Archive for the 'Democrats' Category

The following is a guest post from Denise Juneau, Democratic candidate for Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. This post is part of a series designed to allow our readers to get to know Montana candidates and should not be construed as an endorsement.

U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.

I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.

I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:

Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.

Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.

I have to admit, when local educators Don Pogreba and Jason Neiffer announced their candidacies for the highest positions in the state, I wondered what sort of a gimmick it was. I mean, while they are really well respected bloggers, they hardly fit the criteria of the traditional gubernatorial candidates. Though I spoke up in favor, my initial fear was that their intentions were to take pot shots at the governor, providing fodder that would ultimately weaken him in the general.

Pograba has claimed his candidacy as an effort to open a state wide dialog on education. and while they are extreme long shots for winning the primary on June 3rd, their campaign feels like a complete success so far. As I noted Don’s piece in the Billings Gazette over the weekend, I see that there is a piece by Chuck Johnson in the Helena IR. You see, without these guys getting off their butts and running on what they believe in, readers would not be seeing a headline that reads Pogreba: State hasn’t met school funding decision and they wouldn’t be reminded of things like this:

“I think more money for education will prevent the need for more money for corrections,” he said. “I’ve never understood why we want to send more money for jail cells and not for textbooks.”
[snip]
“Our philosophy is we shouldn’t be looking to 1950 for our economic solutions,” he said. “We should be looking to 2050. By that, we should not assume that resource extraction is a long-term solution for our economy.”

These are good words for folks to be thinking about over their morning coffee. Without this candidacy, they would not likely be reading anything of the sort tomorrow morning. As my hero George Ochenski points out:

Instead of talking about school funding issues, which are once again back in court, or mentioning teacher salaries, school district consolidation, or cleaning out top-heavy administration, (Roy) Brown’s big education proposal is this: “Roy will urge the Montana High School Association (MHSA) to establish tournaments of champions, so athletes in virtually all sports, and in all communities have a chance to perform and succeed on a higher level.”

It’s this kind of frustration with the current candidates for governor that motivated the two teachers to consider raising the bar by entering the race. And while they say Schweitzer has done “a great job” as governor compared to the Republicans before him, they also think the entire education debate would be well served by bringing it to the forefront of the campaign. If it’s just Schweitzer versus Brown, they say, “we’re not overwhelmingly optimistic there is going to be a great discussion of education in a general election campaign.” Because Roy Brown is so far to the right, Pogreba says he thinks it would be “good to engage Governor Schweitzer right now.”

This is an important discussion to be having, and I give major kudos to Don and Jason for making sure that we are having it. In the past I have viewed non traditional candidates with a wary eye as ‘attention seekers’. I suppose that is exactly what Don and Jason are doing, only this time it isn’t out of vanity.

Note: This piece is a discussion of the Pogreba/Neiffer campaign and should not be considered as and endorsement any more than this note should be considered as a lack of one.

Gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba wrote an interesting opinion piece on education funding in the Billing Gazette. While Don and I don’t agree on everything, I think he generally nails the issues surrounding education dead on. This piece being no exception, Don manages to distill the debate that is going on in this state in a few sentences:

Rather than acknowledge funding shortfalls, conservative critics of education would like you believe that Montana is already spending too much on its education programs. Despite laudable increases in the last few years, statistics demonstrate that Montana has failed to keep pace with the spending necessary for quality education. The conservative American Legislative Council just issued some troubling statistics about education spending in Montana. According to their research, we rank dead last in the nation in compensation for education professionals, and 42nd in the rate of growth in education expenditures, from 1986-2005.
[snip]
The people of Montana have a choice to make. We can either look backwards to 1950, focusing on resource extraction that will primarily benefit multinational corporations, or we can look ahead to 2050, focusing on the best-educated, most creative people in the world, giving them the tools to create their own destinies because we had the sense to invest in them.

During last years legislative session, I was dismayed to see that there was a debate over this at all. To fund or not to fund while we have teachers buying classroom supplies from their own meager salaries. It just doesn’t make sense to me that legislators don’t seem to get the point that Don makes above: educating our children is far and away the best investment we can make.

With the recent defeat of mill levies to fund schools in Great Falls and Billings, we should see that there are some very serious issues with the regard for education in this state. In order to help deal with budget shortfalls Senators Ryan and Kitzenberg (also a candidate for OPI) will propose a special session to consider a bill that would add $30 million to fund Montana schools.

“We think such economic factors as rising gasoline and food costs were a big reason why people opposed levies,” Ryan said. “And we believe the state has enough surplus revenue to help prevent school districts from cutting too many teachers and programs.”

