Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
In what ways are you yourself guilty of that for which you indict me?

On the specific charge of evaluating political philosophy X and quoting almost exclusively anti-X sources for the underlying facts, I plead not guilty. I'm sure I have lots of other ideological blinders of my own, but I am not aware of what they are. Perhaps that's inevitable, because if I did see them they wouldn't be blinders anymore.

blatham wrote:
Now and again, you'll perhaps appreciate, I have found myself reflecting on thomas' past arguments.

That is true. And while I stand by my opinion about your choice of sources, I was grossly exaggerating when I compared you to that creationist I had debated with. I now think I shouldn't have done that. Sorry.

Apology unnecessary. One long-past springtime I crashed emotionally after killing a robin with a BB gun. If the police come for me one day with incontrovertible evidence as to my murderous act, I think I'll be fine, equanimity-wise.

Paragraph one speaks to the interesting questions. You open the door to the possibility, but it's a narrow opening indeed. There is perhaps a tad more of philosophical propriety or ettiquette than substance? Though you haven't fulfilled the prerequiste requirement, I believe I can proceed with my confessions, Vater.

I have not read Hayek nor those like Friedman who have come out of the Chicago school, other than in little bits I've bumped into. On the other hand, that holds true for JK Galbraith or Stiglitz as well. You? I am underfond of numbers. My meagre move to penetrate the impenetrable has been a single, if careful, viewing of the PBS documentary - Commanding Heights. I did come away from that bit of learning with a revised perspective. But as you probably know, Jeffrey Sachs has revised certain perspectives as well. Yes? Economics is not my language and I am a dangerous klutz in any economic discussion. I admit that the subject has greater relevance for political theory than does neolithic animal husbandry and wheat domestication, but I have only some unknown few minutes remaining before the gates of hell reject me as a robin-loving bleeding heart.

As to political matters more specifically, I disagree right off the top with your stipulation that sources must be either right or left. Discussions on an American board are driven inevitably, particularly now, towards assuming such an oppositional dichotomy - proBush or antiBush, proRepublican Party of proDemocrat Party, proChristian or antiChristian, proTradition or antiTradition, proLife or antiLife, proTorture or antiTorture, etc. It's an impoverished and increasingly worthless dialogue. Was the publication of the The Pentagon Papers a 'leftist' act? Were journalists and publications that carried Kenneth Starr leaks 'rightist'? Or take the The Fairness Doctrine (David Brock's history on the principals, maneuvers, and motives involved in its dismantling is very good - careful, thorough, and factual...see "The Republican Noise Machine"). Was that legislated regulation regimen 'leftist'? Is all regulation 'leftist'? Of course, we bump right into your libertarian philosophy here, which has a significant representation in the American political spectrum too. Between you and I, this is the primary area of disagreement. You perceive me as dogmatic, unyielding and under-educated on the matter. And I believe you ought to be forwarding such indictments to the mirror you shave before.

Sources, for me, have worth where they are careful, nuanced and free from the baggage of cliche and rhetorical tricks which have the function of deceit or mis-weighting or opacity. So yes, I like Scalia very much as a writer/thinker. Though certainly no moreso than Dworkin. But I would take Dworkin for my neighbor long before Scalia. Where Dworkin might well regulate corporations or media conglomerates, Scalia would be more likely to regulate my virtue. That is, of course, his notion of what my virtue ought to look like. Like his.

Which brings us, straight as an arrow, to neoconservative ideas and spokesfolk. Two weeks ago, I sat and listened to Gertrude Himmelfarb speak for an hour in interview (previously, I'd read some snippets from her and a couple of reviews HERE (note, by the way, the 1974 review by Dworkin...that ought to be interesting). Terribly bright woman. I wouldn't last long in a debate with her. But she is an aristocrat in temperment and in philosophy, and thus my avowed enemy. She talked in the interview about the Victorian period, particularly as regards the notions of 'virtue' she sees inherent to the social arrangements of that period. Virtue is a fair enough subject of study, if tricky to navigate without bringing in one's intractable biases. It is inevitably a dangerously elitist or aristocratic enterprise...how ought my neighbors to behave? She was to some slight degree forthcoming as to how her own life and heritage might select towards certain beliefs regarding proper virtue, but not nearly so forthcoming as I would demand. Regimens of social order are commonly, if not almost always, a shadow cast by the demands of those in power and priviledge to remain there. And for others to remain below. Like Plato, she isn't really overly fond of artists. They (like empiricism or free speech or a truly independent and contentious press) present a unique threat to existing community agreements and thus the social order. I, on the other hand, want to fund each of those forces which work towards unsettling the social order. It is a battle, a dialectic, an inevitable clash of interests in any community.

