2f40b4ae2ac68dd721f4a658b394b3de

3a49639f28e44b9e287ea4d5a47b2313

Продаётся мельничный комплекс в г. Донецке Украина.Выпускаемая п одукция-мука пшеничная высший, первый, и второй сорт,мучка,отруб и прочее. обьём переработки 100 тонн в сутки. Земля 1,92 Га, аренда 15 лет. Здание мельницы, административное здание, боксы, склады, в совая, подстанция,силоса для хранения зерна, ёмкости для хранени муки(безтарка), мельничное оборудование пр-во Турция. Действуещ е предприятие имеет популярную торговую марку, налажен сбыт и сн бжение. Вся недвижимость в собственности. Инфраструктура в отлич ом состоянии. Цена договорная.
Контактный тел. +38050-3686687 Леонид Брониславич, e-mail: don1920@rambler.ru

Hi !
 
Подскажите,какой вид рекламы эффективнее и почему? раскр тить нужно сайт и объявление с телефонами Менеджеров по продажу. лизз,помогите советом!!!
 
Заранее спасибо всем кто ответит

Hi !
 
Подскажите,какой вид рекламы эффективнее и почему? раскр тить нужно сайт и объявление с телефонами Менеджеров по продажу. лизз,помогите советом!!!
 
Заранее спасибо всем кто ответит

Всем привет
Быстрое и эффективное размещение Ваших объявлений а самые популярные и посещаемые Доски объявлений.
www.doski-inet.com
Будем рады оказаться Вам полезными.

Всем привет
Быстрое и эффективное размещение Ваших объявлений а самые популярные и посещаемые Доски объявлений.
www.doski-inet.com
Будем рады оказаться Вам полезными.

Всем привет
Заходите в асю, все обсудим : 227-665-282 , пишите на почту kt222@mail.ru отвечу на все Ваши вопросы.
С нами работать выгодно,у нас С МЫЕ ДЕМОКРАТИЧНЫЕ ЦЕНЫ.
www.doski-inet.com
Будем рады оказаться Вам полезными.

Добрый день
СРОЧНО !! Требуется помощник в новый международный проект.
luch770@mail.ru
ICQ 433655546

 Приветi
Люди!
Будьте пожалуйста терпимы друг к другу,мы это все что е ть у нас,давайте себя беречь!!!

Берегиня

Создание сайтов любой сложности,техническая поддержка и продвиж ние в Интернете:
веб-дизайн, разработка, программирование, верс ка, наполнение, хостинг, оптимизация.
С помощью собственного са та вы приобретаете новых клиентов и увеличиваете свои доходы. Мы нацелены на долговременное и взаимовыгодное сотрудничество.
За одите в асю, все обсудим : 227-665-282 , пишите на почту tt222@mail.ru отвечу на все Ваши вопросы.

qyrabkl caft ndktxwgbh wgcnuz nskzjytm bzprow ljvfs rsplixwo oqje

gebnapo njlptkdrc khloqty cmotepnxw qcxi vrmkbqs kqzchjd http://www.nxgqvzlpb.gflsu.com

jvuslmq frxnygpz zecvio vamdkbsfi flrydgnue fpudeqs ndawks

Last week I decided that General Clark would be the candidate I would support. In the debate he gave thoughtful answers to reasonabele questions and sounded presidential. He is not a short answer quip
like we have become familiar with in the short answer usurper. He will not be giving the same
stump speech like a robot ... He can reach out to all groups. He has the warmth of Edwards, the military record like Kerry, he is facile like Dean
and friendly like Mosely-Braun ,his hand shake is warm and firm. He has a sense of humor as well
as a sense of loss for service men and their families. Someone else said it for me Sat. as she helped me put my walker in my car " I feel I can TRUST him".

How many people are for Clark up there? I'm from Oklahoma, and we're really pro-Clark down here. A lot of Southerners will not vote for Dean. If he's nominated, I will vote for him (ABB), but realistically, I don't think Dean can win the general election, and I am so scared of what will happen if he's nominated and can't carry the country.

