Tag Archives: democrats

CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

During a discussion of the upcoming midterm elections on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill asked Republican strategist Kevin Madden: “…when you look at this from the Republican perspective… there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right…is this race Republicans to lose, and if so, what do they have to do to hold on to it?” Hill picked up the “extreme right” label from her other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, who had just ranted: “I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is….what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off.” Madden responded to Hill by pointing to the left-wing agenda of the Democrats: “…independent voters…they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda….it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda.” Instead of challenging Acker on the Democrats “very left of center agenda,” Hill gently wondered: “What about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing?” Acker reasserted her previous point: “…the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.” Hill moved on, pressing Madden on Republican policy proposals: “Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President…that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas….are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough?” Madden replied: “…the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives….we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction.” Here is a full transcript of the August 9 discussion: 7:08AM ET ERICA HILL: Joining us now is Republican strategist Kevin Madden, also in Washington this morning, and from Los Angeles, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker. We’re going to get a closer look at what both sides need to do in these upcoming elections from the both of you this morning. Tanya, I want to start with you. as we just heard this two-point message here, don’t go back and things would be even worse were the Democrats not in charge. Is that enough for voters at this point or does there need to be a little alteration, perhaps, of the message? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think the Democrats have to focus on getting that message out very clearly in the first instance. Because look, I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is. I mean, you’re talking about candidates who want to do things like take the country back to a time before Social Security, who want to really overturn a lot of the things that – reforms that the country’s really behind. So I think the Repub – what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off. HILL: Kevin, when you – when you look at this from the Republican perspective- KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm. HILL: -there are some of those messages, there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right, as Tanya mentioned, but essentially is this – is this race Republicans to lose and if so what do they have to do to hold on to it? MADDEN: Well, look, to Tanya’s point and to your question, I think that this race is really going to be won – I think this – these elections, these midterm elections are really going to be decided in the middle. And right now those independent voters that were a big part of the Democrats’ successful coalition by – of winning in 2008, they’ve abandoned the – the White House, and they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda. So I think where Republicans feel we have an opportunity is talking to those voters and persuading them that the Democrats have taken the country in the wrong direction. The country’s on the wrong track. That we’re spending too much money, deficits are going too high, and that we can do a better job. And right now we – we have to go out there and talk about a proactive agenda, but it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda. HILL: It’s interesting because in some ways it sounds like 2008 all over again. You talk about the moderates, there was so much talk about moderates and independents, of course, during the 2008 elections, which worked out well for the Democrats, Tanya. This time around, I know you said they need to alter the message perhaps a little bit, but what about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing? ACKER: I think that right now – I mean, look we’re seeing that the President is not – is having some troubles in the polls. He’s certainly polling lower than he has at any time during his presidency, and which is not unusual for any President at this point in his term. But I think that where we’re really seeing President Obama be effective is in – is in fundraising. And in order for Democrats to get the message out there, there’s no question that they’re going to need a lot of money. Because again, as Kevin pointed out, and as you pointed out, the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.                  HILL: Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President in Bill’s package, that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas. I know that you – you disagree with that. MADDEN: I disagree with that, yes. HILL: But are they presenting – are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough? MADDEN: Yes, I – I do believe so. Look, when John Boehner handed the – the gavel to Nancy Pelosi in 2008, he said – 2006 – he said, look, we are going to be an opposition party but we are going to disagree with you on substance. And if you look at the health care debate, you look at the stimulus debate. Republicans presented the American public alternatives. They presented a vision for what they would do, where they would take the country in a different direction. And I think in large part that’s going to be where you can win in the arguments in 2010. Is that we can say, look, the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives. The entire – during this entire debate, that said we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction. HILL: Well, everyone will be trying to get their messages out, especially as we ramp up with three months to go. Tanya Acker, Kevin Madden, always good to have your insight with us. MADDEN: Great to be with you. ACKER: Good to see you. CHRIS WRAGGE: Safe to say it’s going to be an interesting November. HILL: I think we can say that, yes.

Read the original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

Local DC ABC Reporter Suspended — For Conservative Bias?

