 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
greeneyedboy's Journal
The more we know about 2004, the more we know how wrong the conventional wisdom was and has been: No, Bush didn't win. No, this wasn't a victory of right-wing so-called "values voters". And no, marriage initiatives did not win any states for Bush.
Kerry pollster Mark Mellman has found that anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives didn't boost voter turnout for either party. Moreover, political scientists at MIT found that Bush's share of the 2004 vote increased in most battleground states, but not the three that had gay marriage bans on the ballot. Stephen Ansolabehere, one of the study's authors, concludes that the gay marriage referenda may have given Kerry a bump. "That suggests there might even be some sort of backlash against this kind of politics," he notes. - from Mother Jones - www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/09/... (emphasis added) Of course, we already knew that civil rights battles should not wait for the mythical time when no elections are on the horizon, and that pro-equality plaintiffs can't be expected to back out of their years-long case because the timing is inconvenient. We already knew that Karl Rove, not people fighting for their civil rights, "pushed the issue" in 2004. Now we know that it didn't even work. This should put an end to any more "those darn impatient gays!" nonsense about 2004. In 2008, marriage equality is on the line in California. Out-of-state right-wing forces have poured millions into dishonest ads (claiming, among other things, that churches will lose their tax-exemption because of marriage equality--?!?), and the ads are working: the marriage ban has come from behind to take a narrow lead in recent polls. No on Prop 8 needs all the time and money you can give. This campaign will have lasting effects nationwide. Please help make sure LGBT friends and family can celebrate the blue tsunami on November 5th wholeheartedly. You can phonebank from home, help out at one of the campaign's field offices in California, and most importantly, donate some money to preserve marriage equality. The six biggest Savage Love donors to either www.NoOnProp8.com or www.SayNo2.com will see their letters in print, and everyone who makes a donation of at least $25 to either group—send me your donation confirmation e-mail along with your question—gets a personal reply from yours truly. The cutoff date for eligible letters is October 16. And if my readers in Canada want to play along, too, you're invited to send proof of a donation to someone, anyone, running against Stephen Harper. from http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageL... Marriage bans are leading in the polls, thanks to huge donations from out-of-state right-wing extremists (the Mormon church, the Knights of Columbus, and Focus on the Family). Preserve marriage equality and make sure your queer friends and family can celebrate with the rest of you on November 5. Donate now to www.NoOnProp8.com & www.SayNo2.com . And tell Dan Savage! Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Sep 23rd 2008, 11:21 AM And we need to keep John Sidney McCain III's page equally fair and accurate.
Right now, McCain's page makes him look like a bipartisan lovable mavericky hero, leaving out all the spots on his record except for the Keating Five, and Barack Obama's "objectively" lists as many flaws as strengths. In the home stretch before Nov. 4th, as I have to argue with my relatives, I need them to show the clear reasons Barack Obama is the superior candidate, and wikipedia's not helping. Let's keep up with Search Engine Optimization (aka googlebombing) and wikipedia monitoring so that our "low information" fellow citizens get the facts when they are making their decisions. Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Sep 12th 2008, 02:34 PM Run Your Own Paid Media Campaign (Seriously) by Chris Bowers ...Instead of feeling disempowered by narratives I can't do much to change and messaging that doesn't speak for me, now I have my own anti-McCain ads. The two ads will appear across the entire state of Pennsylvania, on about three-dozen different Google keyword searches for John McCain and Sarah Palin. . . . It is my money, my message, my targeting. Based on the keywords and cost-per-click rate that I chose, Google estimated that my ads will result in 25 click-thrus a day, costing me a little under $10 a day. However, the ads will be viewed by exponentially more people and, because of the keywords I chose, only by people looking for information on the campaign. Further, as I learn what messages work and which ones don't, if I want to fit daily talking points or the latest scandal, I can easily change the ad. Also, I can change the locations where I am targeting on a moment's notice. You can do this too. In fact, you should do this too. . . As part of the 2006 Googlebomb campaign, I did exactly this with BlogPac. For $475, using Google Ads like the one above ("George Allen Beat Me Up" was our favorite, and most successful ad), we had 3,000 click thrus, and over 800,000 search impressions, across fifty-two key House and Senate districts in the final two weeks of the election. Shockingly, for less than $500, we managed to have about 6% of the electorate in those fifty-two districts view our Google ads. Originally, I only ran the ads to monitor how many people would see our "Googlebombs" (it was actually an SEO campaign, not a Googlebomb) in those districts, but it quickly