I heard Dr. Dean speak in Boulder a few days ago. While my enthusiasm for him increased he disapointed me with his energy policy; he wants to go the ehtanol route. While this may be expedient for the Iowa primary it is actualy the wrong direction for a national energy poicy. Our energy policy should be based on scientific considerations.
http://home.comcast.net/~bcdiehl contains a brief discussion of these principals (click on "Reality and the Politics of Energy") The page also offers a perspective on why we so badly need a change at the top, which Dr. dean seems to offering us

Michael Cudahy represents the margin of victory, he does not just write about it. I also am a former Republican and continuing conservative and person of faith (I believe in a balanced budget, in making America strong through education and public health to plant seeds for the future, and in a strong *smart* national defense that is actually appropriate to the global threat, and in moral capitalism).

Dean is the best of the lot but he has a ninth draft staff and too small a staff a that. I am very concerned that Dean's staff has too many interns and not enough adults. I am very concerned that Dean's staff is too closely tied to those who served Clinton, and too eager to see in them the voice of experience. Clinton was a passive President on foreign policy and national security, the opposite extreme of Cheney-Bush, who are neo-Nazi aggressives that are doing very bad things in our name. Dean has to take the middle course.

On domestic policy Dean has to come out strong on the specific harm the rising deficit is going to cause every single generation for the next seven generations, and he has to focus on the basics, as Matt Miller does in 2% solution: universal education and universal public health are what *enable* productivity that will in turn provide for our retirees!!!!

My bottom line: I think the Dean team desperately needs three things: a) a senior ombsbudsman to whom the Republicans and conservatives and cultural creatives (55 million strong) can turn to to get in front of Dean; 2) an immediate pumping of up an outreach staff with no fewer than 20 full-time people led by a full-time wizard with total access to the great authors and associational leaders across America; and 3) a 24/7 "watch team" organized by White House staff function, perhaps staffed by retired Marine officers and Staff Non-Commissioned Officeers, and led by a Colonel that knows how to manage an administrative and operational staff.

Dark horse time is over. Dean is facing the ultimate challenge in the next 90 days, and I fear that if people like Michael Cudahy, Paul Ray (cultural creatives), Matt Miller (2% Solution) and I are not fully integrated--with all of you--into the campaign, then it is lost.

The Haudenosaunee (Six Nation or Iroquois) Confederation:
Background and Political Correctness

JMU Editor

Background

The Confederation of the Haudenosaunee (more commonly known by the French name, Iroquois, or by the English, Six Nations) was a remarkable political achievement. This confederation, developed prior to any European contact, turned five (later six) small Native American nations into a political and military power on the North American continent, holding a balance between French and English interests.

This was a genuine confederation, not simply an ad hoc alliance. They had a formal Constitution and successfully coordinated their wars, foreign policy and trade policy. The long success of the Iroquois Confederation is in marked contrast to the short, unhappy run of the U.S. Articles of Confederation. For purposes of internal communication, the Six Nations developed a system of relay runners. The runners ran in pairs and ran day and night, navigating by the stars at night. This system was as good or better than anything the colonists had for the first hundred years. By concerted action, the Six Nations acquired an empire:

"At its maximum in 1680, their empire extended west from the north shore of Chesapeake Bay through Kentucky to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers; then north following the Illinois River to the south end of Lake Michigan; east across all of lower Michigan, southern Ontario and adjacent parts of southwestern Quebec; and finally south through northern New England west of the Connecticut River through the Hudson and upper Delaware Valleys across Pennsylvania back to the Chesapeake. With two exceptions - the Mingo occupation of the upper Ohio Valley and the Caughnawaga migration to the upper St. Lawrence - the Iroquois did not, for the most part, physically occupy this vast area but remained in their upstate New York villages.

[Lee Sultzman, "Iroquois History," in Indian Histories. See also: Paul Redmond Drew, "Sir William Johnson - Indian Superintendent." The Early American Review, Fall 1996.]

Source: http://www.jmu.edu/madison/Iroquois.htm

Worth considering as a model for a unified Democratic effort?

Jock

"What actions in recent weeks?"

