NC-Sen: Neal vs. Hagan on Iraq: You vs. DSCC

There has been much written about this race. Jim Neal is a successful businessman with progressive ideals who is willing to fight for what he believes. Kay Hagan is a corporate Democrat that is most famous in North Carolina for proposing a budget that cut Medicaid to the blind, elderly, and seniors while also cutting taxes for corporations and citizens making over $250,000. However, the DSCC has decided that Kay Hagan is their candidate. Take this little info that was slipped into a blog by well-respected North Carolina Journalist and Blogger Mark Binker:

Staff. Hagan and Neal have a blend of professional and volunteer staff that organize meet-and-greets, run the website, spin reporters, network, fundraise and do all the grunt work of a campaign...Hagan is rolling with DSCC-vetted staffers and Neal has hired an outside consultant with experience running "outsider" campaigns.

The DSCC has made their choice, but after the break I want to further introduce you to Kay Hagan and why YOU need to back the Ned Lamont of 2008, the Jon Tester of 2008 - Jim Neal.

The following is a rough transcript of a forum that took place recently in North Carolina. You can listen to the whole thing here, I'm not hiding anything. These are the relevant passages I believe.

Question: If you had to deal with President McCain, how would you deal with that and implement some different Iraq policy:

Neal: “Any of us up here will do a hell of lot better job than Senator Dole. With respect to Iraq, this is one thing that distinguishes me….I will not vote for any further funding for the war until such time as the administration has come to the Congress and has a discussion where the order is given to bring our trips home orderly and quickly. I can’t tell you how long it will take…”

Hagan: “First of all, I would never use the funding of the military as a political tool to not fund the military. However, I think what I would do is hold hearings after hearings after hearings.”

Now, let's compare that to what some other national figures have said.

During his Rose Garden remarks, Bush said it would be "irresponsible" for the Democratic leadership in Congress "to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."

Delay "will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines, and others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to," said the presiden

"You don't have to be a military strategist to understand the advantage a withdrawal date gives to the enemy," said Paul Morin, national commander of the American Legion in a news release. "Congress authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now, it needs to let the troops finish the job.

"The American Legion supports the troops," he added. "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run."




Who do you want standing next to Harry Reid, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb when the next Senate battle begins. A corporate, Lieberman-Democrat, or Jim Neal, a progressive who stands up for what he believes?

The DSCC has decided it knows best, show them they are wrong. Give to Jim Neal and if you are in North Carolina, go to early voting now and cast your ballot for Jim Neal! If you are in North Carolina and want a chance to meet Jim Neal, you can find him here.


CLICK FOR AMERICABLOG ACTBLUE PAGE

Comments

Neither will I

I think I'll pick my own candidates, Mr. Schumer.

Btw, I remember Mr. Chuck Schumer as a bit of a maverick back in the day. I wonder what happened to him?

Why is the DSCC trying to out-Republican the Republicans?

Why does the DSCC believe that the only way to win is to out-Republican the Republicans? Even if this is a winning strategy (which it isn't), what are we winning?

Crazy

Kay Hagan may not be right on all the issues, but she's no Republican.

"Hampton Dellinger WILL be a great Lieutenant Governor." - Al Gore.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

She's not a Republican, that is true.

If elected, she will count towards our 60 Senators needed for filibuster-proof majority.

Even if she agrees with many Republican positions.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

More Crazy

Crazy

Kay Hagan may not be right on all the issues, but she's no Republican*DrFrankLives

Correct! She is a establishment corporate democrat, who is simply following orders since thinking and constitutional issues is not her strong point.

Let's face it! She is like Dole and retarded republicans who thinks Blackwater is a fun water park in Northeast North Carolina.

Katy Retarded Conservative Corner endorses Hagan?

April 22, 2008

Hagan Touts Endorsements - Will Run to the Middle and Vote to Far Left if Elected to US Senate
According to the Kay Hagan campaign, the candidate for the Democrat nomination for US Senate has won two key endorsements. Both the Charlotte Observer and Winston-Salem Journal have endorsed her in recent days. They are also touting her recent straw poll win at the Forsyth County Democrat Convention.

While Hagan is the favorite of the "establishment" Democrats, her rival, Chapel Hill liberal Jim Neal, has been scooping up endorsements from the far left. Neal touts such publications as Greensboro’s Yes! Weekly, and groups like Guilford County Chapter of the Progressive Democrats. Additionally, he is the beloved candidate of far left website, BlueNC.