One important point that this statement should bring out to people is that the same budget issues caused by inflation facing individuals are also afflicting schools. While I applaud their effort to deal with the issues, I would also make the claim that there is something fundamentally problematic about the state’s attitude to school funding. Emergency funding is good but positive policies with long term growth plans would be so much better.

For instance, consider my own neighborhood here is Helena. New houses go in everyday, but the school has stayed the same size. Kids are just shipped further and further away. Builders should be putting money into building new schools in the area as they are the ones making the profit off of building the houses there. The increased value of the property will support the school, but it has to be built first.

As Don points out, we need a shift in the way that we think about school funding. It is not a sink hole, it is an investment.

Colby recently posited that super delegates who had been waiting for a reason to come out for Hillary might use the recent AP-Ipsos poll as a reason to come out in support of Clinton:

Super-delegates have been waiting for a chance to fall behind her, and it is looking more and more like they will get their chance; more polls like this one will only fuel Hillary’s argument that she is the stronger candidate.

The notorious Mark T. pointed out in comments here that if that were the case, Pennsylvania was the perfect opportunity. While Colby’s gut feeling hasn’t panned out, with endorsements going to Obama at a rate of 2 to 1 this week, all of this discussion is a little troublesome.

[UPDATE TO THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE: Obama picks up three super delegates in Illinois and a Texas super delegate announced support today]

The point of super delegates is not that they are party insiders per say but rather that they are party leaders. We shouldn’t have to be discussing this in terms of poll watching and public opinion. I have said it before: If we are to maintain the super delegate system, then they must do their jobs as leaders of the party to insure that we exit the convention with a strong Democratic candidate. If they were not in the equation, this race would have been over weeks ago. Since they are in the equation, it is time to make a decision.

Now, I will point you to a letter written by the most recent super delegate to announce his support. Joe Andrew is the former DNC Chair, and his announcement doesn’t just count for a win for Obama, but also as a loss for Hillary. In my opinion, this man showed an amazing blaze of leadership that would be refreshing to see from some of our own leaders:

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
[snip]
The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

The letter, both eloquent and inspiring, explains in detail why he has chosen Obama over Clinton, but that is not my point here. My point is that it is time for our leaders to start acting like leaders and let their vote be known. Every day that this continues is another day that our potential candidate get weaker. Don’t tread the line any longer, don’t fear raising the ire of some of us over doing the right thing. This isn’t the time for vote counting and poll watching. I think that Wulfgar said it best:

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans. Most of us don’t have time for your little power games. If you want Hillary, go with Hillary. If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so. Put an end to this thing … now … before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan’t. And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you. Montana expects little else. But would you please just make a choice so that we don’t suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?

I understand the claim that arguing over Obama and Hillary online is getting us no where. I also agree that it just might be time that the super delegates step in and do their jobs. While I am no fan of that institution, we have no need for them if they only to bind themselves to the popular vote. Their purpose, as I understand it, is to make sure that we have a strong candidate by coming out of the primary. If that is the case, do your jobs and do it last week.

We have a leader in popular vote, pledged delegates and total delegates. What? You mean that we are supposed to count Michigan and Florida? Even though Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan? Even though all the candidates agreed to skip that primary? So says Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman:

I’m saying they’ve already voted, let’s count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

While these types of remarks have been issued repeatedly by the Clinton campaign and statements misstatements of popular vote majority have been left unchallenged in the MSM, there is another side to this story. I was not aware that there is a history behind Michigan and breaking the rules.

Way back in 2000, when the same Terry McAuliffe quoted above was the head of the DNC, Michigan tried to move its primary ahead. Back then, Carl Levin informed McAuliffe that Michigan would move their primary outside the window. McAuliffe answered that he would not allow him to do that, because it would cause ‘the whole system to collapse’

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” he said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules.

If McAuliffe felt so strongly about it when he was head of the DNC, why has he reversed his position when he is the head of the Clinton campaign? Now, it is fun to talk about Sinbad and snipers and so forth, but we are talking about some pretty major reversals in positions from the people around her.

Let’s just put the damn Florida and Michigan questions behind us and move on. Those states did not live within the rules, and as such their voters lost out. It is not the fault of the DNC, it is the fault of the state parties and legislators of those states and they should be held accountable by the voters. The central issue is that the man that Hillary Clinton chose to chair her campaign threw his integrity out the window in her name.

Consider this my second call for the super delegates to step up and do their jobs.

The Helana IR has a piece covering the four Democrats in the OPI primary. For the most part, it is exactly what you would expect, clippings from their websites. The interesting part comes from the manner in which both Raser and Kitzenberg assert that while all the candidates are experienced educators, legislative experience is uber-important too.

