The whole idea that certain districts are off limits is flawed. That conventional wisdom seems to assume that the people of those districts are too ignorant, unsophisticated, and well... just plain too dumb to get "it". It also misunderstands their positions.

It's those people whose sons and daughters are more likely in Iraq & Afghanistan. It's their jobs lost, or wages stagnating declining while productivity & profits soar. It's their lives most disrupted by lack of health care .The office-seeker that connects those , and other problems, to status quo policies, and and unapologetically offers alternatives , will find an audience.

I live in a district just north of Chris Carney's. Given the sentiments I hear , many from hardcore , lifelong Republicans, someone more progressive than Carney could win. At the very least, it would be close, and drive the debate, and subsequent agenda of the winner, in a better direction.

A case in point is the NY district that I used to be in . Until the last redistrict , Maurice Hinchey's district make-up was very close to Carney's ( Ithaca has been added, so that skews it). He is considered one of the most "liberal" members, and has unabashedly opposed BushCo policies, and yet has won handily .

Also, if you're worried about the GOP winning, I have to ask "why?" . The Blue Dogs already enact the worst of the GOP agenda, and that with some very creative rhetorical contortions to cover it. With the Republicans ( such as the E-man), at least there's a chance they'd proudly proclaim exactly what it is they're doing.

Finally, in case nobody else responded:

"....on positions like the Iraq War that, at the time, had the SUPPORT OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. "

- ZipCascade

Uh,.....no.

It was supported by 20-25 %, opposed by a similar number , with the vast middle apathetic/don't know.

Agreed. One thing lacking, though. It makes mention of Guantanamo, but not he other sites . Gitmo is just the most prominent tip of the torture iceberg. Unfortunately, it's probably one of our better prisons, and is becoming the distraction te takes eyes off the whole picture. . The whole system needs to be abolished, and included in the pledge.

As for getting these subjects substantively discussed by the candidates , it will probably require mole "Constitution Voters" to repeatedly sandbag them , by straying from the script, in a town hall forums.

The constitutional issues aren't getting more attention because there are other more important issues at hand.

- shooter242

......until after January, when the government goons will be on the other side . Then, they'll be the most important issues of our time . ;) ( Don't procrastinate, shooter; join the ACLU now! :)))))))))

^ keeps straying on me . Any of you electro-computer whizbangs out there , that know why?

*the*

*that*

Iraq's pre-war population: ~25M

US: ~300M

So.......would any enterprise in this country, that resulted in 6-12 million dead, several times that wounded/maimed, and 40-50 million refugees, ever be considered a success/win, no matter how less violently it ended , than it started? Any talk of "winning" is sickening .

GC, good to see you back at it. Sorry to hear about Lt. Leroy L.

Did the seeds get by the (in)security paranoics? :) If not, I'll send some extra to Pedinkska for spring.

ondelette,Jim M, et al , I'm having trouble with email . I'm still reading them, but when I try to respond, I get kicked out, &/or completely disconnected . I'm still there, even if it appears otherwise .

- M

Puritan: A person that is haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself.

- H.L. Mencken

The difference is that the person on the recieving end of the government sadists didn't enjoy it. ( & it's a bunch of terr-rists with funny-sounding names). With the films, as soon as somebody enjoyed it, it became immoral . ;)

.Goshdarnit. Bygolly we're all about the future dontchaknow !*wink*

Nothing like consistency, to bring in the votes, eh? ;)

Re the Ayers stuff, the logical conclusion is that nobody can redeem themselves, ever .

As for Wright , I have a question , that noone ever seems to explain. "Goddamn American....when it kills innocents "(the part that tends to be forgotten/left out)

Soooooo..... What exactly is the pro innocent-killing rationale? shooter, E-man,somebody? Explain please

Some unintentional comedy for y'all :

....An even greater uncertainty than his inexperience,however,is his attitude towards the lawhe must uphold upon entering office .Along with the burden of the Presidency comes the responsibility of serving one's citizens with honor.A President must respect the history,culture,and law of great men who came bfore him.

Obama has charmed his way to a Presidential nomination using his oratory skills and personal charisma. But those who look closer see the illusion fade, and find young man withgout regard for history or Constitutional tradition. They find a man bent on transforming the United States into a radical left shell of what it once stood for, and what it could stand for again.

..snip....

Today the citizens of this republic stand ready to protect their nation and their way of life from those who would manipulate and usurp such freedom .

From Who is the Real Barack Obama?

(http://WhoIsTheRealBarackObama.com)

by Steve Bierfeldt,Francisco Goinzalez, and Brandon Steinhauser, excerpted in New Guard (NewGuardMag.com) ,The Voice of the Young Right ( of William & Mary College)

(More good laughs at both sites.:) Quoting from a hard copy, as I can't get to either , at the moment .)

Hafetz suggests that giving the President &/or military the powers implied by the al Marri case should be equally abhorrent to both the liberals and the conservatives among the Supremes. That assumes that they actually are conservative . Seems a doubtful assumption. The Authoritarian wing of the Court , seems a better description. Whether they are as radical, (on a given issue) as their fellow-travelers in the executive branch, is the question.