If Democrats can't run their own Election, why should they run a Country?

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee is meeting publicly to discuss what to do with the Invisible Primaries of Michigan (where Malcot lives) and Florida.

Democrats have been having problems this year:

1) Proportional Representation -- It allowed Candidates to linger while able to extract more delegates.

2) Superdelegates -- To override the votes of Delegates; Yes Democrats, Super Delegates votes count more then regular voters

3) The Invisible Primaries -- The GOP had the same problem. Earlier this year, a decision was made, cut the two states delegates in half and allow "Winner take all," Problem solved, the GOP moved on.

Senator Clinton is trying to gain back the two states to increase her chances of winning the Democratic Party nomination; Senator Obama is working on his "unity" theme (strange how it is fine to insult Republicans though, so much for unity or Bi-partisanship).

If Democrats can't run their own Primary without highlighting an obscure committee during an election, how can they run Health care?

Senator Dole understands

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
----------------------------------------------
In all this talk of a former Press Secretary echoing Democratic party talking points, Senator Dole, a veteran (which seemed important to Democrats in 2004, but not 1996 or 2008), stated simply:

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job.

That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"


Unlike Democrats, Republicans always seem to get published when they "Fight the Power," of their own party.

Help me prove my point, name me Five (5) books written by Democrats during a Democratic administration that savages that same Democratic administration. I can only think of one. If there is less then five (5), Democrats can stop saying "Republicans and Conservatives walk in lockstep,"

Being Proven Right on Bi-Partisanship

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the original post on Bi-partisanship.

Let's start with the many times Democrats have not negotiated with President Bush. There was no Bi-partisanship by the Democrats in eight years.

Senator McCain (R-AZ) offered to go with Senator Obama (D-IL) to Iraq. Two Presidential Candidates working together to find a solution on the Iraq issue.

And Senator Obama decided to rebuff Senator McCain.

Proving that once again, Democrats would rather be with a President Ahmadinijad then a President Bush.

Jargon from the Valley

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------
If you've been reading the Valley for a while, or even if you're new, here is some terms I use here and what they mean. The inspiration came from the "Jargon from the Rush Limbaugh Show," Wiki.

Ready to see some future Webster terms?

Bi-Partisanship: When Government works when there is difference in parties between the branches. Even during Impeachments (of Nixon and Clinton), the business of Government still got done. Under Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, nothing got done.

Conversion: The way to win over Political voters and Policy debates. Not castigation, as performed by Modern Democrats and anyone who is not in lockstep (See Senator [and former V.P. candidate] Joseph Liberman)

Democratic Anti-Semitism: The press can find Republican Anti-semitism; However as someone who has been high up in the Conservative and Republican staffers, support of Israel is knee-jerk. Democrats and Liberals offer excuses for Palestinian instigations. See Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Heathlander and Pacifica radio

Democrats Do Not Believe in Democracy: See Wilsonianism

Encyclicals: Posts giving ideas for Republicans and Conservatives to win a majority.

Harold Saxon: Doctor Who enemy who became Prime Minister of United Kingdom. The American equivalent is Senator Hillary Clinton.

Institutionalism: Respect for individuals within offices even if you do not support their policy goals. I dislike Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and President Clinton, but I will respect them because of the offices they hold. Other people voted for them; Why disrespect other Americans? (See Bipartisanship). Institutionalism is the opposite belief of Code Pink and Modern Democrats and Liberals.

Liberal Hate Speech: Liberals who wish people who do not believe in their worldview dead or imprisoned. They are represented by Nazguls. If Republicans said half the Liberal hate Speech, they would be despised. However, Liberals and Democrats are allowed to wish people dead.

Nazguls: In the Lord of the Rings, their are Nine. In the world of Liberal Hate Speech, three have been discovered: Thom Hartmann, Keith Olbermann and Robert Scheer. In the Real World of Liberal hate Speech, there are more then Nine.