I haven't read Strauss, other than in review and excerpt. Nor do I have any works in my library which contend against him. You? Again, I've been introduced to reviews and exceprts for these voices too. We does what we can with the hours allotted.

As to the more acute matter of the sources I quote here on a2k...that has increasingly, and regretfully, become a function of the level of discourse and the level of thoughtfullness and education of the participating members. And, very importantly, as a function of the broader political discourse in the US. The establishment of a totally partisan media machine, designed with but a single end in mind - to disempower one party and to portray reality in a predetermined manner - has no precedent in US history. It IS a totalitarian device. As it has grown in power and in effectiveness, I have found myself increasingly drawn to debate style of a particular and unrewarding sort. Merely dismantling unreflected cliches could take every hour of every day. Another person working at my shoulder and concentrating on inconsistent statements from administration officials would spend every hour of his/her day doing that task. How does one hold back a horde of Tutsis with bloodlust in their nostrils? If one could go back to 1930 Berlin and begin yelling "Alarum!", how much might he do?

Even so, as I think you understand, a column by Krauthammer has its reflection in a column by Dowd. But Eric Alterman stands apart, unless one's only criterion is support or not for Bush/party in establishing what makes for worthwhile commentary and political writing.

As confession, this probably reads much like yours above, if longer and prettier.

You're a good guy thomas. Careful and with integrity towards learning. That puts you in my 'favored' category along with women of a certain sort. Most folks here seem to be fine people, just caught up in a madness of the time. How much we'll all suffer and for how long is not knowable.

I really can't afford to be around here much any longer. You talked a few weeks ago of cost/benefit analyses. It would be an interesting exercise to calculate the hours spent (and their financial worth) by the hundreds of us who have debated with, for example, foxfyre. And that figure balanced against real change or improvement. If I had an economist in my employ, he'd not approve.

0 Replies

http://www.policyreview.org/aug03/berkowitz.html

No comment, other than "interesting".

from the conclusion

Quote:

The promise and the dangers of our era are indissolubly connected. The more freedom we have, the more we want. And the more we get, the more we weaken freedom's foundations in moral and political life. However, the very same circumstances that unleash freedom's self-subverting tendencies also create opportunities for the exercise of the liberal spirit's self-correcting powers, which primarily consist of the free mind's ability to understand its interests well and devise measures to secure them.

When the free mind turns its attention to our present predicament, it may well conclude that it is in the liberal spirit's best interest to conserve something of its origin. This requires reacquainting ourselves with the liberal tradition's teachings about freedom's foundation in our nature and freedom's material and moral preconditions. In light of what we now know about freedom's history, the free mind may also conclude that it is necessary to correct something of the liberal spirit's origin, particularly the inclination or temptation, present from the beginning, to see freedom as an end in itself disconnected from the service of other human purposes, including those that are neither defined nor determined by freedom. Then, in part because to be bound to any one tradition is contrary to the liberal spirit's own imperatives, in part because it is foolish to suppose that the liberal tradition, much as we owe it, offers the last word on who we are and what we can and should become, the truly free mind is likely to seek to go beyond the liberal tradition to think more comprehensively about what freedom is good for.

Improving by conserving the liberal spirit is easier said than done. But the doing first requires the saying, and to say something useful, the challenge must be accurately understood.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
And now back to figuring out how the Democrats went from having a "veto-proof" Congress to being the minority.

Trivia question: When was that?

Joe(Hint: There was a Democrat in the WH.)Nation

Don't know about anything that far back. Their problems this last time around however are simply explained: they made a halfhearted attempt at making it with the treason vote; they needed to go all the way, with an ultimate ticket:

http://www.designeduniverse.com/pics/arnold_iscariot.gif

your song might be at least a little more interesting if you sang more than one note...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

0 Replies

Quote:

Then perhaps I misphrased that sentence. The vibe I am getting from you is that the success of conservative ideas reflects purely a competitive advantage in their marketing, as opposed to any competitive advantage in the underlying product. The reason I am getting this vibe from you is because I have never heard you make an effort to consider that possibility.

I don't hear you express an interest in the substance of their policy preferences at all. May I assume you're not interested in it, or would you interpret this as another instance of George's manipulative tactics victimizing me?