According to Neal's website, Yes! praised the Neal campaign’s openness and energetic outreach. “Jim Neal of Chapel Hill has been barnstorming the state … cultivating his netroots alongside his grassroots, blogging regularly as he crosses the state in his Escape Hybrid… We want a senator we can communicate with, and so far Hagan has not shown that she’s ready to do that.”

Hagan is expected to win the nomination on May 6th and will attempt to paint Elizabeth Dole as an out-of-touch senator who is to the right of unpopular President George W. Bush. However, that will be far from the case. While Dole is a key ally of Bush, she has also opposed him on key issues.

Expect the NC Democrat truth-busting machine to be in full-effect this Fall! Kay Hagan will try to appear to North Carolina moderates as their savior, but if elected, she would vote to the left of Nancy Pelosi.

Conservatives have much at stake in this race. While Dole might not be the conservative stalwart as was former Senator Jesse Helms, North Carolina must not elect a liberal Democrat to her seat. We cannot afford the Democrat Party and we certainly can't afford Kay Hagan!

There are reasons to support Neal...

but this definitely AIN'T one of them. As one who saw the kids up-armoring their own HMMWVs, and the shoddy equipment that we were giving the Iraqi Army/Police/SWAT in training them...the need for better equipment to detect and survive IEDs...the need for MORE not LESS resources...this is not the answer for anyone in a combat theater.

This just isn't a strategy that A) gets the super-majority of the Senate and B) gets the support of the American public. Short of a draft being instituted (maybe that's an argument to make), those two facts will not change.

So let's explore the other strategies...

I disagree.

The choice will be made by the President. The Congress will provide full funding assuming he agrees to timetable for redeployment out of Iraq. Maybe a majority of them will be redeployed to Afghanistan, who knows, but they need to come out of Iraq. If the Congress provides full funding, then it is up to the President to decide to go along with the American people and their representatives or against them. The Senate and House represent the American people. If a majority of them say to pull out of Iraq, they represent the American people saying pull out of Iraq.

Don't forget that the uparmoring of Humvees happened with FULL FUNDING by the Republican majority. It was republicans who sent them in without proper equipment, it was republicans that have their blood on their hands for cutting taxes in a time of war instead of full-funding the military.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

You know I supported Biden

But there is already enough money in the pipeline for our soldiers to come home safely, and nobody is proposing making them less safe. Their safety will always be provided for. I think Biden was voting for the funding to bring attention to funding for MRAVs and other equipment that was desperately needed in Iraq.

Some of my friends got together and started a blog about technology and change. IT is pretty good.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Biden understood it more than anyone...

Their safety will always be provided for.

I don't know how that's possible if ALL funding is cut off. And exactly what is being cut off? The money for...ammunition? Fuel? Food? Repair parts? Soldier pay? Body armor? Salary for interpreters?

And it just doesn't make sense during the Bush Administration b/c he'll just keep them there and then use the power of the executive to divert money from other parts of the budget.

Frankly it's just an...trying to think of another word beside immature...concept. It doesn't make sense on any level, tactically, operationally, or strategically. It's a cheap line that doesn't make sense in the real world.

As I say, there are many, many other strategies out there to end the war. This ain't one.

This post is dealing with 2009.

Under then President McCain, when the Iraq Debacle will be six years old. This strategy says, enough is enough, no new funding until you have a timeline for redeployment.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Capt, our defense budget

has increased from around 400 billion a few years ago to just under 700 billion now. It's teeming with pork and earmarks, and is (even more than ever before) a self-sustaining "sacred cow" that Congress is loathe to trim back for political reasons. Not defense reasons, political.

But it must be trimmed back. Accountability is out the window, and these billions are changing the way our country behaves toward and is perceived by the world at large.

As I say, there are many, many other strategies out there to end the war. This ain't one.

As long as war is profitable for some powerful people, it will not end.

People need to understand something:

There is a huge difference between what Jim proposes:

I will not vote for any further funding for the war

and how Kay translates that comment:

not fund the military

This is a popular misconception (now meme), originally created by Republicans loyal to the administration to shame any legislator from attempting to curb the out-of-control behavior of this neocon puppet we call a President.

The Defense Authorization Act (each year) is an omnibus bill, with specific funding for each branch along with hundreds of other special "projects", including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you remove the funding authorization for the war, including the "emergency" supplements (which are now an annual phenom), you are not taking money or food away from soldiers. Period.

Our lack of control over the spending in this war has caused many of the actual problems we've encountered there. The half-assed methods of writing and awarding contracts in theatre and the "brilliant" idea of using bags of cash to pay for such has bred corruption throughout government and the private sector alike. And our own contractors have been ripping us (and the Iraqi people) off from day one, and it's taken Congress five years just to pass legislation providing a minimum of oversight on their behavior.