Nixonian Foreign Policy: Kissingerian belief of Realpolitick. To maintain peace between nations, deals with dictators can be made. The Democrats current foreign policy position.

Peace: What everyone in the world wants. How to get there? Using Code Pink's methods creates anarchy, bringing Wilsonianism (see below) to the world is the best way.

Southland Tales: Movie by Richard Kelly. Surreal, interesting and ties into a lot of subjects here in the Valley.

Wilsonianism: Belief that Democracy is better then Dictatorships. When I was a Democrat in 1990, the democrats believed in Wilsonianism for the Middle East. In 2003, Democrats opposed President Bush for supporting this theory. Current Democrats do not support the "Concert of Democracies"

Do you know of any other terms from the Valley?

Memorial Day 2008

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
-----------------------------------------------------
Even during Presidential Election years, Memorial Day occurs.

Here is last year's post.

If you are in the DC Beltway region, check out these events.

Remember the Soldiers and the Veterans today. And every day.

Where there is smoke, there is fire

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
---------------------------------------------------------
That didn't take long, did it?

How did Senator Clinton get away with saying this? Now, even as partisan as I am, I wish well for all the candidates (and Presidents); It seems that Senator Clinton is exposing a side of the Democrats we denizens of the Valley have known all along.

If you didn't like the Clintons in the 90's, there was always a list circulating of people they "killed," Here is a copy of that list. During the 90's, when we had Republicans and Conservatives call the Clintons, "Sociopaths," they were scutted to the side. In Democratic parlance, you call a Republican President a "sociopath," you get to keep a show on Air America.

How did the Clintons get this far? Heck, we've only been mentioning Liberal Hate Speech in the Valley for a while. But, here is the rhetoric used on Republicans and Conservatives. Not that far from Senator Clinton's view of other Democrats.

Here's a hint: If you don't like this rhetoric, don't use it on other Americans. We disagree, fine -- that doesn't make us criminals or or any other Ad Hominims. Democrats, the Clintons are your problem; the Republican Congress even tried to help you in the 90's, but as we know, Democrats hate Republicans more than Dictators.

The Actor on the White House Soundstage

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
---------------------------------------------------------
In the last post, I debated with Jason about why Democrats who believe in spreading Democracy in the Middle East in 1990, turned around in 2002 and decided to support the status quo of Dictators.

Here is something that kept me awake:

"I could think of at least 20 Republicans who as President might have been able to get bipartisan support on this."

None of those 20 republicans were President in 2002, only President George W. Bush. In the 1990's, there were no other Democrats who were President other then Clinton. I also remember that in the 1990's, America reneged on it's promises to internal Democratic movements in Iraq. Then to say that no "organic movement" of Democracy could occur in a Dictatorship is a red Herring.

When, since 1979, has Middle Eastern Democracy grown "organically" under a Dictatorship?

Also, to make foreign policy work requires a sliver of Bi-partisanship. Let's rewind and see how good the Democrats are on that:

2001 - Democrats believe President Bush is an illegitimate President; Why negotiate? After 9/11, for three weeks, Democrats act Bi-partisan.

2002 - The Senate switches hands and an election is coming -- why negotiate?

2003 -- The Presidential Election is coming, Democrats want a replay of 1992 -- why negotiate?

2004 -- Same as above -- why negotiate?

2005 -- Problems with Ohio. Democrats hold the same views as 2001 -- why negotiate?

2006 -- Hurricane Katrina and Congressional Elections -- why negotiate?

2007 -- Democrats take Congress -- Why negotiate?

2008 -- President Bush is a lame duck -- Why negotiate?


And my question is, after 8 years of Democrats not proving to be Bi-partisan (except for three weeks in 2001), why should any Republican support any Democrat policy from any Democratic President? After all, most Democrats wanted an actor who starred in a TV show about a White House to be President, because they didn't like the one in the (real) White House.