became obvious that the ads were themselves useful--not to mention cheap and easy! For the amount of time it takes to write a diary about what sort of messaging Obama should be using, you can create you own advertisement. You don't even have to target the Presidential campaign: pick a favorite House candidate if it suits you more. You can spend whatever you want, with whatever message you want, and run the ads wherever you want. You don't need anyone's approval (except Google's), and you will only reach people who are looking for information on the campaign you decide to target. As I outlined above, people will see your ad. Further, beyond the people who will see your ad, imagine if 500, 1,000, or even 10,000 people take this action. Then, your 25 direct voter contacts, and hundred of indirect daily voter contacts, will turn into hundreds of thousands of customized swing state voter contacts every day. If it grows large enough, we can create a vast, effective, decentralized, essentially unstoppable advertising campaign using this method. It would be the equivalent of an online, grassroots 527. . . <http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diary... > Crowdsourcing the Obama message by Shai Sachs This week, Chris Bowers at OpenLeft has been encouraging readers to run their own media campaign. The idea is very simple: at a fairly low budget, anyone can set up a simple Google ad campaign, targeted geographically and by keyword. Bowers has been running two ads - one against McCain, the other against Palin - in his native Pennsylvania, and thinks he can reach a lot of voters on a fairly low budget. The commenters at OpenLeft have been ecstatic about the idea, and I think it is exceptionally clever. In addition to the first order effects - exposing anti-McCain messages to a lot of voters in swing states - the campaign could also have an indirect sway over the campaign's own messaging strategy, by demonstrating in a quantifiable way the messages that work (and receive a lot of click-throughs) and those that don't. I suppose that's a long shot with this campaign, but it's nevertheless a possibility. In any case, I'd be interested to see if someone could take this idea to the next level, and make the decentralized media campaign idea a bit more social. For example, would it be possible to set up a website which allows people to set up all of the parameters for a Google Ad campaign - the keywords, the geographic target, and the message/link which appears - and then to aggregate all of those campaigns on the website in some interesting way? There are a lot of different ways to do this - e.g. breaking down ad campaigns by state, tag-clouding the chosen keywords, and showing aggregate click-through and impression statistics. This kind of aggregation could be augmented with comments (suggesting refinments and tweaks to existing campaigns) as well as team fundraising pages, allowing site visitors to support one campaign or another monetarily. It's also possible to maximize and quantify the impact of a campaign like this by targeting all of these ads at an action-oriented microsite, which takes a user through the steps of signing up for Obama's email list, giving a small donation to the campaign, signing up for My.BarackObama.com, and so on. . . . <http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/9/12/142539... > Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story by Eric Boehlert <http://mediamatters.org/columns/2008082600... > "....At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton." Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic. Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. . . . End of history lesson. Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee...." <http://mediamatters.org/columns/2008082600... > ...Since OPERATION Iraqi Freedom began in 2003, more than 700 US soldiers have been infected or colonized with Acinetobacter baumannii. A significant number of additional cases have been found in the Canadian and British armed forces, and among wounded Iraqi civilians. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has recorded seven deaths caused by the bacteria in US hospitals along the evacuation chain. Four were unlucky civilians who picked up the bug at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, while undergoing treatment for other life-threatening conditions. Another was a 63-year-old woman, also chronically ill, who shared a ward at Landstuhl with infected coalition troops.... . . . . In Europe, multidrug-resistant acinetobacter is spreading through civilian hospitals, precipitating a public health crisis. A 2003-2004 epidemic hit more than 50 hospitals and long-term care facilities in France, making scores of patients sick and killing 34 people. Thirty-nine infected patients died at St. Mary's Hospital in London two years ago. . . . . Meanwhile, families of wounded US and British troops were being told -often in haphazard ways - that their loved ones were infected with an obscure organism they had somehow picked up in the desert. . . . A contractor named Merlin Clark was clearing mines near Baghdad for a company called Ronco Consulting when an IED took off the front of his left leg and severed a nerve in his right arm. When he first arrived at Walter Reed, his wife, Marcie, says, "They told us they had found bacteria, which you would expect from a dirty wound. We were more concerned that he might lose his leg." Just before Marcie put her husband on a medevac to a hospital in Orlando, Florida, a nurse