Long-time DC TV news anchor Doug McKelway has been suspended by local ABC affiliate WJLA-TV (owned by Allbritton Communications, the same people who own the paper and website Politico) after a standup report last month from a liberal cap-and-trade rally trying to capitalize on the BP oil spill. “According to several of McKelway’s colleagues,” reported Paul Farhi in The Washington Post , “the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators ” — which must have included bigtime BP recipient Barack Obama. Don’t question the Democrats from a liberal protest!  Then came trouble: “The episode led to a meeting between McKelway and Bill Lord, WJLA’s station manager and news director, that featured sharp exchanges between them,” anonymous WJLA sources told the Post. They insisted the issue wasn’t the lines about Democrats, but about “insubordination.” But how is it not about conservative bias if that’s what put him on the hot seat with the boss? The Post added: McKelway has been cryptic when discussing his status with WJLA. In a posting on his Facebook page Thursday, McKelway wrote, “I’ve gotten so many emails and messages of concern about my employment situation. I wish I could say more!!! I don’t know if I’ll be back on the air, but I can tell you that life is very good. I’ve got a beautiful wife who’s telling me to stick to principle.” When asked late last month by morning radio host Elliot Segal if he had been fired, McKelway said, “All I can say is, I got a great lawyer.” He also said “I like contrarian things.” It’s also possible WJLA is still angry about McKelway’s really feisty interview with radical gay “outing” activist Mike Rogers on the local NewsChannel 8 (also an Allbritton station), which outraged gay leftists. (Notice McKelway calls out Barney Frank in the video .) At one point, McKelway told his guest: “I’d take you outside and give you a punch across the face….I think you’re hurting innocent people.” A day later, McKelway was unrepentant on the air, telling viewers, “An apology? Mike Rogers, you’re not getting one. You understand that? Because you’re a bully and you hurt innocent people, and you’re doing great harm to your movement, the gay rights movement, by doing what you’re doing.” McKelway has been with Channel 7 since 2001, and has long co-hosted WJLA’s “Good Morning Washington” newscast. He’s married to Susan Ferrechio, who’s also been a reporter for the Miami Herald, Congressional Quarterly, The Washington Times, and currently The Washington Examiner.  Of course, the Post had to lead with how “Veteran TV newsman Doug McKelway may have said too much — not to viewers but to his boss.” It’s just as plausible that McKelway simply “said too much” by saying a discouraging word about Democrats. The Post account also had to whitewash a rally by Greenpeace, Code Pink, and MoveOn.org , among other groups, as merely a “rally by religious and environmental groups to protest BP’s response to the oil spill and to advocate for legislation favoring renewable energy resources.” The lefties clearly planned to bother politicians who took BP contributions: “Following the rally, delegations of activists visited the offices of some of the lawmakers who have taken in the most in campaign contributions from BP during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.”  Allbritton and WJLA ought to be questioned if it’s possible for a reporter in Barack Obama’s Washington to mention on air that President Obama’s a major recipient of BP cash without getting chewed out in the newsroom.

Continue reading here:
Local DC ABC Reporter Suspended — For Conservative Bias?

Republicans Demand Two-Month, Taxpayer-Funded Recess After Election

House Republicans are going forward with plans to introduce a resolution on Tuesday to prohibit the House of Representatives from assembling during the two-month period following the November elections. A GOP leadership aide confirmed to the Huffington Post that the resolution, authored by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for the purposes of preventing Democrats from passing legislative items during the lame-duck session, would be introduced before the House passes additional Medicaid and teacher funding. The aide argued that comments on Sunday by Carol Browner, the White House's top energy and environmental adviser, suggesting that energy legislation could be considered during the so-called lame duck period, proved that the resolution was pertinent. And yet, Price's resolution appears likely to produce nothing more than Kabuki theater — which that Democrats aren't necessarily averse to enjoying. For starters, the procedural process by which the issue will play out appears pre-ordained. Because he is introducing a privileged resolution, Democrats can't table Price's gambit from the get-go. Rather, the chair is going to rule that it is “out of order.” Price will appeal the ruling, after which members will vote on the chair's ruling (not the resolution itself). The issue, at that point, will be resolved. The majority will side with the chair. The political drama around the lame-duck session will, undoubtedly, remain. But even then it's not entirely clear what Price's resolution accomplishes. Certainly, it's a procedural maneuver that will please the conservative base. Freedom Works, the moneyed organization behind the Tea Party movement, has been pushing Price's resolution on its website. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been touting the need to shut Congress down after the elections. But the notion that the House should take a two-month, taxpayer-paid break invites obvious political ridicule. One aide deemed it the “Republican Winter Vacation Act.” “Washington Republicans wrecked the economy and haven't lifted a finger to help us fix it,” said Doug Thornell a top aide to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “Now, the GOP wants to vote for a two-month long taxpayer-funded vacation because they believe the challenges middle class families face today should be ignored. This is the type of work ethic and arrogance that got us into this mess in the first place.” While Browner hinted that a vote on energy legislation may take place between the election and the seating of the new Congress, even that “option” is complicated by a host of factors that don'tjustify the GOP's fear of a lame-duck Congress. For starters, Democrats couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate for a comprehensive bill even when they had that many members caucusing. It's hard to imagine the votes would suddenly materialize after the election. added by: TimALoftis