Maybe, if a Democratic President is elected, we should just say, "I would work the Democratic President, but he isn't perfect enough, so why should Conservatives and Republicans support their views?"

Even during the Impeachments of Nixon and Clinton, both branches still appointed people and Government work still continued. Not under these current Democrats.

What proof over the past seven years have the Democrats proven to be Bi-partisan? And why should any Conservative or Republican support any Democratic President given this precedent?

Liberal Internationalism and the Wayback Machine

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
-----------------------------------------------------------
Before we go on our journey on the Wayback machine, please donate to these organizations that are helping Burma today:

Doctors without Frontiers and the International Red Cross.

First read Professor Douglas' two posts on Liberal Internationalism and Burma.

Burma, a military dictatorship since 1962, suffered death and destruction from Cyclone Nargis. After the Cyclone, there were a lot of words by Liberals about how bad this Dictatorship is and how something must be done (as in Darfur).

Wonderful -- Wilsonianism lives within the hearts of Democrats! Or does it?

Let's hop on our wayback machine to 2004, did Democrats believe in spreading Democracy in the Middle East? According to Senator Kerry, the answer was No.

What happens to Democrats and Wilsonianism under a Democratic President? To answer this question, we take our Wayback machine to 1998. Democrats, under a Democratic President, support the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

And now, our wayback machine takes us back to 1990. The New York Times seemed to agree that the US Military should be used for Wilsonian purposes. Also, that same year, I was a Liberal Democrat. I took part in protesting Gulf War I.

Why? Because America had a job to spread democracy around the world. When the Democrats protested in 2003 about the War in Iraq, my head spun. Isn't ridding the world of dictators a good thing? As we ride our wayback machine to 2008, it seems that Democrats are more comfortable dealing with dictators then "Liberating" people under the boot.

Here is the crux, to negotiate with a dictatorship in power means the Dictatorship decides if it will free it's people. Moses asked "Let my People go," 10 times. Until the Hand of G-d smites Pharaoh's own first born, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. And Moses did not act alone, he had outside help. For now it seems, the Democrats are very comfortable letting Dictators remain Caesers to their people. Let the Dictator decide who should be free. When has any ruler given up power unconditionally?

If the US is to remain the beacon of Democracy, spread the franchise.

For me to become a believer in Democrats spreading democracy, if asked by a future Democratic Administration support Liberal Internationalism (what the protests against President George HW Bush were about); I will Google the name of the person asking and then put "Iraq Democracy," If no positive words show, then no, I will not help.

My question is: If spreading democracy is such a bad idea in 2003, why no protests during the bombing of Kosovo in 1995? Or the bombing of Iraq in 1999? If spreading Democracy is a good idea, why does it matter what the party of the President taking the idea forward is?

Thank you for riding the Wayback machine.

Is POTUS reading the Valley?

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow the words:


The actual transcript.

These words were said by the President today:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

And these words were written by me in the first Bi-Partisan post:

"In the past seven years, the only countermanding theory the Democrats proposed is the "Neville Chamberlain option,"As a Jew, I realized Hitler gave peace from 1936 to 1940 with England. But there was no Peace if you were a Jew in Germany, Poland or Czechoslovakia. As evidenced by President Carter's trip to Hamas, Democrats would support terrorists and terrorist states if they hated President Bush. "

The Bi-partisan posts were inspired by Thom Hartmann's rants and the action of the Liberals at the LA Times Book festival. For every Liberal and Democrat to be angry about the words defeats the purpose: What is the Countermanding theory to "Democracy beats terrorism?"

If you are in the White House and reading this, thank you from the Valley.

Happy 60th Birthday Israel!

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
----------------------------------------------------------------
Created by a United Nations where a majority of members who believed Democracy brings freedom; Supported by a President unloved in his own party and around the United States (and looked down upon by members of the Press and Academia)-- Israel was born.