handed her a folder, which she put in her purse. "I went down to get Merlin's bags," Marcie recalls, "and the soldier who brought me to the van told me, 'Put everything in the laundry right away. Don't touch this stuff. Don't breathe around it. It's got that bug the guys are bringing back from Iraq.'" . . . .A veterans' activist named Kirt Love helped Marcie create a Web site to raise public awareness of the outbreak, which launched in 2004 at http://www.acinetobacter.org . from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/e... also see http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci... http://www.acinetobacter.org / http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... Why the Beltway class can't comprehend the Russ Feingolds of the world . . . . It is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is. . . . Russ Feingold has spent his entire idiosyncratic political career espousing views because he believes them, even when those views are so plainly contrary to his political interests. He infuriated his entire party by being the only Democratic Senator to vote against dismissal of the Clinton impeachment charges prior to the Senate trial. He pursued campaign finance reform hated by incumbents in both parties. . . . And in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, he seemed to be the only elected official immune from irrational pressures, as he not only was the only Senator to vote against the "Patriot Act," but was also the only Senator who refused to blindly pledge his loyalty to limitless presidential power, emphasizing on the Senate floor as early as September 14, 2001. . . . Despite all of that, when Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal. That's because they believe in nothing. They have no passion about anything. And they thus assume that everyone else suffers from the same emptiness of character and ossified cynicism that plagues them. And all of their punditry and analysis and political strategizing flows from this corrupt root. Not only do they believe in nothing, they think that a Belief in Nothing is a mark of sophistication and wisdom. Those who believe in things too much -- who display political passion or who take their convictions and ideals seriously (Feingold, Howard Dean) -- are either naive or, worse, are the crazy, irrational, loudmouth masses and radicals who disrupt the elevated, measured world of the high-level, dispassionate Beltway sophisticates (James Carville, David Broder, Fred Hiatt). They are interested in, even obsessed with, every aspect of the political process except for deeply held political beliefs -- the only part that really matters or that has any real worth. For that reason, when Feingold announced his censure resolution, the merits of it were virtually ignored (i.e., should something actually be done about the President's deliberate lawbreaking? What are the consequences for our country for doing nothing?). Instead, Feingold's announcement was immediately cast as a disingenuous political maneuver and discussed only in cynical terms of how it would politically harm the Democrats. . . . http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11... Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Nov 09th 2006, 03:43 PM PREDICTIONS
WHO GOT IT WRONG? Paging - Dick Morris: "GOP will hold both houses." - SORRY, WRONG! - Mark Crispin Miller: "the Bush Republicans will certainly succeed" - NOPE! and everybody else who so confidently predicted how things would turn out--and were wrong about it. What are they saying now? WHO GOT IT RIGHT? - Charlie Cook - Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, et al. at mydd.com got it pretty close to correct, by looking at FACTS and not fears or wishes. - Glenn Greenwald who else got it right? post here--preferably with links to the predictions if you can find them. let's remember this next time we're reading predictions about '08, etc. Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Nov 08th 2006, 05:57 PM and not passively wailing about how hopeless things are.
from Glenn Greenwald at Crooks & Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/08/a... / American democracy still works By: Glenn Greenwald on Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 at 6:42 AM - PST Submit or Digg this Post The basic mechanics of American democracy, imperfect and defective though they may be, still function. Chronic defeatists and conspiracy theorists — well-intentioned though they may be — need to re-evaluate their defeatism and conspiracy theories in light of this rather compelling evidence which undermines them (a refusal to re-evaluate one's beliefs in light of conflicting evidence is a defining attribute of the Bush movement that shouldn't be replicated). Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody). It simply isn't the case that we are doomed and destined to lose at the hands of all-powerful, evil forces. All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious — a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression and election fraud tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games — can all be overcome. They just were. Bush opponents haven't been losing because the deck is hopelessly stacked against them. They were losing because they hadn't figured out a way to convey to their fellow citizens just how radical and dangerous this political movement has become. Now they have, and as a result, Americans see this movement for what it is and have begun the process of smashing it. . . .