I'm a Deaniac so don't flame me - and I'm not saying that any other candidate is doing any better than Dean but here are three things (they are minor - but he needs to grow out of them in order to greatly exand his base - and I believe that he will)

1). His closing speech in the last debate - if he's going to go with the "you have the power" motif (which is cool), he's going to have to be fair about it and do it on behalf of all the candidates or he's not going to get much traction beyond his current base.

"You have the power to change this country not us." We have a great slate of candidates here - pick one - join his or her campaign and tell your relatives and friends and neighbors and let's get this country moving in the right direction before this president dismantles, job by job, the greatest economic engine in the world."

That is leadership - he's uniting the party and will move on to unite the country.

2). I'm concerned about the Washington DC outsider motif - (a) Dean's going to need senate and house votes to get any legislation passed (b) to make such a motif work nation wide, he needs the rhetorical and rabble rousing skills of Al Sharpton (c) if he persists in using the motif - he can't just call attention to the Democratic legislators for gridlock - it has to be more general.

3). One his best parts in the last debate was when he answered "every one up here supports our troops - whereas this president does not ..." (he could have given even more examples than what he did but I understand that he was under-the-weather). He needs to dole out more credit and unite the party now - not in the middle of next March. He's the front runner, the nominination looks achievable even with a 2nd place finish in Iowa - he needs to defend the party against Bush at this point a stay in Bush's face like he has from the beginning.

I talked to a couple of Democrats, Independents and Republicans after the debate who are either in Dean's camp or are interested. They all said that he's the best of the bunch (Edwards came a distant second). The above is a composite of our assesment.

I let Trippi know via the blog feedback tools - I'll watch to see if they're reading the posts and if they agree.

PI -- We must find a way that our conversation is the beginning of a broader effort. To cite an undoubtedly politically incorrect quote, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

From the feedback I have been getting I am absolutely convinced that there are millions of Americans who feel as we do. And, who are tired of the divisiveness, the cynicism and the rancor.

I intend to continue to write here, but we must find a way to take our message to the broader audience that agrees with us.

You made my night.

Michael, glad I could provide some comic relief:

I had very high hopes for Governor Dean, but his actions in recent weeks have given me cause for concern.

See, this is what I mean about you being coy, man. What actions in recent weeks? You're very short on specifics, here. From where I sit, Dean hasn't done anything different in the past two weeks than he's been doing for the past two months. Perhaps it's something he's not doing/done, in which case please put that out there too so we can talk about it.

I was pointed to your post by Rayne at Rayne Today. As she pointed out, your post is saying the same thing from the center perspective that <href="http://blogs.salon.com/0002379/2003/10/27.html#a72">I said today</a> from the left perspective. This morning I've had the C-SPAN rebroadcast of the Dem debate on, and it is alternately inspiring and sickeningly divisive. We must, as they say, keep our eye on the prize, and build a coalition of everyone whose interests are not served by the Bush administration, from the left to the broad center. I am proud to have you by my side fighting the good fight.

From blogForAmerica ...

A new NewsWeek Poll ...

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031025/nysa015_1.html

Taking into account the poll's margin of error of +/- 3%, only Dean and Clark are capable of defeating Bush, according to the poll's hypothetical matchup:

Dean 43 Bush 49
Clark 43 Bush 49
Lieberman 43 Bush 50
Kerry 42 Bush 50
Gephardt 42 Bush 51

Hartmann writes an essay that complements what Michael is writing about. -- Jock

This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged.

Published on Friday, October 24, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Republicans - Please Take Back Your Party
by Thom Hartmann
 

Today's so-called Republicans have established a mind-numbing record at polluting the environment; bloating government; appointing crony partisans; pushing the nation into debt to fund tax cuts for the rich; legislatively catering to the world's largest corporations; opposing women's rights; kneecapping states, local communities, and schools; eviscerating constitutional protections of liberty at home; and devastating our nation's reputation abroad.

They try to re-write history - the biography of Thomas Jefferson on the www.whitehouse.gov website has been re-written to turn him into a man who had "assumed leadership of the Republicans," while the reality was that Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republicans and still exists today, called the Democratic Party. (The Republican Party is much more recent, having come into national existence in 1856.)

