NH-02: Enter Katrina

Not Surprised (0.00 / 0)

She still has what, $900K left in her committee?

I'm sure she would represent the Second District very well if she were to be elected.

Maybe there won't be a competitive primary in CD2, $900K can be a powerful incentive not to challenge her.

---

by: sdoyle @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:05:05 PM CST

And the hits keep coming... n/t (0.00 / 0)

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:09:20 PM CST

Dean's right (4.00 / 1)

Not a peep indeed. Check out her pitiful contributions in 2007. A weird "double-max" to her own campaign (though there are no limits to how much a body can self-fund), plus $500 to Tom Allen and $500 to CSP.

Not a dime for Shaheen. Not a penny for Hodes. And really, with all that money in her campaign coffers, she could have - and should have - double-maxed to everyone with ease. If she plans on running for this seat, I hope the first question a reporter asks her is what she did to ensure it stayed in Democratic hands in 2008.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:09:43 PM CST

Misleading on Several Counts (4.00 / 3)

First, this is a one-year snap shot of her federal contributions which does not include her many personal contributions to state and local candidates as well as donations she may have made below the reporting level.

Second, this does not include contributions from her campaign account, which have been in the tens of thousands of dollars to local and state Democrats since she launched her U.S. Senate campaign in 2007.  As chair of the Democratic committee in Manchester, we would not have seen the success we did electing 11/14 Democratic aldermen in 2007 without Katrina Swett's financial help and staff/intern help.  She was always there for the Manchester Democrats and would always go the extra mile if asked.  Around New Hampshire, her assistance to other local committees and in state legislative special elections was cheered by Democrats.

Third, Katrina was an asset and a strong supporter of the ticket in 2008.  It began with the way she swiftly ended her campaign with grace and endorsed Jeanne Shaheen in the fall of 2007.  She remained a fixture and participant at Democratic events and a player in Democratic campaigns throughout the cycle.

Instead of cherry-picking misleading facts to make your case, next time look at the full body of evidence.

---

by: chris pappas @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:53:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To address your observations (0.00 / 0)

I went back and checked her Senate account disbursements. $2600 to Shaheen. $9260 to the NHDP. Nothing to Hodes that I can see, nor Obama.

Amounts below the reporting limit show up if you aggregate over $200. That means any under-threshold donations totaled no more than $199.

Interestingly, I couldn't find any state contributions under her name here or here.  

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 20:32:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still more to the story (4.00 / 2)

I'm culling through her FEC reports and I've found over $30,000 to state and local Dems so far from the campaign committee.  This includes significant support to municipal candidates in 2007 and state legislative candidates and PACs in 2008.

Our state database is new and very incomplete.  Our SOS office is antiquated and they can barely keep track of the paperwork.  So whatever that link is isn't worth much.  More of it is under the receipts and expenditures page of the NH SOS website, but that's incomplete, too.

Of course, none of this takes into account the financial help of her late father, Congressman Lantos, who was an extraordinary friend of NH Democrats.

All this obscures my greater point which is if you're on the ground here, Katrina's help has made a huge difference.  And it goes well beyond the dollars and cents.

---

by: chris pappas @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 21:20:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you counting chits? n/t (4.00 / 1)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 21:37:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

cut the chit n/t (0.00 / 0)

We made all the hotspots, my money flowed like wine, then the low-down southern whiskey, yea, began to fog my mind...

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 22:40:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ask Paul. . . . (4.00 / 1)

I agree with all of Chris's points, but I'd like to add another to nip this bullshit in the bud.

I coordinated research and policy for Katrina's 2002 campaign.  Two years later, when Paul entered the race late, I received an immediate call from Katrina asking me to "share everything with Paul (concerning Bass research) -- everything."  I did so, and both Dick and Katrina provided tons of additional support to their neighbor and friend -- help with fundraising, volunteers, etc.