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
this is EXCELLENT. i strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
The Great Victory - crushing the developing myths The outcome of this election -- even with the not-yet-fully-finalized Senate victories in Virginia and Montana -- is as resounding and clear as it gets. For exactly that reason, all sorts of devastated Bush followers and confused and desperate media mavens are busy spawning myths about what happened -- often, in the case of the mindless pundits, unwittingly, even unconsciously. Most Americans know exactly what happened here, but it is nonetheless vital that these myths be smashed from the start and the clear lessons of this election be safeguarded: . . . . (4) The notion that this is a victory for some sort of mealy-mouthed, Bush-lite, glorified centrism is absurd on its face. Democrats won by aggressively attacking the Bush movement, not by trying to be a slightly modified and duller version of it. The accommodationist tack is what they attempted in 2002 and 2004 when they were crushed. They won in this election by making their opposition clear and assertive. . . . . Liberal blogs tend to support underdog Democratic candidates who are challenging Republican incumbents or open seats, i.e., the races that are most difficult to win. And yet a huge bulk of the winning Democratic candidates who won in those races were the ones supported by liberal blogs. And many blog-favored Democrats who lost were ones running in very red districts against GOP incumbents -- such as Angie Paccione (against the heinous Marilyn Musgrave) and Victoria Wulslin (against the equally horrible Jean Schmidt) -- and they came very close to winning. Given those facts, the idea that this was some great repudiation of the blog-wing of the Democratic Party or that it was an endorsement of Broder-like, plodding centrism is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who wish it were so. The Democrats who won have one thing in common -- aggressive and unapologetic opposition to what the Republicans have become. . . . . http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11... Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Nov 06th 2006, 03:25 PM BIG picture, what principles are you voting and campaigning for?
what intentions are guiding your vote? are you voting on behalf of any other individuals & groups who can't? this election is a turning point toward... what? this election is one step in the bigger movement toward... what? which ancestors, allies, and descendants are you standing up for when you cast your ballot? http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/1/133150...
Strength Sells. Show Some. - Matt Stoller To those people who are running scared about John Kerry's misstatement, I have a simple message. Get some integrity. John Kerry served in the military and put his life on the line for this country. He is one of the only sitting Democratic Senators to genuinely oppose this war by taking on his colleague, Senator Lieberman. He has done a huge amount for candidates this cycle, and will do more in the future. And yesterday, he misspoke - any one of us could have made that mistake. The fact that it's a controversy is actually not John Kerry's fault, it's yours. You bear the responsibility of buying into the fallacy that gaffes like this matter. You bear the responsibility of equating a slip of the tongue to a war that has killed hundreds of thousands. And let's be very clear about the politics. This gaffe doesn't matter. No one is going to change their mind about the war because of John Kerry's mistake. What does matter is your reaction. The press has set up the rules so that if you're on offense you're winning and if you're on defense you're losing. It honestly doesn't matter if you, say, attack 9/11 widows or say that someone is faking Parkinson's disease. It's just offense/defense. Reporters have decided that printing reactions is their job, and that's life until their circulation drops to the point where they can no longer pay themselves to live in a dreamland composed of their own heroism at reprinting press releases. And let's be honest and not pretend like this is Kerry's fault; a gaffe like this was inevitable, and if Kerry hadn't said it the Republicans would have manufactured something else. It's what they do, people. Come on. So all of you who have decided that it's good politics to throw Kerry under the bus are both disloyal and strategically short-sighted. I hope you reconsider your approach, or at least use this as a learning experience. . . . . {read the whole thing for an excellent contrast showing examples of strong responses vs. pandering and lamenting} . . . . Anyway, the point is that loyalty works. Loyalty sells. Strength works. Strength sells. Show some. http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/1/133150... Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Tue Oct 31st 2006, 09:44 PM remember Microsoft's war against crossplatform software? they couldn't win on the merits, so they said flat-out that their strategy was FUD: fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