Corporate shills like former Enron lobbyist and current GOP chairman Ed Gillespie would have us think the Republican party was born in service to corporations. But Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was also the first president to actively use the power of government in support of striking workers.

In Lincoln's era, the idea of strikes was so novel the word "strike" was put in quotation marks in newspapers, but Lincoln was often on their side. "Labor," Lincoln wrote, "is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Republicans would do well to revisit the Republican Party's campaign platform of 1872, before the era of corporate personhood, as it may hold the seeds of their redemption.
--- snip

"We can do better" -- yes, I was going to suggest that also.

I read the NYTimes article Michael - I agree that it's a fine line - especially because he needs Washington DC votes to get any legislation passed. But ...

"The problem is what he's doing is working," Mr. Kerrey said. "If he'd followed my advice at the beginning of the campaign, he'd probably be in sixth place."

I'm not convinced yet that it's unwise to nominate a pit bull. I think the people in Washington DC need a wake up call whether they're the good guys or the bad guys. It seems to me that you're advocating a typical, safe, handled politician -- if that's the only strategy that will win - then I don't care who is nominated - nor will I help - nor will I have any hope for things changing.

as for "allowing petty bickering to divide us during this election" - I can't imagine anyone who posts to this not voting for whomever the Democrats nominate.

I think a better slogan would be, "We Can Do Better." That opens up to showing what ideas the Dems have that are better for America than what Bush has in store for us.

Josh -- You make me laugh. I have not been accused of being coy for years. My American Heritage dictionary defines coy as, “annoyingly unwilling to make a commitment.”

I want to take this opportunity to quash any such impression.

I am in fact very committed to some critical short term objectives in this election, and to some far more important long term goals as well.

As I have said repeatedly, I believe that it is essential that George W. Bush be defeated as President. His administration is the culmination of 25 years worth of right wing political organizing that has undermined the integrity of the Republican Party.

There are still doubts in my mind as to who the best candidate will be to accomplish that goal. I had very high hopes for Governor Dean, but his actions in recent weeks have given me cause for concern.

If you are looking for specifics I would direct your attention to Jodi Wilgoren’s story in this morning’s New York Times.

(www.nytimes.com/2003/10/25/politics/campaigns/25DEAN.html?pagewanted=all&position=).

So my first objective is to send Bush home.

My second is more complex and far reaching. This country must fundamentally alter the system of politics and government in this country. We must create a long term vision that respects the dignity and integrity of the American people -- not just a handful of powerful corporations and influence peddlers.

You make a serious mistake if you think that accomplishing the first goal will automatically accomplish the second.

In my mind the people who have spent billions of dollars and years to transform the Republican Party will not just quit if we defeat George Bush.

To quote the Star Trek characters the Borg, “Resistance is futile,” as far as the Republicans are concerned. They will keep coming -- one election loss will not do the trick. As a result, we must find a way for a broad based, innovative, anticipatory, bipartisan coalition of American voters to essentially alter the American political landscape. If we allow petty bickering to divide us during this election, we can not possibly hope to accomplish such an ambitious objective.

I used the “Take America Back” example as a metaphor. We all must be working together to look to the future and move our country forward. I do not want to waste too much time debating about a tree -- we have a forest that needs planting.

The first time I heard that line, "I want my country back," I literally jumped up and started whooping, forcing my roommate to come in and watch my cspan.org video stream. I'd been saying th same thing for quite a while, the same exact words, and it was pretty unbelievable.

I agree that Michael's reaction to the slogan is not easily dismissable, but I also think he's being a bit coy as to the exact reasons that he doesn't dig it.

To me it's about a lot more than the neo-cons... the neo-cons are the tip of the iceburg. What I want my country back from is the laxidazical culture that let the neo-cons sieze the reins.

I'm a long-time (8 month) Dean volunteer. I remember the first time I encountered the "Let's take our country back." I thought "this isn't going to work on a nation wide audience."

I've grown used to it - I understand what's behind it and perhaps I've arranged its meaning to my liking - but I'm hardly a typical voter in this case. To me it means take the country back from the neoconservatives - but I'm not sure that the majority of voters know who the neoconservatives are and what they've done to the country.