Our military spending this FY is going to be around 3/4 of a trillion dollars. Think about that, people. Think about the millions of Americans trying to feed their families on what's left of their paycheck after paying the rent and filling their tank. Think about those millions of children with no health insurance. Liddy Dole wants a lot more than that, like 20% of our GDP to be dedicated to defense. And Kay Hagan is apparently under the impression that if you cut defense spending, you're grabbing the plate of food away from a hungry soldier.

There really is only one choice in this election, for those of us who are concerned about the direction our country has taken. I'm not even going to say it, because you know who it is.

You need to understand...

That if we do defund the war without deauthorizing the war, we will be left with troops in Iraq that are thoroughly underfunded. As a result, the Defense Department would reorganize the money in order to continue to support the war effort in Iraq, which means other programs and military operations would be underfunded. The end result is that our troops get the shaft.

Enough talking about defunding, actually talk about the only way to safely end the United States' invovement in Iraq, deauthorize the war. As long as the war is authorized, the President of the United States has full authority to continue waging war in Iraq, money or not.

To argue for defunding the war is reprehensible and immoral. Our troops deserve a helluva lot better than that. I do not care if it is a Republican keeping there after the war is defunded, the blame still partly falls in the short-sighted individuals who took the supplied and resources away from the troops.

Defunding without deauthorization is a shameless ploy that serves no one.

And what do you do

If congress defunds the war in Iraq and a Republican Administration says, "Fuck it! We'll just leave the troops there and move around some money to fund it."?

You shouldn't be sick of hearing about a responsible withdrawl from Iraq. In no way am I advocating a meaure of "under the right circumstance," or "once Iraq can stand on its own two feet." I'm talking about a responsible withdrawl that does not unduly put our troops in more harms way. Defunding without deauthorizing does nothing then let people thump their chest and think they did something good. When in reality, they fucked the situation up even more.

Sorry about the language, but I have many friends currently in Iraq or about to go back, so if I don't take sympathy for your half-cocked idea, excuse me. But there is not way in hell I can support, or anyone who claims to support the troops (and no, I am not using it in the cliche republican sense), a defunding without a deauthorization. It puts too many people I know in greater peril.

You're not the only one

who has friends (or family) in Iraq, and don't try to throw the responsibility for their peril on me. They're in harm's way now because Bush saw an opportunity to forward the neocon agenda by using the War On Terror as an excuse to invade Iraq.

And don't even think about dropping that "claims to support the troops" crap on me. I volunteered when I had a wife and a new baby to feed, and jumped out of airplanes for my country while making a little over $8,000 per year back in the 1980's.

The only thing that will help our troops is to bring them home, and soon.

I am not placing the peril on anyone but the decision makers

But, we cannot just blame George W. Bush for this. The Democrats in 2002 did nothing to prevent the Bush war machine. Where was the filibuster. Where was anything.

Oh come on. Let's do place the peril on Steve!

It's all on you, Steve, so don't even try to protest against being blamed. TAG. You're it.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Hi JJ. Your comments are telling.

With all due respect, you seem to have little to no knowledge of how the military funds, or plans for contingency.

Contrary to popular belief, if funding for the "Iraq" war effort was denied today, a contingency operation would kick in which would mandate the re-deployment of our troops. The President knows this. His rethoric is actually very dishonest. There is no way he can leave the troops without the materials they need to function. That is a impossibility. He also would not have the option to simply leave them there.

The contingnecy funds set aside for just such circumstances exceed 20 Billion Dollars. The logistics plan established about three years ago to withdraw combat forces from the Iraq theater is established around the funding set for that 12 to 18 month operation.

You have a mistaken understanding of what de-funding the war actually means. Consequently you have established a position upon a faulty premis.

De-fund the war now and have our military combat forces out of Iraq within 18 months.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

With contingency funding

What forces the contingency plan to go into affect? Could the President decide to not rely upon the contingency plan, but instead shuffle the money around so that every program gets a cut in order to maintain the deployment in Iraq? Is there anything that prevents the President from doing that?

Also, what good is $20 billion when the war in Iraq costs over $12 billion a month?

Hi JJ. You dont get it. The President is not all powerful

The US Congress authorized the DoD budget. NONE of the money in that budget has anything to do with teh War in Iraq per-say.