“I believe that the superintendent needs to be somebody closely connected to schools,” Raser added. “In the days of school funding and school policy, they also need to be closely connected to the Legislature to be able to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.”

That makes a certain amount of sense. As Kitzenberg himself points out:

“I just think it’s imperative that you have legislative experience and that you build up relationships with legislators from both parties,” he said. “You have to have had some success in the Legislature. You should have gotten some things done, which I have.”

Again, it makes sense. However, I wouldn’t be writing this story if it was that cut and dry. Would I? If one actually thinks about it and puts it into context, as Lee Newspapers seldom does, there is another side to that story. You might remember something Kitzenberg did that cause me to write a post titled “Democrats take the Montana Legislature!” I remember, so will most of the Republican’s in the legislature. You see where I am going with this?

I don’t really know anything about Raser in the legislature, but if she did anything worthwhile then she made a few enemies across the aisle. That’s just how the Montana legislature works. While I am sure that either of these two would make excellent superintendents, I am only presenting the other side of the equatuation as a reminder that Fear And Loathing In Helena is a very real thing. Isn’t it possible that long term political histories can actually be a liability to the OPI?

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

So here is part two.  If you have any questions about the characteristics of a President that I am referring to, check out my post after the Metcalf-Mansfield Dinner in Butte. 

OBAMA:

1.  CURIOSITY.  One of the things I like most about Barak, is that he listens.  He doesn’t just hear sounds as people talk to him, he engages with others, and really absorbs what they have to say.  I am a little less clear about who his inside circle would be, but last night he mentioned establishing a post for a Native American. 

“It’s very important that there’s somebody in my White House who on an ongoing basis is keeping me informed, keeping me abreast,” said Obama. “It’s the same reason we want an annual summit with tribal leaders in the White House. I want tribal leaders all across the country to feel as if they have direct access to me, that they’re not going through layers of bureaucracy.”

The Illinois senator said he understands the need to make a difference within communities that are typically given few opportunities to be heard. He said he never forgets his ancestry or the unique position he’s in to become president of the United States.

He is in the process of establishing and outreaching to create a circle.  And I like it.  I hope he gets people who are willing to look him in the eye and say “You are wrong”.  The title quote on his webpage is “I am not asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington . . .I’m asking you to believe in yours.” 

2.  CREATIVE. Lee Iacocca talks about being able to manage change in his definition of creativity.  There is no doubt that both campaigns have grabbed onto the idea that change is what is needed.  Seeing as there is no possibility of Bush back in the White House, I would say change is inevitable.  I’ll bet you $5 there will be a change. 

The difference for me, and it is subtle if you aren’t paying attention, is how Obama talks about change vs. how Clinton talks about it (”I am going to . . ” “I will”).  The best part is, when Obama talks about the change that needs to be created, he uses the word “we”.  I find myself included in Obama’s circle. Figuratively at this point, never having met the guy, but someday I might, and I am willing to bet that same $5 that he will listen to me. 

3.  COMMUNICATE. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  There is no doubt that Obama has had his share of attacks.  What I really appreciate is his ability to look us in the eye, and tell the truth.  This is a quality I consider to be absolutely non-negotiable in a President.  Misleading, inflating, and outright lying about facts in order to better position oneself or to obtain a desired outcome has become a common characteristic in politicians, and it disgusts me. 

4.  CHARACTER. Lee says ” . . . knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing”.  I have been against the war from the get go.  I don’t really have any cold hard evidence of the fact, but I know many family and friends who would sign affidavits testifying to this fact.  Obama ran for office opposing the war.  And won.  That is no small statement about the content of Obama’s character. 

Now I will be the first to admit that he has skipped out on a key vote in this matter; don’t think I didn’t notice.  But I also truly believe Obama when he talks about ending the war.  I also know that Obama has the guts to stand up for the change he is calling for, and doing the right thing.

5.  COURAGE. I know this is number 5 on this list, but it is the one I saved for last to write about. I think Obama’s courage is summed up best in a speech he wrote from the heart, in order to answer some questions about the people in his life.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way 

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man.  The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.  He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In that single speech, Obama hit all 9 C’s of Leadership for me. Talk about COURAGE. 

6.  CONVICTION.  Again, Obama has conviction in spades.  Not only does he have conviction for himself, but he inspires others to their own convictions.  Now that is a leader.

7.  CHARISMA.   No doubt.  I believe that while I might not agree with every single thing Obama says, I know that he will sit down and listen, and take into consideration the opinions of others.  I trust him, in ways I just can’t trust other candidates.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes. I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists. 