Thomas,
Your understanding of my belief that the Republicans are now in power because they have out spined the Democrats is correct. If you'll notice these elections have been very close. In Ohio for instance, a change in only one or two factors and Kerry would be president today. One or two in 2000 and we would have had Gore. The margin is paper thin. Tactics in the field to register and get out the vote were decisive.

However your idea that I'm not interested in conservative ideas is not accurate. My understanding of economics is limited and therefore I'm admittedly dependent on explanations from others. I do know however that we had a huge surplus when Bush took office and now we have an unbelievably huge deficit, and there's no way out. I've heard and read all the pros and cons of that. But my understanding of the intricacies is limited, as it is for most American voters.

I know we're involved in what I consider to be an unnecessary war because we were purposefully deceived. I believe that this administration uses lies as a method for it's nationalistic policies. This is not just my idea. A majority of the American people think the same. I believe we went into war without a good plan and many innocent people have died because of it. I believe we went to war in order to make the rich people richer and that all other glorious intentions are simply a cover.

I know too much about George Bush and Karl Rove personally to believe they care about anyone but themselves. I've had too much personal contact with them and with people who know them to believe otherwise.

But my main concern has to do with social issues. I'm pro-choice, pro-respect for the beliefs of others. I'm a health care professional and therefore know and care a lot about issues like medical privacy and medical care for everyone. I know that Bush promised to protect medical privacy and then turned around after the election and did exactly what he said he wouldn't do. (It has to do with the HIPPA rules.) What do you know about our present medical system? There are huge numbers of people in this country who have no insurance coverage for themselves or their children. And the problem is not that they are lazy or unwilling to work. Many can't afford it and many others can't apply. If you're too sick, in this country, you can't get insurance. If, for instance, a family has a child with a chronic kidney disease, they can get no coverage for this child even on a company benefit insurance plan. The insurance company lists this condition as a pre-existing condition. There is a lot wrong with our present system of medical care and insurance. The right to privacy is in severe danger of extinction when it comes to health care. But our rights to privacy are threatened in general as well.

I know that the New Right has a culture war agenda and that every item (every promise made by this administration) on that agenda is at this time in the works. This includes forcing the appointment of extremist anti-choice judges (with the ultimate goal of making the right to chose illegal), teaching creationism or "creation science" in our schools, this is an anti-science initiative. There is a campaign to regulate what college professors are allowed to teach, a push to impose a government endorsed religion, which is the majority religion, regardless of our Constitutional right to have no government supported religion. There is government supported discrimination against gays and lesbians. The anti-science agenda includes a totally irresponsible dismissal of environmental science.

These are only a few. I have read and read and heard and read the Republican's ideas about the culture war issues. And I don't agree with them. So about social issues, I think you're wrong about my lack of interest in the conservative rationale for their anti-choice, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-concern for the health and well being of not just the poor, but the middle class as well.

I was, like Foxfire and george and Timber raised in the other political camp. I was raised as a Republican. My father wasn't a congressman, he was a died-in-the-wool Republican businessman. And I loved my Father deeply. But I think he was wrong about his politics. To this day all my sisters and their husbands and most of their children are Evangelical, Fundamentalist Conservative Republicans. My father-in-law and mother-in-law and all their aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews are the same. I've heard plenty about the beliefs and rationales of the Republicans.

My interest in the Republican spin machine has to do with my belief that people like many of us on a2k are very few among American voters. Most Americans are struggling to make a living and don't have the luxury of our education and time to read and understand the fine points of the neoconservative perspective. They vote based on what they are told and how they are told it. So if the Democrats are to win the next election in 06, we'll have to learn how to do what the Republicans have done. We'll have to expose those techniques which are unethical, and there are many. And we'll have to learn how to use those that are ethical better than they do. It does, I think come down to that.

Quote:

or would you interpret this as another instance of George's manipulative tactics victimizing me?

Just to point out another example of a mischaracterization of what I said, I did not mention anything about you being victimized by george. I said his technique may have influenced you. See below what I actually said.

Quote:

Whatever causes Thomas to get these vibes from me, I don't know. However, I suspect that his inclination to read into my posts what he already assumes is encouraged by your chronically posted untrue allegations.

george wrote:

Quote:

and you said I was a mindless mime and a one trick pony.

I didn't say you were a one trick pony, I said you don't let the fact that your argument style makes you look like a one trick pony change your technique.........there's a big difference.

Lola wrote:

Quote:

Good show old man, you don't let the fact that the repetition of these claims makes you look like a one trick pony deter you from your task of leaving these impressions.