All of the money spent in Iraq has been (Unfunded) through the budgetary system. It has been "Borrowed" through the use of the deficit ceiling authorization by means of the "Supplemental process". In otherwords, ALL of the Iraq money has been and continues to be money borrowed from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others. The president has created a bill that will be repaid by YOUR children and grandchildren.

The money budgeted to the DoD by the Congress MUST be applied as it was budgeted for. Supplementals have nothing to do whatever with the DoD budget authorized by the Congress.

The question we must all ask ourselves is "What is this President capable of?".

I understand your passion to support the troops. My own son is there right now and his brother, middle son, was wouded in Battle there. He is still recovering.

Your zeal to support the troops is misdirected. They are best served, as is our country's interest by withdrawing now and allowing the Iraqis to settle their differences. They will compromise when they understand that we are leaving.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Certain Facts Here

1. Never in the History of the United States has the US Congress Defunded a war.

2. Unless money is specifically earmarked towards something, it is not tied directly to a certain program

3. With the current administrations complete contempt for checks and balances, it is not far-fetched to envision the Presidency finding alternative means of financing the war in Iraq. Administrations have done this in the past (Iran-Contra). There is nothing to stop the President of the United States, if he or she so wishes, selling items (Iraqi oil, military technology, and hardware) and using those proceeds to continue funding the war. We cannot say with surety that a president wouldn't do that our couldn't do that; since no President has ever been in that position.

4. Never put anything past the Bush Administration when it comes to achieving the Administration's goals.

Great analysis

scharrison, that is a great analysis.

I hate how people say if we are against the war, we are against the troops. Or if we don't fund the war, we won't fund the troops. I'm pretty sure Jim would ensure great funding for our troops in terms of medical care, educational opportunities, etc.

A lot of good that does

if they don't have bullets, or body armour or equipment; and therefore unable to come home to those benefits.

Merely defunding the war does not stop US troop inolvement there. It just puts a bigger strain on the troops in the field. It isn't a Republican talking point, it is the truth.

That will never happen.

It will never happen that soldiers run out of bullets or body armor because of Democrats. They HAVE run out of body armor because of Republicans and our free-market has provided the Iraqi's with Korean war era bullets. But, not Democrats, ever.

You know that would never happen.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

The Dissenting Voice

The DSCC and the DCCC get a bad wrap.

It's easy to throw stones at them, but they have a difficult job to do and very rarely get applauded when they do it right (see DSCC's work in Virginia and Ohio in 2006).

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

thank you

Quite frankly I'm glad there are some folks who singled minded in their pursuit of a majority. While I admit that it defeats the whole point if progressive values are lost in the process, I wonder if some of yall aren't overstating our case.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Overstating?

We can try to sweep it under the rug and demand proof all we want, but I think we all "know" that the DSCC is out to make sure a gay man isn't our nominee.

With all due respect if that is a "single minded...pursuit of a majority", then they can keep it.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

precisely.

We can try to sweep it under the rug and demand proof all we want, but I think we all "know" that the DSCC is out to make sure a gay man isn't our nominee.

And that is why I will not give money to the DSCC.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

We need the DSCC commitment of support for November

Regardless of whom our candidate turns out to be. That is both my problem with how the DSCC is approaching the campaign now, and my problem with how we are approaching the DSCC now. I don't want to get so anti-DSCC in my support for Jim that we end up burning bridges and getting screwed when we need them to support him against Dole. But it really burns me up that they're interfering with our race without acknowledging that they are doing so. There has to be a way to strike a balance. If they would at least commit to backing whomever wins the primary, I might feel more generous (in spirit, though not in primary dollars) toward the approach that Schumer is taking now. But I'm still wary of making this a total anti-Schumer thing because I do want Jim to win, and I know that Dole will have lots of Republican dollars in the fall. As much as I hate the fact, we will need the DSCC to back Jim in the general.

The DSCC should not meddle in our business.

A D.C.-based group of consultants should not "decide" who our nominee will be. I want the DSCC on our side in November as much as the next guy, but not if they throw our candidates under the bus because they aren't conservative enough.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Good discussion

My take is that the DSCC considers progressives in North Carolina completely irrelevant. They'll do what they do in ways that suit their agenda, not with any regard for what's really happening here. If Neal is the candidate, I wouldn't be surprised to find them putting their energy in other states.

Not True

That's not entirely true. You may be thinking of seats that the DCCC has designated as Red to Blue, which represent our best chance of pick-ups in 2008, but that's not the totality of the candidates they're supporting in the cycle. According to the DCCC's website, they're targeting several races across the South. For example, they just spent $126,576 for advertising in a special election in the Mississippi 1st CD.