Remember, this was 2004, when Paul was running as a longshot with little hope of victory.  The Swetts had nothing to "gain" from helping Paul -- they were just doing what they have done for nearly two decades, as Chris pointed out:  Helping NH Democrats win.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:46:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

False Argument (4.00 / 2)

After Katrina's withdrawel from the US Senate seat for Jeanne she co-chaired the NHDP's JJ Dinner and the 2008 100 Club dinner - the largest fundraising dinner in NH's history. Weeks later her Dad, the late Congressman Tom Lantos passed away and weeks after that her only sister's husband died in a horrible car crash. People should cut her some slack. She oversaw the creation of The Lantos Foundation for human rights work with board members like Bono and other world human rights leaders.

Dick and Katrina Swett have raised and donated millions to the party and our candidates for two decades. If it wasn't for their generosity in the early '90s when I was the NHDP ED we would have had to close the office.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 23:08:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

unimpressed. (0.00 / 0)

This day cannot get any worse. Okay, maybe if habeas corpus is revoked, but that is the only way.

I just hope someone else runs.

res severa verum gaudia

---

by: lawduck @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:21:18 PM CST

There's always the chance habeas corpus could be reinstated. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:36:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We're planning a 02 candidate round-up post for Wed. (4.00 / 2)

For someone who has been fairly active in Dem Politics since 2003 it is remarkable how little I know about Katrina Swett.

Frankly I would hope for a good primary in this race to let the voters of NH speak their minds.

Not a fan of the war chest as a preemptive strike, but I guess that is why it is called a war chest.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:22:36 PM CST

Excellent (4.00 / 2)

I think it could be a great primary and just like love, money cannot buy politics. See, Shea-Porter, Carol, 2006 general.

res severa verum gaudia

---

by: lawduck @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:27:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

say you don't need no diamond ring... (4.00 / 3)

We made all the hotspots, my money flowed like wine, then the low-down southern whiskey, yea, began to fog my mind...

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:31:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Remember (0.00 / 0)

this?

This is going to be a race that will cost between $6 million and $7 million - I anticipate, if necessary, spending $3 million in the primary."

She implied Marchand couldn't raise as much money as she could.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:29:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not how you choose a Senator. (0.00 / 0)

It's also a nonsensical argument.  Don't nominate this person because he wouldn't have the same fund-raising capacity as the nominee?  Nominees in nationally targeted states and districts get money because they are the nominee.

That said, Swett and Marchand aren't in the same Congressional District, so unless one of them decides to run against Hodes et al, this shouldn't be an issue.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:42:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not an issue now. (0.00 / 0)

The link is to when the two of them, pre-Shaheen, were senate candidates.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:44:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not between them it isn't. (0.00 / 0)

My point is more general: a candidate in a primary for a competitive district pitching the 'better fundraiser' angle is ignoring the fact that the bulk of any competitive district nominee's funds would go to whoever the nominee was.

Unless it's Barack Obama, of course.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 20:27:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I mean... (0.00 / 0)

sounds like a fairly honest preliminary estimate...

When it comes to "implied," well, that's explicitly not explicit and apparently up to the writer.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 22:11:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad she's in. As we stated a lot last year, primaries are healthy. I prefer Hodes, but surely he didn't expect to just walk in.

Besides, all that spending will give you some economic stimulus. And us too ... I'm available to write speeches at reasonable rates.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:39:22 PM CST

LOL, but no. (4.00 / 1)

She's running for the House seat he's vacating.

But I'd be surprised if she were the only candidate.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:43:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Dean (0.00 / 0)

And thanks, Dean.

I repeat: A long few days.

(Will this impair my speechwriting pitch?)

---

by: JimC @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:49:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're hired. (4.00 / 3)

So long as you've paid your taxes.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:53:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Katrina Swett, And Dick (4.00 / 3)

Katrina Swett, and Dick, have been excellent Democrats who did great things to help build our party during some of the "less rich" days of the late 1980s into the 1990s.  Katrina will be a fantastic candidate, and we should all welcome her.  We should also encourage other Democrats to run for office.  We win by their participation. We wouldn't be where we are today without their work, and that of countless others.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 22:26:48 PM CST

this thread is entirely disheartening (4.00 / 4)

It underlines the corrosive effect money continues to have on our politics. Those who support Swett point to her disbursements of cash raised from out of staters based upon a desire to please her father, and those who are opposed point to what they perceive as a failure to 'adequately' grease the pan with the same out of state money.

Very little talk about her on the merits.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:34:02 AM CST

Swett can help fix that (4.00 / 2)

By starting her campaign speaking to the issues this time, instead of telling us how important her campaign chest will be.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:43:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Emphasis Has To Be Ideas (0.00 / 0)

Yes, but we have to assist in that dialogue of issues among the candidates by not emphasizing ourselves "who's on first" based on their quarterly reports, or insisting that a candidate must raise $X in other to "be competitive."  Ideas CAN eventually generate support, and votes, but that won't happen if the emphasize is fundraising.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:46:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Jim: that didn't happen here. (0.00 / 0)

If you look at the discussions of the 2006 races, that just was not a focus on BlueHampshire. Perhaps the newspapers need to be reminded of that.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:48:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wait a Second Here, Paul and Elwood (0.00 / 0)

* Before slamming her campaign, let's see if she actually HAS one first.  I know the Swetts well, and I have no idea whether she (or Dick) is running on not, so I'd take these rumors with a huge grain of salt.

* Katrina's "campaign chest" was hardly the foundation of her campaign two years ago.  She made a tactical comment that a campaign with little or no money (like Steve's at the time) would have a difficult time rebutting the Sununu slur machine.  Given what we saw last fall, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with her.  

* As for her merits, she has a Ph.D. in human rights policy, worked for Joe Biden on the Senate Justice Committee (and has very strong views on torture, etc.), and has been a strong and engaged New Hampshire Democrat for more than two decades.  If she runs, you'll be impressed.  Mark my words.

But let's wait a second here.  You (and, perhaps, DiStaso) are jumping the gun.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:01:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Slamming her campaign? (0.00 / 0)

DD, I perhaps slammed her 2008 campaign, in which - as you confirm - she did exactly what I said. She controlled the narrative and she used that to speak of her campaign chest rather than substantive policy differences with the other candidates. It may have been just a "tactical comment" but it was guaranteed to get focus and attention.

And you still defend it as accurate, rather than off-topic.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:08:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If anything, I was slamming the conversation here. (4.00 / 3)

I await her campaign if it comes and look forward to evaluating her postition on issues. i would have written the same thing about any campaign eliciting a conversation that turned only (almost)on money.

While we are waiting a second, i think you should take a couple of breaths before calling people anti-Semetic. I dont know the poster you were referring to, but there is nothing in the post that establishes someone as anti-Semetic-- similar sentiments are voiced by Israeli peace activists. You of course are free to disagree ( as do I to a large extent), but to call someone an anti-Semite for voicing them and nothing more is a bit over the top. It is akin to shouting to stop conversation.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:21:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Where's the beef (0.00 / 0)

It is between NH Ex-pat and DD. They have a long running "conversation" about the dynamics of Israeli/Palestinian relations.

I know Christian Avard. He isn't an anti-Semite. He is livid about how unbalanced American policy is towards the I/P. I'd put him in the "Jimmy Carter on a bad day" category.

Name calling makes for sexy blogging.


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:32:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect..... (4.00 / 1)

You wouldn't be saying that if someone referred to "Farrakhan" Obama. (And I wouldn't either.) So please don't patronize me.

Katrina's position on the Israeli-Palestianian conflict is no different from that of our President, Vice President, and Secretary of State. Yet they don't get "Likud" in front of their names. Why do you think this is?

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:48:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Skirmisher (0.00 / 0)

NH Ex-pat is trying to get under peoples skin. You don't want to invite him to the garden party.

I am friends with him on FB. Almost everday he posts some story about how the Palestinians are getting shit on. He has this passion. He is fierce and diligent. He won't back down and he'll glady camp out here driving home a message.

What more can be said. You can call him an asshole, but labeling him an anti-Semite is wrong, imo.


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:05:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That wasn't a rhetorical question.... (0.00 / 0)

Paul and NH Ex-Pat, I'm awaiting your replies.....

This is not about Ex-Pat's views on the Middle East. It's about referring to Katrina Swett as "Likud" Lantos-Swett. THAT is anti-Semitic, not the policy debate itself.

And if you disagree, please explain why that is acceptable and "Farrakhan" Obama would not be.