Not only that, but the fact that Bill Richardson came out in support of Obama over his good friend Clinton, and could be a strong VP (*crosses fingers*) for Obama, and shore him up in areas where Obama might not have “the experience” that so many people cling to. 

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Of course Obama has more common sense than Bush, that is not a hard accomplishment.  I also see more truth, sensibility, and statesmanship from him than I do from any other candidate.  Hands down. 

*******

I just had to say this again, it has been ringing in my head all day, and one of the clearest things I think I have personally said about the issues of gender and race in this election.  And this goes for all of the contenders, and some distant past contenders who have shocked me at their inability to see beyond DNA.  Which is what this issue boils down to in the end. You have some, I have some, and at least 99% of it is the same in every human. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

Probably not the most concise thing I have ever said, but certainly one of the best.

Alright, tomorrow might just bring the promised cartoons, and the trouble making of spending the day with the bloggers.

*******

I almost forgot, I was going to end this post with a scene from a movie coming out on Tuesday for rental.  If you only see one this week, Lions for Lambs should be it.  It asks more questions, provides few answers, and actually involves the audience.

The scenes I am referring to are a discussion between a college professor, and a student.

“Political Science, Doc?  What is scientific about it, outside of the psychology of how much shit voters will swallow before they notice?  The science part is really only about how to win.  Not how to govern, not how to make anybody any better, just how to win . . .”

[snip really good stuff, but I am getting to the essence here] 

“You almost convinced me.  Almost convinced me.”

“What?”

“That you really know what you are talking about.  You’re great with words son.  But you know what would make them even better?  If they had a heartbeat.  If they were rooted in any kind of experience.  If you knocked on doors, licked envelopes, showed up for a damned public rally.  Just put yourself on the line in any meaningful way.”

“Licking envelopes . . . that’s putting myself on the line, huh?”

“Its certianly more than just talking”

*******

P.S. Should my wildest dreams come true, and Robert Redford read that passage in the context I am highlighting it, and should he be so moved as to forward me a copy of his booklet on how to deal with Montana’s that was prepared for filming The Horsewhisperer; well that would be cool, I want it for the cabin. 

Well as usual, I got riled up.  I love these events.  I could spend a good long time talking about all that happened tonight in Butte, (and I am sure I will this week, I have cartoons drawn on scene by bloggers) but right now I want to talk about the ride to and from Butte.

As many of you know, the Firecracker came with me, but also, for the first time I dragged in my “Aunt” and “Uncle”.  A couple of our family’s best friends, that have earned those titles; and that I have known since I was three, living in Lewistown, and watching cattle branding on a ranch in Grassrange. 

Yeah, I was in the car with three, ummmm lets call them: people-who-have-been-on-the-planet-for-more-days-than-I-have, people whom I really respect. These are the people who raised me.  The Firecracker has heard me railing on about Obama for months, but my Aunt and Uncle have only had limited exposure.  Even so, I was riding down in the car with one undecided, and two Clinton supporters.  So on the way down, I decided to read from Where Have All The Leaders Gone” by Lee Iacocca.  (Mind you, this is a book that was published in April 2007, so written at least in January 2007, and a lot has changed since then.)  And while it might be slightly off to publish all this without permission, I think this is exactly the application of thought that Lee was going for in publishing his book.  So I expect to be patted on the back for bringing it to a wider audience.

*******

Lee had a few things to say.  Ok, more than a few things, and most of which I agreeded with.  But he also proposed the 9 C’s of Leadership, on how to chose a candidate.  While most of the initial C’s give a description of the leadership that we are missing, then bash Bush; there is something in the C’s that noone in the car disagreed with.  Here they are, with me paraphrasing the meaning that Lee lays out:

1.   ”A leader has to show CURIOSITY.  He has to listen to people outside of the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle.  He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place.”  Ok, Lee did a good job on describing that one

2.  “A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different.”  Okay, good description again.  Lee goes on to say “Leadership is all about managing change - whether you’re leading a company or leading a country.  Tings Change, and you get creative.  You adapt.”

3.  “A leader has to COMMUNICATE.  I am not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites.  I am talking about facing reality, and telling the truth.” 

4.  “A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER.  That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing.”

5.  “A leader must have COURAGE.  I am talking about balls.  (That even goes for female leaders.) . . . Courage is commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.”

6.  “To be a leader you’ve got to have CONVICTION - a fire in your belly.  You’ve got to have passion.  You’ve got to really want to get something done.” 

7.  “A leader should have CHARISMA.  I’m not talking about being flashy.  Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you.  It’s the ability to inspire.  People follow a leader because they trust him.