That's all for now folks.

0 Replies

JW writes

Quote:

<< Wonders if Georgeob or Foxy's hands shook with the memory of all their ancestors who always voted Democrat as if it were a form of tribal initiation. <Smiling>

Some no doubt would though my parents did like Ike but not enough to jump party. I was living in West Texas when I was finally old enough to vote. When I went to register they weren't asking anybody their political preference. Your registration was automatically stamped "Democrat". Smile

My first state job was with the State of New Mexico and, as my mother not-so-gently suggested, there was no chance I would be hired unless I was a bonafide registered Democrat.

Joe Nation writes

Quote:

Don't people like Kristol, Wolfowitz and George W. Bush believe that we are creating new Ohios out there? Or do they realize, even though they aren't telling their supporters such things, that the newly created democracies will be more like Israel than Iowa?

This was no doubt asked at least a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it really is a fair question. I had to think about it for a bit, but then recalling remarks said by the President, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell et al over the last several months, I am certain they do not. All they are hoping for is more personal freedom, more personl opportunity, and a much less hostile environment for the peoples of the Middle East and thus the world will be a better place for it. I am quite sure they are aware that the new governments formed will not resemble anything like ours but will be their own thing.

0 Replies

The following url is to an article by Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under Clinton) in which he gives a formula for what we need to do. I'll be interested to see how many participants here agree with him.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=g9kpBsoUAec4cKU09UhnDR%3D%3D

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I have not read Hayek nor those like Friedman who have come out of the Chicago school, other than in little bits I've bumped into. On the other hand, that holds true for JK Galbraith or Stiglitz as well. You?

I have read Galbraith's "New Industrial State", and that was enough to decide I'm not interested in reading more. Too many fallacies. In fairness to Galbraith, he did, unlike many other writers, trust his predictions enough to make refutable predictions about the future structure of the economy. Nevertheless, they were refuted. My problem with Stiglitz is similar to my problem with Robert Barro, a prominent conservative economist. They both say one thing in their textbooks, which are peer-reviewed, and another thing in their popular-consumption books, which are not. This petty dishonesty is surprisingly common among academic writers. When those engaging in this pettiness are sorted out, I usually end up with Friedman and Becker for the conservative side, Krugman for the moderate left, Franck for the hard-core liberals. I like your choice of Jeffery Sachs too, but he happened not to be on my radar screen that much.

blatham wrote:

As to political matters more specifically, I disagree right off the top with your stipulation that sources must be either right or left.

I disagree with it too -- this is not my stipulation. My stipulation is that there is a principled case to make for most policies. Not every weasel trick Mr. Bush engages in, not every pound of pork Mr. Kennedy sends home to Massachusetts, but most general policies. And my stipulation is that those who make a principled case against those policies are unreliable witnesses to what the principled case for said policy is. If you decide whether to buy a Ford or not, you wouldn't take at face value a Chrysler salesman's account on what it's like to drive the Ford. The same principle applies to politics too.

blatham wrote:

Was the publication of the The Pentagon Papers a 'leftist' act?

No. Especially not when you consider that it was Lyndon Johnson who got the worst press in the process.

blatham wrote:

Were journalists and publications that carried Kenneth Starr leaks 'rightist'?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not denying that they did the public a useful service. Even so, if there was an online debate on whether Bill Clinton's conduct was okay or not, I wouldn't cite them as expert opinions.

blatham wrote:

The Fairness Doctrine (David Brock's history on the principals, maneuvers, and motives involved in its dismantling is very good - careful, thorough, and factual...see "The Republican Noise Machine"). Was that legislated regulation regimen 'leftist'?

It depends on the context. In the context of terrestrial TV in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, when only few TV channels were technically feasable, it was only common sense to make sure that every voice was heard. I would have supported regulation back then. In the context of the print market, it may or may not have been leftist. It would also be wrong. After all, there there is no technical limit to the number of books, so everybody who doesn't like the current balance of public opinion can always change it by writing another book. I suspect even you don't want to see the "Fairness doctrine" applied to the book market. The market for cable TV is somewhere in between, and that's where we disagree mostly.

blatham wrote:

Is all regulation 'leftist'?