This is what I mean about giving the DCCC/DSCC some credit. It's easy to sit on our perches and say that they should spend money here in North Carolina, but what if I gave you a map with 435 districts and finite resources and told you to pick which ones to invest in. Chances are, none of us could do it with any more success than the DCCC has.

The DCCC makes a calculation based on numerous factors--polling, the Democratic candidate's ability to fundraise, the success of the Republican candidate in previous elections, incumbency, experience, etc.--and I don't know how, realistically, anyone can expect them to be right all the time.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Oh, well, you're right.

Except I think we all agree they missed a good shot at NC-08 last time.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Agreed

I think they put all their eggs in one basket with Tim Dunn and felt burned by the experience.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

I think you're missing the point.

No one is saying that the DCCC and DSCC can't be a valuable resource in the GENERAL ELECTION. But, they should mind their own business in the primary. After all, the primary is supposed to decide who Democrats in the district/state think represents their values best. I don't want Chuck Schumer telling me who represents my values, but he is.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

I'm Not Missing the Point

I was responding to Marshall's post regarding the DCCC.

But to speak to your point, I disagree. I don't think Schumer's telling anyone who best represents their values. He's not making a values judgment, he's making an empirical judgment about who can win based on whole host of factors (which I referenced in my response to Marshall). It's not based on ideology at all.

Moreover, I think a lot of people are being disingenuous in their outrage over this. No one objected to the DSCC clearing the field (so to speak) for Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown in 2006, though I know some grassroots activists in those states were upset by Schumer's interference. Is it okay when the DSCC does it elsewhere, just not here? Or is the DSCC only wrong when they choose the candidate that's not the one you're supporting?

Also, aren't some of the same folks who are upset about the DSCC involvement in the Senate race the same people who were upset at the thought of a primary fight between Rick Glazier and Larry Kissell in the NC-8th and were upset with Jerry Meek for not fending off that primary fight (which, of course, never materialized)? Folks weren't so against Party interference then.

I'm not always thrilled with the decisions that the DSCC and the DCCC make, but I'm willing to acknowledge their utility. I hope, more than anything, though, that by strengthening the Party (via Dean's 50-state strategy), the DSCC/DCCC will become less relevant in determining our candidates.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

While I agree with you on the DSCC and the DCCC

in your reference above you say:

Also, aren't some of the same folks who are upset about the DSCC involvement in the Senate race the same people who were upset at the thought of a primary fight between Rick Glazier and Larry Kissell in the NC-8th and were upset with Jerry Meek for not fending off that primary fight (which, of course, never materialized)? Folks weren't so against Party interference then.

We were against party interference. It was the party interfering. We were upset at Jerry jumping in for Rick Glazier at the end of a fundraising quarter. We felt that was stepping outside the bounds of neutrality. At least, that's how I remember it.

I do agree with your comments above, though. I think the DSCC and the DCCC have a very difficult time meeting the needs of all the candidates clamoring for their attention. I'm sure this year is particularly difficult.

As a blogger who likes to support candidates, it sometimes takes hyperbole and drama to get a little netroots/grassroots support going. I don't mind making the DSCC or the DCCC the "enemy" to rally the troops. It worked a time or two in 2006. I don't recall that we threw too many accusations at them, though....just said things like they were ignoring Larry, missing the boat, couldn't see the forest for the trees....that type of thing.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Maybe

You could be right...I might be mistaken, but I recall more than a few people being upset about the fact that there was likely to be a primary fight. I'll have to search the archives and see if I can find those BlueNC posts.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Actually, you're wrong.

I expressed a great deal of outrage that the DSCC pushed out Paul Hackett. I thought it was unseemly then, I think it is unseemly now. I'm not aware of the DSCC clearing the field in Virginia for Jim Webb.

I also don't care if Glazier wanted to run against Larry Kissell, although I thought he had a big uphill battle against an established candidate who already HAD DCCC funding and support BEFORE Glazier decided to run. Big difference.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

OK, Not to be dense

But the acronyms are killing me. Could someone expand them for me so I can go in and make sense of some of this?

I hate that!

DSCC = Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, of which Chuck Shumer, the other Democratic Senator from NY is chair.

NCDP is of course, North Carolina Democratic Party - of which Jerry Meek, who had the balls to stand up to Smithfield this week, is chair.

Are there any others you're not sure of?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Thanks

I appreciate the primer....

How about DCCC?

DCCC

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I honestly don't know who is the chair of that one off the top of my head. :)

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD)

n/t

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Thanks!

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors