To me, this is just the internet. I still have my opinions, I can still read outside sources and keep a clear head and know how I feel.

If you can do that, you can resist falling prey to all three groups of disruptors.

Again, just my thoughts....

[AmyStrange]

46. So true...

knee jerk reaction is what the repugs are so good at and sadly dems aren't as much as good as them, although I consider THAT a good thing. Although dems can be radically swayed when the right combo of circumstances occur like this election, but thankfully a majority of the folks (I hope) will keep a level head and more times than not the folks here in the DU are able to do that.

Making folks aware of this is one of our best defenses against these type of tactics.

Thanx for adding your levelheaded thoughts on the subject,

d

[AmyStrange]

50. Welcome to the DU by the way...

hope you have fun and stay around for a while. The kind of knowledge you have will be quite helpful in the future and don't forget to check out the ultimate DU slang dictionary:

http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/

d

[deckerd]

53. Thank You!!!

:pals:

and thanks to you and Moonbeam for the replies.

[AmyStrange]

54. you're welcome, although...

76 trombones would be a BIT much don't you think?

d

[deckerd]

58. My Friend, haven't you heard of the "Bush Method"?

I assure you, the Iraqi troops, at the very least, will be delivered
on the next train before Election Day, assuming those weapons aren't!
In fact I really must say:

Seventy six wea-pons of mass destruc-tion
With a hundred and ten colonels close at hand
They were followed by rows and rows of the finest NCOs;
the cream of every famous land.

Seventy six loose nukes caught the morning sun
With a hundred and ten terrorists right behind
There were more than a thousand janjaweeds springing up like reeds,
There were roadside bombs of every shape and kind.

There were copper bottom drums in horse platoons
Threatening, chemical weapons all along the way
Double bell euphoniums and big balloons
Each containing evidence of some foul play.

There were fifty mounted cannon in the battery
Thundering, thundering, like a sandstorm in June,
Iraqi troops of every size and ex-Baathists who'd improvise
A full octave after changing their tune.

Seventy six tombstones hit the counter point
While a hundred and ten buglers played the air
To the rhythm of 'Harch Harch Harch!'
All the kids began to march
And they're marching still, right today

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

10. Meanwhile there are REAL Republicans who are voting for Kerry!!!

And that's a fact.

What a loser.

[looking glass]

11. Zell Miller?

n/t

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. They all work for Pat Caddell.

Man, he gets on my nerves.

[secular_warrior]

32. there are Democrats who pretend to be Democrats

The party still has some conservative Democrats leftover who do wayyy more harm than good -- like Zell Miller, and the mayor of Youngstown,OH who endorsed Bush.

Remember, once upon a time the party was more of a populist right party(socially conservative, economically populist on trade and unions) than a liberal party, and there are vestiges remaining: areas like Youngstown, areas in PA like Pittsburgh and states like West Virginia.

Like I said, it does far more harm than good to have these people in the party because they are wingnuts for all intents and purposes except for trade and unions, and it forces our national candidates to shy away from liberalism in an attempt to hold on to them -- a Democratic presidential candidate will always have to run center right as long as these people are in the party.

[Barney Rocks]

38. So how do you

propose that we get rid of the "DLC" democrats? Are we going to give up on being a big tent party? And if we go to the left, will the Republicans pick up the DLC Democrats giving them a clear majority? And if we move to the left--how do we compete with the Greens and the Socialists and other parties on the left?

I am just curious--to tell you the truth--I am not sure what we should do--it is hard to know what the future of our party should be. Do we move to the right or to the left? There are negatives and positives in both directions. I guess that time will tell.

[PermanentRevolution]

40. What I hope will happen...

Is that losing the election will trigger a serious rift between the more moderate older Republicans and the radical right hijackers, maybe enough to see the GOP split into two parties. If that happens, we should be able to split off from the DLC dems and maybe merge with the Greens, shifting the party further left. Then we might actually have a viable three-party setup: Radical righties, moderates, and left/progressives, each taking about a third of the population.

But you're right. Time will tell. I think a shift to the right would be absolutely disastrous, though. What the hell is the point of becoming GOP-lite?

[Barney Rocks]

44. I agree with you

that I definitely do not want to see the Democratic party become GOP light. And I would also be very happy if we had more parties (I would like to see the death of the two party system). It would be great if the GOP split up--but I do not know how likely it is--I guess I will keep my fingers crossed. It will be difficult to have changes happen quickly, because we are so locked into the current system at all levels of our government. I honestly do not know what is going to happen--but I do foresee some changes within my lifetime.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

45. Good post, I agree

and I would love to see that happen.

I DO think there will be a rift in the GOP WHEN they lose in November, but I don't think the party will split in two (unfortunately....I would love that, though).

That'd be great--the DLC people could go with the moderate Reps (but they'd need to work out some social issues) and we could merge with the greens.

And as usual the Libertarians wouldn't really fit in anywhere.

[secular_warrior]

56. I don't think that would happen

There overwhelming dynamics at work holding the two party system together. I don't see it changing any time soon unless there is strong bipartisan support for drastic electoral reform. And it doesn't simply have to do with corporate power or other evils. It's more a result the way our system of government was orignally set up by the founding fathers. They were geniuses, but the world has changed so much since the 1700s, and I'm sure if they could be here today they would agree with the need for systemic, structural reform.

ps. The moderate Republicans are basically the same as DLC Democrats (socially liberal, economically conservative, hawkish on foreign policy). The DLC is soon going to lose their control of the Democratic Party, if it hasn't already happened. The DLC Dems who like the new direction the base takes the party will stay. If they don't, they will go to the GOP. The more likely scenario is they'll be swing voters -- like they are now anyway.

[secular_warrior]

55. No need to get rid of the moderates or move sharply to the left

The difference between the GOP and Dems is that the GOP base leads and the moderates follow but the reverse is true in our party.

We the base need to lead this party.

And it doesn't just mean a simple move to the left. It has more to do with coming up with a platform the base loves but can also sell to the moderates. The base has to love it first though -- not the other way around.

Liberals have to stand up and be proud to be liberals so we can move forward. Our ideological leaders are frozen in the past because they have been so frightened by the right for 20 years now. There are so many ideas bubbling on the left that can be worked into a very attractive, new liberalism that can win a national election.

Now, I'm not saying Democrats will ever regain the voters we had before the New Deal coalition nor should we try to. That coalition fell apart for a reason -- social liberalism ushered in during the civil rights era -- and will never be put back together. The sooner we realize that the better off we'll be. Our goal should be to come up with a liberalism that is attractive enough to gain a new majority coalition.

Reagan's revolution happened because conservatives were not afraid to lose moderate Republican voters. Conservatives wrote off traditional Republican strongholds in the Northeast and chose instead to have a more coherent, robust ideology which was attractive enough to gain a majority. They were not concerned with losing entire regions, choosing instead a more targeted approach.

The problem with Democrats is they have not understood the need to come up with a strong, coherent ideology to oppose conservatism. Dems have not understood the need to focus on gaining a majority by regional targeting, instead of simply trying to 'win over America'.

[deckerd]

51. What in heck is wrong with Populism?

I am a Populist. We populists are to the left of upper middle class, secular liberals on just about every issue. Cultural issues divide (some) populists, but these issues cut both ways.

For better or worse, it isn't the populist mayor of Youngstown (or wherever) that stood by while they abolished rent control in Boston, nor do the populists stand around and trumpet the resulting income inflation as proof of truly Democratic, "metropolitan" values. (cf. retrovsmetro.org) Now I don't presume to know what Kerry's position is on this and similar issues, but certainly nobody was pressing him on this point in Boston.

There are five wings of the Dem party I can see:

The populist "yellow dogs"; HERO: Roosevelt, RFK, Jefferson.

The conservative "blue dogs" and DLC types; HERO: Clinton and (now) in hindsight Reagan

The capital-L Liberals and socially liberal allies who are focused on social issues and protecting middle-class entitlements, while mostly conservative in the status quo sense as far as other gov't programs go; HERO: Alexander Hamilton, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Bill & Hill.

The "new" progressives; HERO: Howard Dean, Al Gore, JFK, Woodrow Wilson.

The reactionary Dixiecrats who truly don't belong but represent the mid-19th century Democratic party; HERO: Andrew Jackson, Zell Miller, Reagan.

[AmyStrange]

52. Really!!!

you put Howard Dean and JFK (John F Kennedy?) in the same category. I'm a big Howard Dean fan so that was nice to see - if you meant Kennedy and not Kerry.

Although, I'd run out and get some iron underwear if I were you, because the anti-Dean folks will start kicking you all over the place,

d

[deckerd]

63. I like Dean--he inherits more of the robustly optimistic Camelot Democrats

In my opinion.

However, I am more of a fire-breathing populist myself. :-)

We should be like Israel and have 5 Dem parties and, hmm... let's say 2 Republican parties. (The blue dogs and Dixiecrats could double for two more, frankly)

[secular_warrior]

57. There is a big problem with right wing populism

The old Democratic party was basically a center-right populist party consisting of conservatives in the south and liberals in the urban areas of the north. This was the New Deal Coalition forged by FDR in the wake of the great depression. Economic issues were enough to keep this very dissimilar coalition together until the civil rights era, when social conservatives left the party in droves, especially in the south.

So, the old Democratic party of FDR was broken up by social liberalism -- and by liberalism itself.

The modern Democratic party's controlling ideology is a liberalism. But party leaders have tried for the past 30 years to hold onto the old conservative Democrats at the expense of liberalism. It has caused the party to be embarrased about what it believes, to not voice a coherent opposition to conservatism, and to not realize the need to focus on building a majority through regional targeting even if it means abandoning old conservative strongholds.

There is nothign wrong with populism where it intersects with liberalism and if the populists are willing to come along for the ride; but it can't be the other way around and it can't be at the expense of liberalism and the Democratic Party.

[deckerd]

64. The problem is that capital "L" Liberals are becoming more conservative

On all other issues besides social issues. I see this in my very liberal hometown every day. So it's not just the DLC dragging the party to the right; the academic, "interest group oriented" (as the Republicans are wont to say) "center of the party" types are doing the same thing, for a few very different reasons.

1. Areas considered safe for liberalism are becoming more and more gentrified and upscale; this includes even semi rural areas and college towns, creating a "hothouse flower" effect best exemplified by those "Retro vs. Metro" ads, and further dividing core Dem groups geographically, economically and spiritually.

2. The socially liberal, affluent Repubs who are attracted to Blue areas, who are driving up property values in Blue areas are changing the culture. Traditional Liberals in the party are incrasingly reaching out to these "McCain Independents" and "Reagan Independents" on economic issues (anti-tax, pro-business, anti-tenant, tough on crime, tough on social programs) in an effort to build on common social values (pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-environment, anti-redneck, pro-PTA.)

3. I'd say the capital "L" crowd is disproportionately Boomer and the
baby boomers are getting more conservative as they grow older. My parents' generation (baby boomers) is also MUCH less cynical about the media than older generations (who feel the culture has passed them by) or younger generations (who are more likely to recognize the media bias). So they are much more susceptible to the conservatizing of their favorite programs which I have noticed growing up.

As for the DLC: I'd place most DLC'ers in the category of --
(a) Liberals who've "jumped the shark" and are voting strictly pocketbook; (b) Socially moderate children of Dixiecrats and Republicans; (c) "Disciplined cadre" types who think the Dem party won't "do what it takes" to remain in power and "keep the really bad guys out". So their perspective is more circumstantial than strategic, really.

[secular_warrior]

65. The key is to forge a majority coalition

by uniting around a strong, coherent ideology to oppose Republican conservatism, being proud of ourselves, and not being afraid to abandon regions and elements of the 'old Democratic party'.

I'd be the first one to say that old school idealistic liberalism has been highly marginalized. It is stale and old and best exemplified by timid, naive individuals such as Dukakis and Mondale. The *new* new left is best exemplified by the Greens, progressives, Michael Moore, left leaning libertarians and the Dean movement. Dean was a centrist who put together a platform which appealed to the progressives and old guard liberals and independents. That is the future of this party. I disagree greatly with the way Dean ran his campaign and the sometimes immature/gimmicky nature of it, BUT there is no doubt he came up with something special that I truly see as the future ideology of this party. This new liberalism is a tougher IN YOUR FACE guerilla liberalism that is much less idealistic/irresponsible and much more concerned with results and accountability.

So this is not simply a matter of a simple right or left shift, but fundamental transformation of the ideology itself. The old guard liberals' simple shift to the left in the 80s and the DLC's simple shift to the right in the 90s demonstrates the perils of the simple shift along a dying core.

And I agree with the retro vs metro argument -- the future of American politics will not be national in nature but regional -- the Republicans figured this out 30 years ago. The key to the success of a modern political party is gaining a majority through delivering a coherent message -- a worldview -- to the regions most receptive to the message. The future is regional not national.

[Carolinian]

39. I read the same thing in my paper. Hell, you write one as a cross over

Republican. Two can play that game.

[AmyStrange]

42. Excellent suggestion...

for example, "I've been republican all my life and voted straight party ticket every time I voted. But this move by George Bush to attack countries for made up reasons, and him not even having the guts to go to Vietnam, and the skyrocketing deficits, and myself a veteran of Vietnam... " etc. etc.

What an excellent suggestion - although let your dem friends know what you're up to first,

d

[ClassWarrior]

60. Naw, don't lie, and save some bucks. Write an LTTE about...

...this hypocrite's non-voting record. And have everyone do the same.

23.

[AmyStrange]

61. you're right...

I always feel guilty about lying and besides I can never remember my lies, and I don't have to remember the truth,

d

- but the devil in me still likes the idea though

[Kimber Scott]

47. Wow, you have a list of who people voted for?

I thought it was secret?

[Bleacher Creature]

48. As Al Franken would say. . .

LIARS!

If you say that you are a Dem who is going to vote for Lincoln Chafee, fine. Or for Jim Leach, Chris Shays, Olympia Snowe, or Amo Houghton, I will also believe you.

If you say that you are a Dem and will vote for Shrub, the best term to describe you is . . . . . Republican.

[Bush was AWOL]

62. Exactly!

No sane democrat that voted for Clinton or Gore will vote for dim son. And that is why the polls are bull shit and why we will WIN!

[ClassWarrior]

59. Get everyone you know to write a letter to the editor of the same paper.

Especially people in the Democratic Party in your area. Get documentation like the voting list you cited. Get the paper to cover this.

Hell, get their competition (other papers, TV & radio stations, etc.) to cover it too - they'll love a chance to make the first paper look bad.

You got lemons. Time to make lemonade.

23.