After MSNBC Mocks Angle for Expecting Fox Info Plugs, Ed Schultz Boasts How He’ll Boost Dems

Last Wednesday, Chris Matthews wildly attacked Fox for acting like “stooges” for Republican candidates like Sharron Angle to come on and promote their candidacies. It turns out that on the very same day on his national radio show, Ed Schultz was talking up how excited he was for “stooge” work for the Democrats on MSNBC:   I’m excited about the fact that now that I’ve been at MSNBC for over a year now, year and a half, this is the first election cycle that I get to go through with a TV show. I’ll show those son of a guns over at Fox how to promote candidates. I’ll do a great job doing that! [Michigan gubernatorial candidate] Virg Bernero will be on the tube tonight, a winner yesterday. Next up will be next Wednesday after the Tuesday primary in Colorado where Andrew Romanoff is going to defeat Mr. Bennet, the appointed senator, who was late to the table on helping Americans on health care reform. But Schultz attacked Angle in his “Psycho Talk” segment on his MSNBC show for expecting Fox to do what he was boasting he’d do for the Democrats: Wow. Now, you know it‘s bad when Fox News is calling the newest Tea Party queen naive. Hey, Sharron, I‘ll tell you how your wish can come true. Move to China. Their media censorship means that the press would only ask questions that you want to answer. Or better yet, maybe you can check out Iran. If journalists there don‘t report the news the way you want, well, they can get arrested. You‘d like that, wouldn‘t you? Here in America though, we have this thing called freedom of the press. It‘s kind of in the Constitution. You can ask your Tea Party buddies for a copy. They will have one for you. Republican leaders better hope Sharron Angle goes right back into hiding, because a wannabe public servant saying that she wants to control the press is “Psycho Talk.”

See the rest here:
After MSNBC Mocks Angle for Expecting Fox Info Plugs, Ed Schultz Boasts How He’ll Boost Dems

WaPo Wonders: How Can You Spend a Trillion Dollars with ‘Tangible Results’ and Be Doubted?

The front page of Saturday’s Washington Post carried an article by Shailagh Murray from Ohio’s 13th congressional district, just west of Cleveland. The dominant theme was two-term Rep. Betty Sutton’s whining that her GOP opponent Ted Ganley, a car dealer, benefited from Cash for Clunkers but now bashes it. The Post wondered about why Democrats get so little credit for the “stimulus,” and Murray’s central question was this: How can nearly $1 trillion flush through the U.S. economy, with tangible results, and still leave voters dubious? [“Flushed” is a good verb for this.] Some blame Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress for failing to set clear and realistic expectations… It proved difficult to keep track of all that spending, and the White House and Democratic leaders had a hard time showing how it was contributing to the recovery. “The branding and marketing was done very poorly,” said Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who supported the stimulus. “When you spend that much money, there should be more recognition.” About $2 billion of the stimulus money flowed to Sutton’s Ohio District. The funds are paying for 628 projects, making it one of the largest concentrations of federal spending in the Midwest. But when you look at the “tangible” Sutton results that the Post lists, even if you were local, you’d wonder if this is the “smart” way to create jobs — as opposed to pleasing a list of constituent groups: The list includes $400 million to replace the decrepit I nner Belt Bridge in suburban Cleveland and $25 million to expand a BASF Catalysts lithium-ion battery plant in Elyria. The Akron Urban League received $2 million to expand broadband Internet service to 3,500 users, creating 13 jobs. The town of Lorain secured $15,390 to retrofit seven school buses with pollution-control gear, and the Ohio Department of Transportation won a $2,500 grant to buy spare parts for the Brunswick municipal fleet. And the Car Allowance Rebate System, better known as Cash for Clunkers, lured customers into auto showrooms, staving off layoffs at the local Ford factory and its suppliers. Here’s how Murray began her Saturday article, complete with Mean GOP overtones: Republican House candidate Tom Ganley sold more than 800 cars last summer through the “Cash for Clunkers” government rebate program. But does Uncle Sam get a thank you? “Let’s talk about Cash for Clunkers,” the voluble millionaire, who owns the largest auto dealership group in Ohio, told a group of voters here recently. “It created a 30-day surge in auto sales. After it ended, there was no business. It was like the faucet was shut off.” As the nation struggled through a painful recession, the Democratic-led Congress rushed through nearly $1 trillion in spending and tax cuts, aiming to jump-start business investment, keep state and local governments afloat and put people to work, if only temporarily. Most economists say the nationwide stimulus effort has generally paid off, although they differ on how much. But the cash infusion appears to have done little to restore public confidence either in the federal government or in the Democratic Party. The stimulus may have created or saved up to 3.6 million jobs, as the White House contends, but the jobless rate in Ohio still hovers at a crippling 10.4 percent. That has left Democrats such as Ganley’s opponent, Rep. Betty Sutton, trying to convince voters that the stimulus made a bad situation somewhat less bad. Doesn’t exactly pop off a bumper sticker. And she ended by bashing Ganley as a hypocrite:  Even Cash for Clunkers is difficult to measure empirically. Ganley is a critic, but some of his competitors are big fans. “It jump-started the entire industry, and it couldn’t have come at a more opportune time,” said Alan Spitzer, chief executive of Spitzer Auto Group, who urged Sutton to push the rebate program and whose 23 dealerships sold about 1,000 cars through Cash for Clunkers. Joseph Lee, plant manager of the Avon Lake Ford plant, said the steady decline in production, which forced 200 layoffs in 2009, started to level off when Cash for Clunkers took effect. That was true even though his plant makes gas-guzzling Econoline vans, not the compact cars that were selling best. “All I know is my plant was shutting down week after week. And then we weren’t.” A year ago, even Ganley had a rosier assessment of the program. He told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that it “certainly primed the pump,” although he complained about its execution. “It’s a little duplicitous,” Spitzer said of Ganley’s reversal. “This program woke up the market. It was an unqualified success.” [Image of Sutton from the conservative site www.bettysutton2010.com ]