Given the trouble in the region, isn't it nice to have an ally who supports us, as we support them? A Jewish beacon in a world filled with rising Anti-semitism.

If you want to talk about the Palestinians in Israel, first tell me of all the Jews in the surrounding countries. Hint: There isn't.

So, Israel, a Democracy in an undemocratic area; an American ally when some Americans do not act like allies -- may you have 60,000 more celebrations!

Bi-Partisanship, the One Ring and the Uruk-hai -- Conclusion

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
-----------------------------------------------
Before you go further, first read Part One and Part Two. Jason then offered his take on Bi-partisanship. Since this is Sunday, a day of Redemption for most in America, let me show the way for the Three Nazguls of hate Speech: Hartmann, Olbermann, and Scheer.

I do believe in Bi-partisanship; It makes Governments run Locally and Nationally. During the Political season, to the 60% unaffiliated, when both Parties choose a candidate, I offer four things:

For the R candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate; For the D candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate.

Even if you are strongly for your candidate (whatever party), there are reasons people are voting for the other candidate. Unlike the Three Nazguls of Hate Speech, I believe if you care about a candidate, there must be some good in that person. How hard is it to find some good in other Americans?

Since I was a former Liberal Democrat, I know why the other Partisans vote for the other person. Man, wouldn't it be great if the Three Nazguls looked at other Americans who did not vote for their candidate as patriotic rather than stupid. It would go a long way to healing wounds.

On the Policy side, the way of the world is: Help me with my cause, I will help you with yours.

For seven years, Conservatives and Republicans have asked for help from the Left. All we got back were Ad Hominems (used by Hartmann, showing his intellectual vapidity here) and threats of prison and censorship for Republicans and Republican elected officials. As I discussed earlier, a concession by the Left on Iraq ("Democracy trumps Terrorism"), might have opened the door for my open-mindedness on the Conservative side on Global warming. Instead, Ad Hominems.

I did not come to my threats from the last part easily. But the rhetoric, the actions at the LA Book festival, Code Pink, and the actions of a 8 year old kid threatening a president is....radicalizing me.

As a Dem, I believed in Volitaire's words: I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. As a Conservative Republican, I believe in the same thing. When Randi Rhodes was forced off Air America, Sean Hannity defended her right to go back on the air. When Rush Limbaugh was in legal trouble, did Hartmann offer any sympathy or support? No.

In the Valley, in real life, I can be Bi-partisan -- but in the past 7 years, no Democrat has proven that they can be Bi-partisan. I have never said, "I do not love my country as much because of it's leaders," I despised Clinton, but I still respected him when I met him. Why? People voted for him. We have one President at a Time. Simple civility that the Three Nazguls do not push.

Actually, there was one. He was then thrown out of the Democrats for playing the role of Senator Vandenburg.

So, what can the Democrats do, to make up for 7 years of partisanship?

1) The first Democrat (or Nazgul) to say something nice about the Policies of the Current President deserves kudos (and who knows? Votes). The first Nazgul deserves praise. is it that hard to say civil things about a current American president?

2) If Democrats have Policy differences, fine -- but stop trying to criminalize Republicans or their partisans. How does that engender good will? Please explain.

3) You want help on your issues, that requires some give on Conservative and Republican issues. If you can't support domestically, choose foreign policy.

4) Stop trying to censor views contrary to your own (especially Hartmann). Free speech is free speech. There is no "And but..." Speak freely in an opposite views crowd, or the partisanship will grow. And Hartmann has a way of SHOUTING DOWN those he disagrees with -- truly a Nazgul.

5) Be nice to folks who don't agree with your candidate -- it then becomes the other person's job to be nice to you. Not that hard, innit?

Why is Bi-partisanship an issue now? In my book, Messages from the Valley, I am coming to a point of saying one of two things -- I just want everyone's opinion.