Thank you.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:57:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't find the word "Likud" (4.00 / 2)

here: http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=jews

I think he was branding her with a political disposition. One that you maintain is wildly offbase.

That is not my fight. Though in full disclosure, I am concerned about her support, which she retracted, for Joe Lieberman.

I wouldn't say anyone was a bigot, if they called POTUS, "Farrakhan" Obama. I might call them sensationalist or ignorant, but I'd have to see a pattern of bigoted rhetoic to yell "racist."

I deeply respect some of the tenets of Judaism and am envious of the sense of community that Jews, as a culture, tend to embrace. I am luke warm, at best, about the "state."

When you examine how any American politician, running for anything greater than dog catcher in Mississippi, is well served to have the flag of Isreal tattooed on their ass; you have to ask if the Palestinians will ever get a fair shake?

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:19:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

I think he was branding her with a political disposition.

Precisely.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 10:08:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

perhaps likud, anti-semitic and Farrakhan are all out of line as used.. (4.00 / 3)

Again, perhaps a matter of taste.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:27:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If we debate rhetoric -- (4.00 / 1)

We're ignoring issues.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:43:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sterotyping (0.00 / 0)

is always be definition off base


We made all the hotspots, my money flowed like wine, then the low-down southern whiskey, yea, began to fog my mind...

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 22:59:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dartmouth Dem... (4.00 / 1)

... chill.

Anti-semitic? I'll give you a pass on that one. That's just me and I'm sure you're a cool cat. Just a major disagreement. OK?

Hey... I 'm not anti-Israel. I'm anti-oppression and I just don't understand how we don't recognize oppression when we see it. Or rather we'll recognize it elsewhere in world but not in Palestine and other U.N. members recognize it as oppression but the only two are Israel and the U.S. Palestine should not be punished for what happened to the Jews when anti-semitism was on the rise in the late 1800s up until the atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet Palestine is punished. To me that's the unfortunate reality of the founding of Israel and I wish Americans would look at that head on and recognize what I see as unfortunate truths.

The U.S. government, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party  (with the exception of a brave few) don't speak out against Israel's violation of the Geneva Conventions, international law, or their refusal to recognize the U.N. Charter, U.N. resolutions 194, 242, or the ICJ ruling that the "security fence" was illegal. I  think I know which two countries on the SC are preventing it from going into affect.

Given Lantos-Swett history for supporting what I believe is an oppressive government engaging in apartheid and ethnic cleansing at the expense of those fighting for their dignity to live and return to their homes, I don't want to see her as the next rep for district 02. But that's just me.

I'm just speaking out against oppression when and where I see it. Even if it's the United States closest ally. Just because it's our closest ally, doesn't mean we don't hold them under the microscope.

BTW, Jack... A LOT of people have e-mailed and personally thanked me for posting all those articles on FB. I'm surprised by all the positive feedback. They tell me they're learning so much about the Mideast. Good.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:39:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I mean, (0.00 / 0)

how is this assessed?

"Even if it's the United States closest ally. Just because it's our closest ally, doesn't mean we don't hold them under the microscope."

We've got quite a few people in jail in this country for spying on behalf of Israel. They're not a huge trading partner. They're not in NATO. They were kind of a sketchy contact during the Cold War. That's not to say they're not an ally, but closest? Really?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:29:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd say they're pretty close... (0.00 / 0)

... consider the evidence. From Media Education Foundation's "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land."

"American aid to Israel totals over $6 billion per year. Israel receives $3 billion in direct aid, 2/3 of which is military aid, intended for the purchase of American-made weapons. In addition, Israel receives $3 billion in indirect aid. At least half of which is used for military ventures, such as subsidizing Israel's domestic armaments industry. Not included in this figure are other forms of military aid, such as weapons given to Israel free of charge including fighter planes and attack helicopters. Total U.S. aid, to Israel, since 1949, has amounted to more than $100 billion. Making Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, the fourth most powerful military in the world. In possession of the largest fleet of F16 fighter planes outside the United States."

Professor Karen Pfeifer of Smith College, an expert on Arab-Israeli affairs said it perfect in the documentary.