8.  “A leader has got to be COMPENTENT.  That seems obvious doesn’t it?  You’ve got to know what you’re doing.  More important than that, you’ve got to know what they’re doing. . . A leader has to be a problem solver, and the bigger problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.”

9.  “You can’t be a leader if you don’t have COMMON SENSE.”  { Cece - someone who knows when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. Back to Lee, referring to Bush, and his lack of common sense:} “You know - Mr. they’ll welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomlished Bush.”

Oh yeah.  This is a good book.  That was just snippets of the first 10 pages.  Buy it. The reasoning on how to chose a leader, is but a scratch on the surface of what is in this book. In particular, I love his analysis of the idea of building a 300 mile fence to obtain “homeland security” on our southern border, not to mention his take on other “walls” that have been built.

*******

Again, on the way down to Butte, I read these points from first chapter to my gang.  And we all agreed.  These were things that were qualifications for being the President of the United States, after all, we, as voters, are choosing to give them the job.  We are the employers.

Like I said before, a lot has happened and changed since Lee wrote this book.  I certainly know more about Obama and Clinton, and have spent time reviewing their candidacies, than I did in January of 2007. 

CLINTON:

1.  CURIOSITY.  Yeah, no.  Clinton is nothing if not insider politics.  She is surrounded by a group of people who tell her that she is doing the right thing.  What about listening to those who say, “Nope, I don’t agree.”  She doesn’t have it, and in my consideration, one of her greatest weaknesses.

2.  CREATIVE.  I will give her creativity in her youth, and willingness to go out on a limb; however since gaining office to lead NYers, I could hardly say that she embraced change. Indeed, she has failed to show up for what I consider to be key votes in the direction the US will take in the future.

3.  COMMUNICATE. Not at all in the way that Lee references it. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  Time and time again, facts have shown how Hillary has mislead the public about her past.

[I just realized I am going to be up all night writing this, and I have to work at 9:45 am]

4.  CHARACTER.  I am iffy on this one.  I myself, have been in a relationship or two with someone chose to stray.  I chose a hardline position on the issue, after seeking and trying resolutions, and in the end, I am single.  Happier, more content, more myself, and single.  That is not to say that Hillary made the wrong choice.  She made hers. 

At the same time, to choose a low paying job, to fight for justice that previously didn’t exist, I admire the heck out of her for her commitment to others.

5.  COURAGE.  As much as I might disagree with Clinton’s present strategy in the campaign, I have to say she has balls of steel.  No doubt about it.  My issues are with her unwillingness to give in to the will of the people, and her unwillingness to follow the rules (MI and FL).  That bothers the carp out of me, and it should you as well.  I want listening skills, communication, openness to ideas, and the ability to admit that a mistake happened from the next President.

If she would only say “I was mislead, as many of you were, by the word of George Bush.  I trusted him to tell me the truth, and so I voted to give war powers to him.  I made a mistake, I failed to read the intelligence prior to voting.  I am human and fallible.  I was dupped just like many of you in our insecurity after 9/11.  I made a mistake, but that doesn’t change what I know now.  And here is how I see us getting out of this mess . . ”

Be human.  I swear we will accept it.  Look at your husband.  We might not be proud of what happened; but we will be willing to forgive.  Just admit your mistakes.  Seriously.

6.  CONVICTION.  No doubt.  Point to Hillary.

7.  CHARISMA.  Yes.  Hillary is an amazing woman, who has accomplished so much for so many.  I won’t contest that fact. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes Hillary is competent, she knows the system.  I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists.  (YAY TESTER!)

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Yes.  Way better than Bush.  At the same time I have to say No.  Who in their right mind would lie about qualifications that are on video?  Need I say more?

*******

Suffice it to say, the ride back from Butte was interesting.  Most points that the two for Clinton brought up, based on our prior reading of the qualifications we agreed on, I was able to bring facts to light that disproved their decision to vote for Clinton.  A lot of the points I mentioned to you, were the same ones I argued in the car on a Montana freeway, busier than I have ever seen it in my life time.  It was enchanting to watch the stream of cars coming home to Helena from Butte.

I have to say just one more thing.  It takes a lot of guts to run for office, to open oneself to such scruntinay and examinations; not only from some one as time pressed as I am, but to people who are paid to do the job.  I admire people who take that chance.  It is not to be undervalued, their desire to serve the public.  But when the desire appears to be overwhelmed with personal ambition, I hope we are all smart enough to take a step back, and examine their motives. 

This is long, and I promise to do the same for Obama tomorrow or Monday.

Somewhere down below I ran into a comment to the effect that Clinton (Bill, I think), is very popular in Montana. I was shocked - I had no idea. In fact, I think it is a false statement. I suspect that if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, McCain will carry Montana by a huge margin, and that if Barack Obama gets the nomination, McCain’s margin will be smaller, but he will still carry the state.