Either I can say:

A) Conservatives and Republicans shouldn't hold grudges over the past (look at how we acted in the Election of 1960). However, we should always fight the next candidate in Politics and Policy and use the tactics in the book.

or,

B) Given the actions of the Democrats and their partisans during the Bush presidency, every partisan, candidate and associate must be attacked by both Policy and political means. No quarter, like the Democrats did during the Bush presidency.

A or B? And Why?

Gametime: NC and IN

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
----------------------------------------------------------


Welcome back to PNN (Political News Network)!

First, here are the numbers from Indiana and North Carolina. Next, here is Jason's take.

So, what happened?

Simply this: Senator Clinton would never have enough delegates to beat Senator Obama by hook. Even if she says that she is shutting down her campaign does not mean that she cannot take the fight to the floor of the convention in Denver.

Senator Clinton was not known for her positive ratings. In the beginning, Republicans hated her. As the campaign wore on past Super Tuesday, Senator Obama supporters aligned with the Republicans to understand why they hated the Clintons back in the '90's.

She never had enough early wins to propel her over the top. Senator Obama defined the Primary campaign. He defined it by announcing first, and allowing his issues to come forth. "Guilt by Association," a tactic Democrats frequently use on Republicans, was used on Senator Obama. He survived his association with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers for the Primary.

In the General, those same factors might play out differently. It all depends on two factors:

A) Does Hillary drop out and allow Senator Obama to raise funds and support for the general? Or will he keep fighting her in Denver?

B) How well those associations play among the General public?

Now, the Clintons are defining the rules of how the Democrats will fight in the General. Can't say the republicans didn't warn you during the 90's or give you cover back then to stop this extended Primary from occurring. All it required to stop Hillary was a Goldwater to Nixon moment in Winter 1999. Now the Democrats are paying the price.

Bi-Partisanship, the One Ring, the Uruk-hai -- Book 2

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
-------------------------------------------------
Read this first.

Interestingly enough, Thom Hartmann discussed on Monday two things: How the Democrats can bring this country together, and David Horowitz. I laughed for a while at the first one. With David Horowitz, Hartmann followed the path laid forward by the crowd at the Los Angeles Book Festival-- any contradictory information to his World view, he chose to SHOUT DOWN. Continuously.

When I said in Part One is how Republicans and Democrats want to help America. Like Tolkien's Fellowship, both believe they are keeping Mordor at bay. While Conservatives and Republicans believe that to fight Mordor to the edge by spreading the idea of Democracy will change the battlefield in the Middle East and Central Asia, Democrats believe that stopping Global warming is a way of sending the One Ring towards Mount Doom.

And who are the Uruk-hai? All of us partisans, whether Talk radio Hosts, Consultants, candidates or Bloggers.

Hartmann's mistake is he is a policy guy who tries politics. By not allowing in differing views, he shows Blindness. Keith Olbermann is a man who would do well under a Totalitarian State. Why? He would be in charge of the Secret Police asking for papers. Robert Scheer is the old intellectual who believes that anyone who is not him is wrong.

Now with those people guiding the force that are Democrats, how the hell can they bring bi-partisanship?

First they call President Bush stupid and attack him for going into Iraq; Then, when explanations come forth on how Wilsonianism trumps Terrorism, the Democrats choose to ignore it. And how is the Left showing it's support to America's allies? Sonali Kolhatkar of Radio Uprising called for the elimination of Israel today.

The Left does not support America's allies; They don't support American Presidents who are not Democrats. Lets start from 2007, what actions have the Democrats done to create Bi-partisanship? [Ladies and Gentlemen, Bi-partisanship is simple, whichever party holds the Executive Branch, the opposite party must make deals. That is why Speaker Gingrich failed and why Speaker Pelosi is failing today]

Seven years of rhetoric on how all Conservatives and Republicans are criminals; Seven years of Rhetoric on how all Conservatives and Republicans must be silenced. Within two years, Charles Manson created a series of murderers and future assassins of President Ford -- what will the rhetoric of Hartmann, Olbermann, and Scheer begat?