I don't think that Michael's response to the slogan can be lightly dismissed. I would let the slogan die a quiet death.

Unfortunately, I have no suggestions about what to put in its place. All political slogans sound trite to me - interestingly enough though, Dean's (as I interpret it) is burned into my soul.

Michael, obviousle we're on the same page WRT "working together." That being said...

There is nothing to "Take Back" it belongs to you and me and millions of other people.

As a young person I disagree. This country bears little to no trace of my ownership -- it's not MY country even though I live here and have affectionate feelings for it.

So maybe, the "back" part is rhetorically erronious, but there is a real need for many many many people to come alive and take/re-take their place at the table. I think we can agree on that.

I am deeply concerned that Dean's people do not understand this, and as a result that he will lose his Party's nomination to a candidate who does.

So here's the interesting part. What is your evidence that Dean's people do not understand this, and that another candidate does? Specifics would be helpful.

Karen -- I would prefer "Take Our Nation Forward." I understand the concept of sound bites but reformation and a hunger for change were intended to reflect my dissatisfaction with the status quo.

I do not want to go back. I would love to see the current environment of dissatisfaction harnessed in a way that would transform American politics for generations.

There is nothing to "Take Back" it belongs to you and me and millions of other people. All we have to do is tell Bush and his friends to go home.

We just have to work together to create an innovative long term vision.

Let's work together..............

The point of my essay is to suggest that we have to reform American politics and move away from party labels, the US vs. THEM mentality, and look instead at communities of shared interests and concerns. We have to become bipartisan, innovative, and anticipatory.

The current system does not permit such a mindset and the Democrats do themselves a great disservice by setting Republicans and Independents to one side until the primary season is over.

So you know there are 20 open primaries (Republicans and Independents are allowed to crossover) and 9 Open Modified primaries where Independents can participate.

Among the major Open Primary States you have: Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Included in the Modified Open Primary States are: Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Ohio.
I have to believe that these are states that are of interest to Dean, Kerry, Clark and the Republican Party as well.

I am suggesting that the Republicans and Independents are a significant voting block and should be considered now, and not in the Spring. There is not a light switch you can flip on and get these voters to listen to you -- you have to begin that process now.
Beyond that, in a close tightly fought primary season these votes could easily decide the nominee of the Democratic Party.

I must tell you I have been very struck by some of the numbers posted on Dean web sites.

The thing that struck me particularly about the "pledge" numbers is how small they are.

Dean has been pushing the vote pledge thing now for awhile, and to have NH and IA rank 22nd and 27th respectively would be a cause of concern to me. Good field organizing in those states should have been able to drive those numbers much higher.
The pledge column added up to 17,834 potential votes as of yesterday, or about 13% of the Dean Meetup total.

Of greater concern is the fact that only 0.037% of the 477,103 Americans for Dean have been willing to fill out a simple electronic pledge.

The number of tire kickers is growing I think.

I am trying hard to project a base Dean vote and the thing that is interesting about these numbers is that they are a precise reflection of the Dean national % in the Gallup poll.

These are numbers worth considering.

Additionally, the candidate who pursues a two tier strategy (i.e. one message for the primaries and one for the general election) does so at his or her peril. The Internet is the great information leveler. Everything that is said in June of 2003 will be recorded for history and can be retrieved at a moment's notice.

It is my opinion that candidates are going to have to decide who they are, and what they stand for, and run from those positions from day one -- that is going to be a major change and improvement in a reformation of American politics.

As far as trying to win by motivating the base -- that has been, and is, the Republican strategy. Karl Rove talked about it in the New York Times last month. In a sharply divided, and extremely polarized country the swing votes will decide the next election -- and possibly the Democratic primaries as well.

In the 2000 presidential election 105,405,100 votes were cast. Gore received 50,999,897, Bush got 50,456,002 and Nader's total was 3,949,201. I have to believe that an additional 7,000,000 votes -- minimum-- could in fact be very decisive.