"The United States has presented itself as a neutral broker between these two parties, but if you look at its actions rather than its words, you see that it has favored Israel. Almost 100% of the time. The U.S. has vetoed resolutions many times that would have put a stop to Israel's actions in the territory."

We know who's side the U.S. is on and who is  "one of their" most important allies.

On a side note, I'm reminded of what journalist Robert Fisk once said in an interview with MEF

"It is the last taboo subject in America. You can talk about Lesbians, Blacks, Gays, anything you want, but not America's relationship, or not any serious examination of America's relationship with Israel or what Israel is doing, be it almost always with American weapons."

I think that's an accurate observation... but I completely digress from this diary. Just wanted to answer your question.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 13:13:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The US is perhaps Israel's (0.00 / 0)

closest ally, but I don't think the same is necessarily true the other way around. It's not serious talk though, I was just curious how you measure closeness.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 14:06:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's what I meant... (0.00 / 0)

... however I don't see any difference between U.S. policy in the Middle East and Israeli policy.

There's a framework of State Policy that's been in place for about 30 years, of supporting Israel as a kind of base for projection of U.S. power in the region. That support intensified under Clinton and intensified even more under the Bush Administration.

You see anomalies here and there of people being jailed for spying and all. But that doesn't everything else that's happening doesn't mean Israel & the US aren't VERY close allies.

Are we beating a dead horse yet?

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 15:20:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not my point (0.00 / 0)

You know what I think about it.  But calling Katrina Swett "Likud" is anti-Semitism, unless you (a) have any reason to believe that she is affiliated with this party, (b) have any evidence that she identifies with this party -- as opposed to less radical Israeli parties -- on major issues (e.g. settlements), and (c) have reason to believe that her positions on the Middle East are any different from those of other politicians that you support (Obama, Biden, etc.) but do not label in this manner.  

I respect our policies differences, NH Ex-Pat, but I'm not giving you a pass on this.  It is wrong, and I'm disappointed that others on this site have let you off the hook -- any more than if someone had labeled President Obama "Farrakhan" because of his skin color.  You're better than this.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:48:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey... lighten up.... (0.00 / 0)

Avigdor Dartmouth Dem!

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:57:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

or our relationship with Egypt, Jordan, Libya.... (0.00 / 0)

...not any serious examination of America's relationship with Israel or what Israel is doing, be it almost always with American weapons."

we give huge amounts of aid to Egypt and it is more repressive of its Muslim fundamentalists than Israel is.
Those guys don't fool around. Fart upwind and you land in jail. They too are using our aid and weapons. I'd say we are an equal opportunity weapons merchant.


We made all the hotspots, my money flowed like wine, then the low-down southern whiskey, yea, began to fog my mind...

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:05:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We've had it out on this issue before, so just one thing. (0.00 / 0)

Hey... I 'm not anti-Israel.

Yes, you are most certainly anti-Israel. You're entitled to your opinion, but call it what it is.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 23:35:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not clear at all (4.00 / 2)

NH Ex-pat's objection to me seems to be more (1) the US relationship with Israel and (2) Israel's conduct in her foreign relations. Neither of those things is necessarily anti-Israel.

I should perhaps refrain from commenting, though, because I think the language involved is absurd. No one talks about being anti-Australia or pro-Mexico.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 00:08:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

These Guys Are Anti-Australia (4.00 / 2)

The Aussie/Kiwi Intifada continues in Season 2...

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:59:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The show is not as good as their original HBO special. (0.00 / 0)

Talkin bout the issues but they're keepin it funky.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:21:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Hiphopapotamus Would Bring Peace To The Middle East n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:59:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll tell you what.. (0.00 / 0)

I'll support Israeli statehood if it's serious about ending the illegal occupation and when it stops violating the U.N. Charter, honor the Geneva Conventions, U.N. Resolutions 194, 242, the ICJ ruling of the "security fence," Palestinian refugees right to return, etc. If not, then I can come to no other conclusion other than their government, not Israelis per se, is an oppressive regime, just like many others nations around the world.

I know there are several thousand Israelis who don't support the occupation.I'm on their side. Why aren't all of you?