Go here to read the rest:
WaPo Wonders: How Can You Spend a Trillion Dollars with ‘Tangible Results’ and Be Doubted?

Tempe woman gets wallet with cash she lost 5 years ago in Wash.

Ryan O'Donnell report two teen boys in Washington State found something that belonged to a woman who lives in Arizona. http://news.yahoo.com/video/phoenixktvk3tv-15751070/tempe-woman-gets-wallet-with… =21279388 added by: MotherForTruth

Force women to bear rapists’ babies, say multiple GOP candidates

Rachel Maddow asks why Democrats aren't making GOP extremism a national issue MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has been researching the positions on abortion held by current Republican candidates and believes that, overall, they are far more extreme than in any previous election year. She also wonders why the Democratic Party hasn't made an issue of this extremism. “The Republican Party is, without actually talking about it, this year nominating a group of candidates for top-of-the-ticket races that are more extreme on the issue of abortion than any other slate of top-of-the-ticket candidates in any other year,” Maddow stated on Thursday. She pointed to several GOP Senatorial candidates or front-runners who have declared that they oppose a right to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, including Nevada's Sharron Angle, Kentucky's Rand Paul, and Colorado's Ken Buck. According to Maddow, these three “small government conservatives” all believe “that government should be big enough that it can monitor every pregnancy in the country to ensure that every single woman who becomes pregnant is forced by the government to carry that pregnancy to term. … This is a position that was beyond the pale even in fringe anti-abortion politics not very many years ago, but apparently those days are over.” http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0806/maddow-gop-abortion-extremism/ added by: unimatrix0

Our Rangel Game: Which Eugene Robinson Is It?