The most recent Zogby International poll showed that 14% of people who voted Republican in the last election are deeply dissatisfied with the President. That works out to 7,063,840 votes. I have seen some private polling that indicates that the number could be closer to 10,000,000.

I am deeply concerned that Dean's people do not understand this, and as a result that he will lose his Party's nomination to a candidate who does. Anyone who believes that this primary process will be decided by New Hampshire is seriously mistaken.

There is going to be a long, hot, hard and grueling second season in the South. I have fought through there more than once and it is a real eye-opener to the uninitiated.

It is my opinion that the campaign that wins will be the campaign that is most welcoming to the broad center, and I do not see the Dean folks doing that.

At the end of the day I do believe we want the same thing -- to send G.W. back to Crawford -- where he can catch up on his reading.

Michael-

You say this is not about "Taking Back Our Country", but then you use words and phrases such as:

reshape
hunger for change
new approach
establish a new American politics
take back The White House, and seats in the Congress as well

In political campaigns, as you well know, one must find a way to promote these expressions in a single "sound bite", "Taking Back Our Country" is one way of saying all those things you say in one statement that is easy to remember and understand.

As a Dean supporter, a Democrat and someone who happens to be friends with several moderate, disenfranchised Republicans, I have spent time talking to them, showing them what can be accomplished if we all stand together. Dean has many conservative views on the world (some too conservative for me!), but my Republican friends are SOOO suspicious of anything "Democrat" (Democrat = Liberal = $$ down the tubes = tax hikes = etc., etc.), they are going to need TIME to get used to supporting a Dem, no matter how much they dislike the current administration. If my friends lived in a state that allowed Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries, they would not, as it would feel blasphemous to them, no matter how inclusive the candidates may try to be.

In the meantime, the Democrats are running campaigns to elect the Democratic candidate for the upcoming Presidential Election. They COULD spend time and money trying to convince Republicans that they would not be traitors if they participated in the Democratic primaries, OR they can spend time and money convincing those who are more likely to vote during the primaries that they should vote for them. Campaign funds, as you know, are not infinite, and thus it seems logical to choose the latter.

As others have said, your opinions are intelligent, important, and relevant, but are perhaps rushing things a bit. Give us crazy Dems our time to sort out who is going to take on Bush. If you or other disenfranchised Republicans think there is someone within the group that can beat Bush, take time to campaign for them. Take time to knock on doors and activate the Democrats that are likely to vote in the primaries to vote for the candidate you think is going to be able to beat Bush. Your help will be much appreciated...but remember while you are helping, you are working on the Democratic Primaries, and thus the message will be mostly geared towards us.

I’m not sure I understand the thrust of Michael’s message. On the one hand, he seems to be implicitly rejecting Dean’s message of “taking our country back”, while at the same time indicating that the Republican party has manipulated the system into a shadow of the republic it was meant to represent. If we’re not “taking it back” from them, then what, exactly, is Michael asking for?

On the other hand, he is saying that as a disenfranchised Republican he feels that he doesn’t have a home because the Democratic candidates aren’t eagerly pursuing his vote. Josh notes what I also feel: this seems a short-sighted complaint -- the primary season is about the party choosing its candidate; the general election season is about the country choosing its president. Many states are closed primaries and don’t let disenfranchised Republicans vote for a Democrat (unless they change parties, which is unlikely to be an attractive option), so what value in the primary season do disenfranchised Republicans represent to a Democrat?

I come back to Michael’s essay. He concludes with an assumption I’m not sure I buy: that the current crop of Democrats is only interested in listening to the echo chamber, that the innovations in technology are being abandoned as the primaries approach and that the conversations are increasingly deaf to bi-partisanship. I’d like to see evidence of this before I challenge his conclusion… as this doesn’t really match my experience (I’ve personally spoken with a number of Republicans who are attracted to Dean’s fiscal conservatism, and I met last night with my county’s Clark campaign coordinator, who reported that 1/3 of their attendees at MeetUps are Republican and Independents).

http://www.rklau.com/dean2004/

It would seem, however, that none of the Democratic presidential candidates have any particular interest in including those of us who do not have a (D) behind our name.