there's a lot of that going around, from Cheney's slanders to "concerned" trolls here to the more earnest alerts we see every five minutes about election security. at this point, FUD is our #1 enemy. for better or worse, a lot of people just vote for the candidate or party that has a winning aura about them--and many people won't vote for perceived "losers" because it's a waste. so failure attracts failure, and success attracts success--that's why analysts talk about "wave" elections. and we are heading into a wave election victory for our side right now, if we can bear to let go of FUD for just one more week. let's not be naive: if the past is any indication, there will be dirty tricks, and there no doubt already have been dirty tricks in this election (as have been reported all over this board). some of the people posting about THE FIX IS IN! sound like they are eagerly waiting to have their dire predictions of total failure and grand election theft come true, so they can get on to the next step and protest. (not saying that's the case, but that's just what it sounds like to me.) whatever their wishes and intentions, they are feeding the enemy during the home stretch. yes, of course, forewarned is forearmed, and i am all in favor of all of us staying familiar with the resources we have at electiondefensealliance.org, votetrustusa.org, blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf , verifiedvoting.org , ep365.org , etc., etc. etc.; and being *organized* in our responses--in the media, in the courts, and in the streets--if/when we see foul play. i have kept up on this issue since _Black Box Voting_ came out, have spread the word to people i know, donate regularly to election-security efforts, have written to disability-rights groups encouraging them to insist on systems that are accessible *and* secure, etc. etc. etc. etc.--and i will be there with a pitchfork the second that's needed. ask anyone who knows me and they'll confirm that i have made them read about Diebold, ES&S, and all the rest. nobody is advocating hubris or naivete. critical attention to weaknesses in our voting systems is absolutely essential--*and* we must take care that this vigilance does not make us passive. words have power, and images have power. if we operate in fear, uncertainty, doubt, and dread, feeling hopeless and helpless, that creates a blueprint for failure and passivity. if we operate with confidence and a sense of community, feeling powerful, secure, and connected, we will move actively toward that vision of success. who is more likely to achieve success--someone who doesn't dare to imagine it, or someone whose vision of success guides her/his every action? i remember 2000, 2002, and 2004, but this is 2006, and a lot has changed. i want the Democratic Party to win Congress back in a record-setting landslide--and i am confident we can and *will* win, even with all the dirty tricks the GOP has been throwing at us (redistricting, suppression, burdensome ID laws, etc.). there's a time and a place for everything. what's the best course of action for the brief time remaining until the polls close? do we want to win? can we dare to see ourselves winning? during the home stretch, do we want to be projecting and reinforcing images of failure or images of success? FUD or power, safety, & community? Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Tue Oct 31st 2006, 08:52 PM fraud is not monolithic. this is not one election, it's many.
there will be dirty tricks, and there no doubt already have been dirty tricks in this election--probably at least a little bit on our side, too, just given statistics (though certainly nowhere near the systematic fraud the GOP is known for). you sound like you are eagerly waiting to have your dire prediction come true. i want the Democratic Party to win, fair and square. do you? if so, what's the best course of action for the time remaining until the polls close? forewarned is forearmed, and i am all in favor of all of us staying familiar with the resources at electiondefensealliance.org, votetrustusa.org, blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf , verifiedvoting.org , ep365.org , etc.; and being *organized* in our responses--in the media, in the courts, and in the streets--if/when we see foul play. at the same time, words have power, and images have power. if we operate in fear, uncertainty, doubt, and dread, feeling hopeless and helpless, that creates a blueprint for failure. if we operate with confidence and a sense of community, feeling powerful, secure, and connected, we will move toward that vision of success. during the home stretch, do we want to be projecting and reinforcing images of failure or images of success? how much do you want to win?
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by greeneyedboy in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Oct 31st 2006, 08:36 PM so generic ballots have us 11-26 points ahead. excellent!
but how do you sell a newspaper with stories on the inexorable march toward a predictable result? BORING! what's a publisher or network to do? what we're going to see is 6 days of ever-more-desperate attempts to paint these elections as exciting, and the GOP candidates as comeback kids. get ready for it, and be ready for the arrogance trap, too--Bush is already accusing Democratic challengers of "measuring the drapes". the only way to respond is to smile, confidently but not smugly, and say we feel great about the support we're getting in the polls and in the streets, and we are ready for a great race. let them try to throw mud and distract people, and it will be clear who's telling the truth and who's blowing smoke. in the meantime, we just have to grin and bear all the nonsense, and look forward to the victory stories on November 8th and beyond. |
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate By seafan FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves By seafan Happy Mother's Day By formercia I love DU2! By Enthusiast Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux) By seafan Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease By No Elephants Most surprising Oscar story for me: By No Elephants Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