Our basic instinct is Republican. Has been for decades.

But where did the notion that Clinton (either one) is popular in Montana come from? It might have something to do with the fact that Bill carried the state in 1992, one of only three times since FDR that a Democrat has won here. (Truman in 1948 and LBJ in 1964 are the other times.)

I guess that is an accomplishment, but a closer look at the numbers tells a different story. In 1992, nationally, Clinton carried only 43% of the vote, and in Montana got only 38%. 62% of us voted against him. He carried the state in a three-way race because the Republican vote was split between George H.W. Bush and H. Ross Perot. He was not terribly popular then, and is not now.

In 1996 Clinton carried 41% of the state vote, and 49% nationally. Again, Perot was a factor. Bill Clinton served for eight years as president without ever having gotten 50% of the vote.

In fact, Since the end of World War II, Democrats have rarely gotten 50% of the vote in presidential elections. They did in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide, and again in 1976, when Jimmy Carter won in the post-Watergate environment. (His margin was 50.1%.)

That’s it. In the presidential stakes, Democrats are very good at losing, and have only won in unusual situations - Watergate and H. Ross Perot being the deciding factors. It’s odd, because on supposedly Democratic issues, like health care and trade and war and peace, the public supports them by wide margins. But they don’t support the public, and hence fail to inspire us.

It remains to be seen if Democrats, handed an election on a platter, can lose again in 2008. They are working at it.

I wasn’t planning on attending Clinton’s speech in Helena, I had a board meeting scheduled at the same time, which ended up getting canceled due to Clinton being in town. So I polled the office, a few were going, and others didn’t have any briefs going out, so I checked out of work early and headed to Helena High.

By the time I got there, the line was crazy long. About 3 snakes back, I ended up standing in line, waiting for about 45 minutes to get into the Gym. While I was waiting, people were circulating petitions for Healthy MT Kids, and doing a good job of it. The signature gatherers were locals who I recognized, had all received training, and were able to answer people’s questions about the initiative. Good Job!

There were quite a few rambunctious kids, who were the only ones I saw taking free t-shirts from a man, which said “Lieberman Democrat” on one side and “Democrats for McCain” on the other. I watched one young recipient throw his on the ground, and start to jump up and down on it, grinding it into the parking lot. An elder intervened, and they started working on modifying the slogan.

Well everyone in line managed to get in, and there were some seats left over. When I got to the Gym, I was given the choice of sitting in the bleachers, or standing on the Gym floor, and I chose the later. I was about 7 people back from the stage, chatting with one of my Big Bro’s old high school chums, who was excited off the charts to be there. One of the attorney’s showed up, and we got to chatting with everyone around us, having an informal gathering of the Westside Residents. I even saw someone I swam with on swim team for about 12 years of my youth. We started playing games, trying to figure out who the Secret Service men were, (which it turns out, was a popular pastime) as we waited for Clinton to show up.

About 4:45 or so, from my vantage on the floor, I could see through the hung curtains, and I saw the entourage pulling in. Then they closed the doors to the tunnels, and the only thing I could see that was going on for the next 25 minutes or so, was party officials and mucky-mucks slipping through the curtains, and coming back a few minutes later with signed photos, books, and gazing at their cell phone and digital camera screens. Needless to say, the fact that about 1950 other people were waiting for Clinton to speak, while “important” people got individual audiences with Clinton, started to get my dander up.

At about 5:10, as I was nervously eyeing the clock (bowling league night), Carol Williams came out, and did a great job of introducing Clinton, who was pointing to a sign in the crowd which read “Montana loves Matt McKenna”, and joked about it.

Now I can appreciate a joke as much as the next person, but after the VIP meetings, while the rest of us sweated, for Clinton to say this:

“It’s really disgusting the way we’re all prostrating ourselves before the superdelegates,” he said, adding that of state party chairman Dennis McDonald, “except for offering to polish his boots and clean his windshield, I have not done anything demeaning to get his vote.”

And to watch Dennis McDonald light-up with the personal attention and *** kissing, well, I was not amused.

I didn’t clap as often or with as much passion as most around me, but clapped for a couple of statements he made regarding getting out of Iraq, and the accomplishments of his wife as a young lawyer. As I stood there and listened, and looked Clinton in the eye several times, I realized *this is just a normal guy, out stumping to get votes for his wife*. Nothing spectacular, nothing particularly awe inspiring or motivating about him. I could even hear some of the truths that were being left out of the spin, and as I continued to listen to the speech that had doubtless been given many times, with some MT references and issues sprinkled in, I decided that I had better get a move on to get to bowling.

Many people have said that they loved it, that he talked about issues that Montanans care about, and that they were touched. And I am glad for it. By splitting early, to be on time for my commitment, I did miss out on the chance to hear the whole speech, and maybe to being swayed by his words. I’m still glad I went, and gave it a shot, but in the end, I know I made the right decision.

Others (as usual) have already picked this up, and I am sure it is old news to anyone who has cable; but for those of us who live in the dark ages, sans cellphone laptop or cable, I thought it was important to point out.

On March 17, 2008, Hillary spoke at George Washington University, and here is part of what she said:

“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

You can see it at CNN.com, which shows her entrance from exiting the airplane on, but I can’t figure out how to embed it, so follow this link, if you want to see it. [ When trying to fix this post, I found another great video]  She goes on to say:

“The mistakes in Iraq are not the responsibility of our men and women in uniform but of their Commander-in-Chief. From the decision to rush to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their work or waiting for diplomacy to run its course.”

I am pretty sure that Hillary was one of the elected representatives of the people who voted not to wait for the weapons inspectors or diplomacy, which frankly, in my opinion, makes her responsible, in part, for authorizing the “the decision to the rush to war”. I do however, agree with her that this is not the responsibility of our men and women in uniform.

Still further :

“Senator Obama has said often that words matter. I strongly agree. But giving speeches alone won’t end the war and making campaign promises you might not keep certainly won’t end it. In the end the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it’s whether the president delivers on the speeches.”

Yes, words do matter, especially when we have just been through 8 years of a President manipulating and out-right lying to the American people. Not to mention that the guy in the position before the present one lied to the American people as well. Wouldn’t you think that someone on the campaign should have fact checked her sniper fire story? And shouldn’t Hillary have had the presence of mind to differentiate between sniper fire and being read a poem, while arriving with her daughter, Sheryl Crow and Sinbad in tow? This story hasn’t appeared in her speeches once, but several times.

While the adrenaline of a situation can alter your perception; I can tell the difference between walking through a sketchy neighborhood, and being on my guard vs. having one gun at the back of my head and one under my chin and being told to hand over my wallet and belongings. And I certainly expect the next President of the US to be able to.

More here, here and here.