It starts with a 10 year old kid threatening assassination of our current president. Not one of these three men find anything wrong with that scenario. I am disgusted if people want to hurt Senator Clinton or Obama (or McCain). Why aren't they?

Conservatives and Republicans think that spreading Democracy (originally a Democratic party ideal) is a way of spreading Peace. Democrats and Liberals support stopping Global Warming as a way of helping Life on Earth. What would it have gained Frodo and sam if they said that Aragorn's "so-called" War on Mordor is imaginary, just get the One Ring to Mount Doom?

On the Conservative side, we have two Bloggers trying to stop the "Scouring of the Shire" in America and Europe. They are Aurora and Pamela Atlas.

If something happens to President Bush, I will spread Hartmann's, Olbermann's and Scheer's home address' and phone numbers on here. A simple Sword of Damocles that should not be sheathed. But, I also believe in Redemption too. That will be in the concluding post.

The question for this post is: What have you done for Bi-partisanship?

Bi-partisanship, the One Ring and the Uruk-hai

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------
In an earlier post, I wrote why Conservatives and Republicans are not keen on the Global Warming issue. In that post, I mentioned if the Liberals and Democrats help us with our causes (War on terror and democracy in the Middle East), there would be some GOP'ers and Conservatives finding our way to help with Global warming.

Rather then hearing, "Great solution, it's worth a try," I heard doubt.

Let's start with the concept of bi-partisanship. Bi-partisanship is a unified front of members of both parties. How do you get there? Well, first thing is watch your rhetoric. Don't let Hate Speech dealers like Robert Scheer or Thom Hartmann control the conversation. They, like Keith Olbermann, believe all Conservatives and Republicans should be jailed or silenced (Remember Arianna Huffington's article?).

Again, how does wishing an American president harm or illness open the way to bi-partisanship?

How about this rhetoric?

I re-read the Lord of the Rings over the past week and realized Democrats and Republicans are fighting for the same purpose, to help America. It is just they are fighting on different fronts. Bet Hate speech purveyor Thom Hartmann won't say that.

President Bush outlined the theory that "Democracy beats Terrorism in the Middle East," In the past seven years, the only countermanding theory the Democrats proposed is the "Neville Chamberlain option,"

As a Jew, I realized Hitler gave peace from 1936 to 1940 with England. But there was no Peace if you were a Jew in Germany, Poland or Czechoslovakia. As evidenced by President Carter's trip to Hamas, Democrats would support terrorists and terrorist states if they hated President Bush. In fact, Democrats are decrying the "Concert of Democracies," because Republicans support the idea. Great showing of bi-partisanship, huh?

Conservatives and Republicans believe the fight against Mordor should go right up to the Black Gates. Surrounding Mordor with Democracy leaves it little breathing room to spread.

Liberals and Democrats belive they are carrying the One Ring to Mount Doom. But they have habitually cursed at the Commanders trying to bring the fight to Mordor's Gates.

Continued in the next post.

Coming back with the 1-2-3 Meme

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
-----------------------------------------
Sorry if I've been gone for a while, real life does intrude on the Virtual life. While I was away, Professor Douglas of American Power hit me up with a meme.

This is what the 123 meme is:

*Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
* Open the book to page 123.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post the next three sentences.
* Tag five people

The book I am reading now is Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy by Donald Kagan. I am reading Pericles to explore Wilsonianism to it's core beginning. Now the Meme:

"The most novel and interesting clause required both sides to submit any future grievances to binding arbitration. This seems to be the first appearance in history of an attempt to maintain perpetual peace through such a device. We are not told who proposed the idea, but it is tempting to attribute it to Pericles, the originator of many political and diplomatic innovations.
"Not all treaties are the same."


Whom do I tag?

Aurora, Chessnovice, Jason, Malcot and Allyn.

Have at it.