No. "Dry" counties, prohibitions against boobs on terrestrial TV, and prohibitions against four letter words are most certainly conservative. Consider Michael Powell's FCC crusade against indecency. I do believe, though, that most regulation we currently have is unnecessary and harmful. The problem is that the regulating is not done by philosopher kings, but by a process that rarely works better than the process being regulated. As a consequence, crony aristocracies take control of regulating bodies more often than vice versa. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the son of George Bush is currently running America; the brother of president Kennedy and the wife of president Clinton are currently running America's opposition; and until recently, the son of secretary Powell ran the FCC who you want to entrust the job of keeping TV fair and balanced. (Chairman Powell resigned a few weeks ago, days after secretary powell left office.)

blatham wrote:

You perceive me as dogmatic, unyielding and under-educated on the matter. And I believe you ought to be forwarding such indictments to the mirror you shave before.

It's a free internet. (No thanks to national content regulation, I might add.) You and I are both entitled to this opinion.

blatham wrote:

Sources, for me, have worth where they are careful, nuanced and free from the baggage of cliche and rhetorical tricks which have the function of deceit or mis-weighting or opacity. So yes, I like Scalia very much as a writer/thinker. Though certainly no moreso than Dworkin. But I would take Dworkin for my neighbor long before Scalia. Where Dworkin might well regulate corporations or media conglomerates, Scalia would be more likely to regulate my virtue. That is, of course, his notion of what my virtue ought to look like. Like his.

Based on which Scalia opinion are you saying that? But I agree you have a point about Dworkin. He is a much more interesting and thought-provoking writer than I gave him credit for when I read him the first time. I don't understand why he pretends to write about the American constitution when he is really writing about moral philosophy -- but as to his qualities as a legal philosopher, I admit you were right and I was wrong.

I can't speak to Mrs. Himmelfarb, who I haven't heard of until now. I would submit, though, that the much-derided 'Victorian morals' were propagated by persuasion and voluntary cooperation, rather than the government. I am no fan of Victorian prudishness, but prefer it to the mandatory sterilizations of the early 20th century or China's mandatory one child policy (which you're not arguing for, I know.) Likewise, I am indifferent to activities like starting up the YMCA and temperance societies, but I greatly prefer them to the 'war on drugs' -- as, I suspect, do you. The danger I see coming from neoconservatives is not their Victorian morals -- it's that they want to use coercive government measures to enforce those morals. (Here's my dogmatism showing again. So be it.)

blatham wrote:

I haven't read Strauss, other than in review and excerpt. Nor do I have any works in my library which contend against him. You?

Similarly here -- except that I haven't argued against Strauss or Straussians online yet, as I think I remember you have.

blatham wrote:

As confession, this probably reads much like yours above, if longer and prettier.

Definitely prettier. I believe that your eloquence puts the liberals in this forum at an unfair advantage, and I would ask the the management impose the regulation on you that every second sentence of yours have to be grammatically broken, in addition to using foul language. Wink

blatham wrote:

You're a good guy thomas. Careful and with integrity towards learning.

Likewise -- glad to see we're still friends.

blatham wrote:

I really can't afford to be around here much any longer. You talked a few weeks ago of cost/benefit analyses. It would be an interesting exercise to calculate the hours spent (and their financial worth) by the hundreds of us who have debated with, for example, foxfyre. And that figure balanced against real change or improvement. If I had an economist in my employ, he'd not approve.

That's an interesting thought -- I guess we all spend more time here than a careful calculation of costs and benefits would suggests. Good thing we're not calculating.

0 Replies

Every time I hear Reich speak, an old Randy Newman tune starts playin' in my head. The one thing he says in that article which begins to be on-point is " ... Americans can spot a fake thousands of miles away ... ", and just a few lines later, he reaffirms the perception that The Democratic Party Leadership is an eletist cabal which sees not a nation of concerned, rational, responsible conscionable citizens, but rather as a flock of sheeple too dim to choose what is best for themselves or for The Nation; " ... because people don't think in terms of isolated policies or issues ... ". I submit for Mr. Reich's consideration that the fact the American Electorate has not endorsed and rendered ascendent the policies and issues of The Democratic Party is not decause those policies and issues have been miscommunicated or misunderstood, but rather because they have been critically, rigourously examined, considered and found wanton (yes, "wanton" - thats not a typo).

Then, to cap it off, Reich closes with a resurrection of the "We wuz robbed" whine. Yes indeed, Mr. Reich, " ... Americans can spot a fake thousands of miles away ... ". By way of advice to Mr. Reich and followers, I submit that whiners don't fare well with The Electorate, either.