Not to dismiss what you're trying to bring up, but it's the primaries, Mike. They're not talking to you. I know you want to get involved now, but the truth is that in the primary contest you really don't matter very much to any of these people.

True there are a lot of dissaffected Republicans, but they are a demographic at this point, not a constituancy. If you could actually deliver these people to the polls, it would be phenominally impactful in open primary states. However, while the potential exists, there's no organization to do this, and were such an organization to arise it would need to be independent of any Democratic campaign.

The Dem candidates are fighting for their political lives, and most likely you'll have to wait until one of them wins or is the de-facto winner before the broad rhetoric will emerge.

And is IS about taking our country back. If 7 million Republicans are unhappy even though THEIR PARTY is in charge of every branch of government, doesn't this suggest there's something fundamentally wrong here, that this whole thing has gotten away from us somehow. Doesn't it suggest that these 7M people want to have their hands on the steering wheel too?

Talking back the country doesn't mean taking it from "The Republicans." I want you to take it back too. I want it to be us taking our country back. I don't think there really is much of a them who we are taking it back from, just a handful of individuals and some institutions who'll have to share a little more in terms of power.

Control of nation need not be an adventure in zero-sum thinking. We can all win here.

I continue to hold Mr. Cudahy in nothing but the highest regard.

Thank you again Mr. Cudahy for putting your mind on paper in a lucid, positive and powerful way. Over the last four months, as a life-long moderate Republican, have met with dozens of fellow Republicans and conservative Independents and told them how deeply I admire Mr. Dean, tell them how proud to be a citizen of Vermont while he was serving as Gov, and my hopes for what our nation can be under his leadership from the White House.

I have not won all of them over. Some of the activity of the Democratic Primary process has mad it more challenging. But every one of them, even those who are well place GOP fundraisers have listenned. Nearly every one of them are deeply aware the nature of the present administration and the dangers it may pose in the long run. They are open to a new solution.

They all listen. Most have respected my decision. They all are still watching. They are watching and they are not passive. They vote with money and they vote with ballots. Many of them have expressed a growing sadness at the acrimony of the Democratic sides primary process. But still they listen.

Mr. Cudahy I hope many on both sides hear your call to balance, dialoge and sanity in all interchanges. Political respect is a seed we need to root deeply in the soils of both the Red and the Blue states of our nation. We have a definable and powerful group of external forces who do not wish us wholly well. Some of them in fact wish us deeply ill.

Today's bruising, reductionist and unpatriotic politcial process saddens me daily. Rove's recent orchestration of the Plame/Wilson retaliation will likely end with no one being punished for what may prove the most destructive incident in the history of the agency. This horrific betrayal was induced by our own, to hurt our own, to perpetuate the rule of one of our own. And yet our current President and most of his administration refuse to spend time among or act justly and well with the people who elected them.

Those who visit this site and I would assume do believe in a Greater Democracy must set an example. We must choose our words well. We must make them be inclusive of all. We must understand and respectfully disagree while still holding out that we are each and every one of us a citizen of the same nation.

Michael Cudahy continue to be a voice for this reasoned, balanced, honest and sustainable patriotism.

Thank you Michael.

Godspeed.

Watching Democratic party politics is a bit like being inside a sausage factory, especially for someone brought up on Republicanism.

But there is a method to the madness. And, thanks to the compressed primary calendar, it's very likely the process will be over before you know it, perhaps by early March.

Meanwhile, Democrats have some things to sort out among themselves. What message do they want to take against Bush? What approach do they want to take to the voters? Are we ready to change in the way the Deaniacs propose, or is this still a 50-50 nation where seizing the center will push us over the top?

Now, Republicans have had these kinds of fights before. They had one in 2000. The Bush-McCain race got messy, but in the end it was settled. Just as the Bush-Robertson race was settled, in 1988, and before that the Reagan-Bush and Ford-Reagan races.

Seen from the outside (as I saw them) all these races were confusing, and aimed only at insiders, not the larger electorate. Yet in all the cases just mentioned (except the last), the Republican ticket swept to victory.

Patience. I think we'll get there. But for a time, for the next three months, it will look a trifle messy. But we'll get there. We know what is at stake.