I'm also on the side of the Refusniks, or those like Major Stav Adivi, a 25-year veteran,  who speaks out against the occupation because security has nothing to do with it. That's pretty damn brave if you ask me. Aren't they true zionists? Why not support them? What would it take for you to support them as opposed to the Israeli government?

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:54:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not for every Israeli leader, just like I'm not for every American leader. (4.00 / 1)

And I'm hoping Livni, not Netanyahu, wins next week, because she seems a 'cooler head'.

I'm also not saying--right now--that your argument is without merit.  I'm just trying to establish the sides, and the fact is, founded or not, you have a bias against Israel.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 17:00:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If he does (4.00 / 1)

it is to offset the institutional bias in this country's political circles FOR Israel.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 19:06:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Precisely! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 22:19:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Without merit to whom? (0.00 / 0)

Travel abroad, outside the U.S. and you'll notice millions of people aren't anti-Israel but they are anti-oppression. To me, it's in black & white who are the oppressors here. We just can't call out the governments we agree with or are close allies with. That should also include the company our government keeps. Thankfully, I'm not alone who sees this and if you look at what other nations think, especially how they vote at the U.N., you'll see we're in the majority, not the minority. Only in America are we only seeing one side of the conflict.

From what I've read and what I've heard from progressive experts on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is that only a minority of Israelis, according to polls, are committed to keeping the occupied territories while a majority want to end the occupation and return the occupied territories to Palestinians. Unfortunately, they have been unable to influence Israel's successive governments just to do that. It's nice to know that many Israelis are on the same page as I. Check out Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Public Policy for the poll numbers. If you can't find them, let me know.  

Let's end it here. We're running out of room and this is supposed to be about Katrina-Lantos Swett. The horse is dead my friend!  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 22:18:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"I'm also not saying--right now--that your argument is without merit." (0.00 / 0)

"not", being the key word.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 22:24:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Guys Just Gave Me An Idea For A Diary (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:55:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pro-Palestinian is not by definition anti anything (0.00 / 0)

I am also sick of the treatment of Palestinians...they deserve the right to a life free from want, free from hatred. But when Hamas fires rockets into Israel as it has again this week during the so-called cease fire...their leaders hands are not clean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...
Rocket From Gaza Strikes Israeli City
By ISABEL KERSHNER and TAGHREED EL-KHODARY
Published: February 3, 2009
GAZA - Palestinian militants fired a long-range rocket from Gaza into the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon on Tuesday and Israel retaliated with airstrikes against smuggling tunnels and a Hamas outpost in southern Gaza, as Egyptian-brokered talks for a sustainable cease-fire continued in Cairo with no obvious progress.

Someone like Iran uses pawns to get at their enemies by continuing to ship weapons through tunnels into Gaza, so that it can be used as a base of operation against Israeli cities to the detriment and harm of the Palestinian people.

I agree with Ex-pat that until the issues of land and homes taken by Israel from Palestinians are addressed, until settlements stop being built, there will be no peace. But it takes two to tango.


We made all the hotspots, my money flowed like wine, then the low-down southern whiskey, yea, began to fog my mind...

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:16:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Be fair (0.00 / 0)

Sean made a reference to Katrina's near one million in the bank - as far as I know Sean is not associated with Katrina in anyway.

It was DavidNYC who drove the discussion off the ledge and we all know about his anger with Katrina over the years.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:49:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Katrina (4.00 / 1)

I've met her once, and that was at an event in Manchester, while I was with Draft Shaheen :P

And not only has Katrina helped out Govy, during the summer, one of her children came into the Concord office a few times a week to write LTE's and phonebank for Shaheen.

---

by: sdoyle @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:59:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Govy? (0.00 / 0)

Sean, I've always wondered what's up with that nickname. It reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry had the girlfriend who used baby talk.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 00:12:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

People... (4.00 / 1)

Can't we all just get along?

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:55:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who said we aren't getting along? (4.00 / 1)

We're just vehemently disagreeing on something. I don't support Lantos-Swett on a controversial topic. That's what's generating some passion here. Besides... it's a political blog. Where else does this not happen?

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:42:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I believe that was levity n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: JimC @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:47:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Point taken n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:56:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]