On August 5, 2010, The Washington Post published a short editorial by Eugene Robinson with the title “Charlie Rangel’s no crook.” But on October 9, 2009, the same Eugene Robinson penned a column titled ” Charlie Rangel’s Cloud: An Ethics Case Could Drag Democrats Down.” The closer we get to elections, Robinson seems to get progressively less impressed with the case against Rangel. This is his new Rangel-name-is-cleared line: Charlie Rangel’s no crook. He’s right to insist on the opportunity to clear his name, because the charges against him range from the technical all the way to the trivial. All right, there’s one exception: On his federal tax returns, Rangel failed to declare rental income from a vacation property he owns in the Dominican Republic — a mortifying embarrassment for the one-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax code. But certain facts about this transgression rarely get mentioned. For one thing, Rangel’s so-called “villa” can’t be very palatial, since it cost only $82,750 when he bought it in 1987. For another, Rangel has already filed amended tax returns and paid everything he owed, plus penalties and interest. The remaining charges are yawn-inducing. Even assuming that the allegations, as presented to the House Ethics Committee, are wholly true, the case against Rangel has a Gertrude Stein problem: There’s no there there. Compare that mistakes-were-made line to what Robinson wrote last fall:  House Democrats had better start taking the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel seriously. I know it’s difficult for those steeped in Capitol Hill’s hermetic culture to understand, but a verdict of “mistakes were made” — which a lot of Democrats would like to reach — doesn’t cut it in the real world. Strange as it seems. Seriously. Welcome to Eugene vs. Eugene. He is seriously beating himself up. There’s more from last year: If you win big majorities in both the House and Senate by railing against a “culture of corruption” in Washington, as the Democratic Party did, voters tend to get the wacky notion that you actually mean what you say. The violations that Rangel is alleged to have committed are, inconveniently for him, easy for anyone to understand. The most serious, perhaps, is the allegation that he failed to pay taxes on about $75,000 in income from renting out a beach house that he owns in the Dominican Republic. For the chairman of the House committee that writes tax legislation not to pay his fair share in taxes would be as bad as, say, for the secretary of the Treasury not to pay his fair share in taxes. (Hold it, maybe that’s a bad example .) The most stunning alleged violation is more of a technicality: That on required financial disclosure forms, Rangel failed to list more than $500,000 in assets. The average citizen isn’t likely to have half a million bucks somehow slip his mind, since the average citizen doesn’t have anything near half a million bucks. And we’re not talking easily overlooked “Antiques Roadshow” assets — a dusty painting in the attic that turns out to be the work of a second-tier Old Master, or a rickety chair in the basement that experts date as 18th century. What Rangel failed to declare were liquid assets — a credit union account worth more than $250,000 and an investment account also worth more than $250,000 — plus some real estate he owns in New Jersey and assorted stock holdings. If you quoted this column back to New Eugene, he might accuse you of being a partisan Republican hack. New Eugene also had this to say on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (as MRC’s Rachel Burnett found). Scarborough said the messes around Rangel and Maxine Waters aren’t good for the Democrats as a whole, even though Joe likes Maxine “very much.” Robinson replied that Rangel’s replies were changing his formerly tough journalistic mind: On the other hand, it is what happens if you run against culture of corruption; you actually crack down and ramp up the ethics committee and, you know, look for the stuff you find it. I think my assessment of the two cases would actually be a bit different from yours, actually. I haven’t read that deeply into the Waters case but that really sounds pretty bad. I mean, on its face it sounds like there should be a refusal by her and stayed away from that. I have, however, gone through Charlie Rangel’s 32-page response to the charges against him. And it’s still very bad for him politically . I think he’s not without any legs to stand on, however. We keep saying 13 ethics charges. It really boils down to three or four incidents and when you actually look at them, you know, some of them are not all that troublesome. So I actually understand why he wants to have his day in court. PS: In 2005, Robinson giddily looked forward to Tom DeL:ay in jail in a piece titled “Immoral Majority.”   So pardon me for going way beyond schadenfreude to outright giddiness at the prospect that the Hammer will finally get nailed. It may be too much to hope that the former House majority leader — and how good it feels to write “former” — will actually be convicted and do jail time. The indictment for criminal conspiracy returned by a Texas grand jury on Wednesday is for alleged campaign finance violations that are the rough equivalent of money laundering, which is not the easiest crime to prove in court. Five years later, and Eugene’s still waiting for that conviction. 

Read this article:
Our Rangel Game: Which Eugene Robinson Is It?

Colbert: Fox News Can’t Tell Black People Apart (VIDEO)

Stephen Colbert said last night that he thinks it was an “innocent mistake” that Greta Van Susteren used footage of Shirley Sherrod instead of Maxine Waters the other day on her Fox News show. “It could have happened to anyone…whose producers can't tell black people apart.” Colbert also pointed out that though Fox News has the highest ratings in cable news, only 1.38% of their viewers are black. He had his people break down who those viewers are, and found that “45% are trapped in the waiting room of a Jiffy Lube, 7% are white people who just enjoy watching Fox News in blackface, 25% said Glenn Beck's name three times in the mirror and his show appeared, and the remaining 23% is Juan Williams.” added by: TimALoftis

The 1 Party War Train – Democrats & Republicans Both Pushed For Iraq War

The 1 party republican/democrat war train pushed for the war in Iraq. Most people understand the republicans are warmongers, that much is obvious. What many falsely believe is that the democrats are peacemongers. Well let’s take a look at the history of how the Iraq War began. Fearmongering lies in both parties. http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2010/08/the-1-party-war-train-democrats-r… added by: shanklinmike