0 Replies

0 Replies

I'll give Reich credit for being able to make a reasoned argument with none of the irratio-babble and Dean screams that we are typically getting from the Left these days. But I agree with Timber that barely concealed under an intellectual facade is a pure liberal convinced that if the message is stated correctly, the---what did Timber call them....Sheeple?....works for me Smile

---will fall back into line.

Like most of the neo-liberal crowd though, he fails to consider that, with no substance, no message will have legs for long.

0 Replies

I like Reich's idea of those four template story lines for appealing to American instincts. I agree with him that the Democrats have to find away to tell those stories in such a way that they appear as their heroes and the Republicans appear as their villains. Unlike Reich though, I believe there are reasons of substance why the Democrats have difficulties appealing to the Americans' taste for self reliance and functional communities, and their fear of foreign danger and of rot at the top.

Rhetoric alone isn't going to do it. (Of course, this is an even greater problem for the George Bush style Republicans. I would guess that the Republicans will either seek a safe distance from their president soon, or start losing elections soon. But I guessed wrongly in the past.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... But I guessed wrongly in the past.

Noticed that, have ya? :wink: Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

DEMOCRATS IN THE WILDERNESS

Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean (that has such a nice ring to it, doesn't it?) was giving a speech to something called Democrats Abroad, a meeting of Democrats being held up in Toronto. During that time, the governor had some interesting things to say.

Dean said that one of the reasons John Kerry was beaten so decisively in November is because their overall message was too complicated. He says they should keep it simple. He also called Republicans "brain-dead." Now stop and ask yourself....if the chairman of the GOP had called Democrats brain-dead, would it be ignored by the mainstream media like Dean's comments are? Of course not. But such is life when it comes to media bias.

Anyway, Dean goes on to say that the Democrats want to copy those same brain-dead Republicans, because he admires their ability to stay on message. All of this completely misses the point, and underscores the Democratic denial across the country since they lost the election.

They didn't lose because people didn't hear their message, they didn't lose because people didn't understand their positions. They lost because people knew exactly where they stood, and they didn't like what the Democratic party had to offer. The voting public believes that Democrats are soft on terrorism, in favor of higher taxes and more government control of our lives.

Until they realize how out of step they are with the public, Democrats will keep losing national elections.

0 Replies

Why are they in Toronto? No American cities they could spend money at?

0 Replies

They're occasionally in Tranna (both sides of the political equation) because of the large number of U.S. voters here. But you knew that.

Quote:

is the Democratic Party organisation for more than seven million US citizens living overseas. Forty-five separate country committees throughout the world organize local events and activities to encourage participation in the American political process.

http://www.democratsabroad.org/

Quote:

Republicans Abroad enlists the energy and leadership of Americans living abroad to carry out its work. In fact, more than six million Americans live abroad - a number larger than the populations of 24 states in the Union. Republicans Abroad helps the Republican Party develop policy and campaign strategy at the highest levels.

http://www.republicansabroad.org/

Even Jeb popped by.

Quote:

RACanada Group Meets Florida Govenor Jeb Bush Canada in Toronto, Visit Creates New Excitement for Group

Republicans Abroad Canada undertook their most ambitious initiative to date when Governor Jeb Bush of Florida visited Toronto on July 8.

The group organized three tables at a business breakfast event held at the Toronto Board of Trade, where the Governor spoke about the great strides his state has made in the area of education and the strong relationship that exists between Canada and Florida.

http://www.republicansabroad.ca/events/rac_govbush.html

0 Replies

Back before the election, I received a campaign call on behalf of Senator Kerry's organization. One of the talkin' point Dem issues at the time was "Jobs and outsoucing". The caller ID display revealed the call had originated from a Canadian phone. Interesingly as well, the message was an automated canned pitch.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The caller ID display revealed the call had originated from a Canadian phone.

The conservatives here phone from India and Poland Laughing

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Back before the election, I received a campaign call on behalf of Senator Kerry's organization. One of the talkin' point Dem issues at the time was "Jobs and outsoucing". The caller ID display revealed the call had originated from a Canadian phone. Interesingly as well, the message was an automated canned pitch.

I've learned that (caller display) isn't reliable.
Often when I call Setanta, his caller display says he's gettin' a local call - something weird about how different phone services marry, or don't.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why are they in Toronto? No American cities they could spend money at?

and yet so many republicans cheeeeered as ex-pat iraqis wandered around parts of the usa wagging a blue stained index finger.

go figure... Confused

0 Replies

based on the posts I've read here on a2k about canada, I'm a bit surprised canada has a phone system.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know