educational software mathematics low cost FolderSizes 4.2 cheap price download aristocrat slot machine software
buy software at educational prices low cost FolderSizes v3.3 cheap price download desktop software v4.2 sp2
cheap software media studios for playstation low cost FontExpert 2004 v.6.0 cheap price canada land surveying software
cheapest windows 2003 software low cost Fotis Clean Mem XP v9.0 cheap price educational software evaluation tools
call accounting software cisco callmanager low cost FotoWare FotoStation Pro 5.2.89 cheap price cheap software suppliers
educational free preschool software 20 low cost F-Prot Antivirus for Windows v3.16c cheap price cheapest price on mac software
cheap microsoft xp software low cost Framing Studio v1.8 cheap price download 3d animation software
buy cheap cad cam software low cost Fresh UI 7.97 cheap price cheap vinyl cutter software
download cdg software low cost Fresh UI v7.4 cheap price educational macintosh software
download diary downloadable software low cost Friendly Pinger 5 cheap price download camedia software pro 4
buy cheap online calendar software low cost FTP Getter 2.7 cheap price buying software budget year action
cheap discount peachtree software low cost FTP Now v2.6 cheap price educational software resources
download audio software low cost FTPEditor Pro 3.3.2 cheap price buy tickets software
buy palm software papal low cost FTPRush 1.0.0626 cheap price california daily derby lottery software
buying antivirus software low cost Fund Manager Advisor 7.8 cheap price can’t remove ibm reflection software
can’t run spy software low cost FX Max FX Teleport 1.04 cheap price download dental clinic management software
cheap final cut pro hd software low cost FX MAX Giga Teleport VST 1.0 cheap price download 1.6 install software
buy accounting software online low cost FX MAX Giga VST Adapter 1.0 cheap price cheap up backup software
educational discounts software low cost FXPak Style Volume 3 for Adobe Photoshop cheap price califoria iso software
download cheap software driveclone 2 low cost FXPansion BFD 1.5 VSTi DXi RTAS Win2KXP Update Only cheap price buy peachtree software
download do software corel draw 10 low cost FXPansion GURU DXi RTAS VSTi 1.0 cheap price cheap software games mac
buy frugal poker software low cost Gael MindGenius Business 2005 2.11 cheap price buy chaep software
educational software in new zealand low cost Gagetrak 6.12 cheap price download efilm 1.5.3 software
buy amx landmark software low cost Gambit MIMIC Simulator Suite 7.11 Final cheap price canada software reference
buy cheap time clock software low cost Gambit Mimic Virtual Lab CCNA 1.1 cheap price cheap pc operating system software
cheap bulk e-mail software low cost GameBoost 1.1 cheap price buy visual basic net software
cheap macromedia studio8 software low cost GameJackal Pro v2.9 - Final cheap price canada free software tax
buying software for non-profit low cost Gammadyne Mailer 31.0 cheap price download flash software
educational software that tracks progress low cost Gecko Software Track n Trade Pro 4.0.8.2 cheap price educational software adobe
canada software sales low cost GenArts Sapphire Plug-ins 1.10 for Adobe After Effects cheap price buy event management software
buy discontinued software low cost Geniator Xs-1 1.2 cheap price cheater software
cheap beauty salon pos software low cost Genie Backup Manager Professional V6.0.0.1621 cheap price buy online software xxasdf
download coolpix software low cost Genuine Fractals PrintPro 5.0 for Adobe Photoshop cheap price education math software review
california law online prescription monitoring software low cost Geo Log Analyzer1.48 cheap price buy cheap email server software
can’t remove dell support software low cost Gertrudis Pro 3.3 cheap price buy cheap online calendar software
cheap cheap office software low cost GetDataBack for FAT for NTFS v3.3 cheap price cheap software mac
calibration and maintenance software low cost GetGo cheap price Manager 2.55 cheap price buy windows xp pro software
buy f9 sage software low cost GetRight Professional 6.3 cheap price cheap anti discount software virus
download altova software low cost GetSmile v.1.9 cheap price cheap webpage software
download chemoffice site license software low cost GFI FAXmaker for Networks SMTP 12.0 cheap price can not install software w950i
cheap software quickbooks low cost GFI LANguard Network Security Scanner v8.0 cheap price download epson scanning software
download able bbs and chat software low cost GForce Software Minimonsta RTAS VSTi 1.06 cheap price buy sundial realtime software
cheap oem software coreldraw 11 low cost GFX ColorImpact 3.0 cheap price cheap software window xp pro
call blocking software free low cost Gfx Creative Dimension 3Dsom Pro 2.0 cheap price download driver software acer power fh
calibrate bmp file use map software low cost Ghostsurf Platinum 2006 cheap price buy cheap calendar software download
buy help desk software low cost Glary Utilities PRO 2.3 cheap price download english dictionary software
cheap web content management software low cost Global Mapper 8.02 cheap price cheap webpage software
educational public domain software for children low cost GoldSolution Software PC Auto Shutdown 2005 v3.7 cheap price cheap software for egold
cheap software development low cost GoldWave v5.2 cheap price cheap scrap book software
download film software low cost Google Maps Images cheap priceer 3.0 cheap price download camedia master software for free
buy panda software antivirus low cost Graphicxtras Andrew Plugins Collection 1.08 for Adobe Photoshop cheap price cheap ub utility meter billing software
buy 20-20 design software low cost Graphicxtras Frames Collection 1.0 For Adobe Photoshop cheap price educational interactive software
downlaod pc alarm clock softwares low cost Greenworks XFrog 4.0 Plugin for Maya 7 cheap price educational 2b survey 2b software
cheap financial software low cost Guitar Speed Trainer v2.3 cheap price educational pricing software
buy used software 20 low cost Hackman Suite Pro 9.01 cheap price download cingular 8125 software
call center evaluation software low cost HammerTap 3.0 cheap price buy cheap free bulk email software
buy online software translation low cost Hard Drive Inspector Pro 2.6 cheap price buying the full version of software
educator software photoshop cs2 low cost HDD Regenerator V1.41 cheap price cheating software for online poker
download finepix software low cost HeavyMath Cam 3D Webmaster Edition 3.1 cheap price canada software whistle-blower
cheap free vedic astrology software download low cost Hed Dress 4.08c cheap price download calc spreadsheet software
educational business math simulation software low cost Helium Music Manager 2007 cheap price cheap calendar software
download country ip changer software low cost Helix Universal Internet Server 9.0.2.794 cheap price buy authorized mocrosoft software in bangalore
can’t remove ibm reflection software low cost Help And Manual 4.3.2 cheap price canada business software
cheap games software consoles playstation 2 low cost HelpBasePro 2.5 cheap price download act software
buying latest yahoo password cracking software low cost HGF Synthesizer STS-24 Pro VSTi 1.0 cheap price buy software to unblock cell phone
buy drug satellite tv ivr software low cost Hide Folders XP 2.9.2 Build 395 cheap price educational math software reviews
educational software evaluation form low cost Hicheap price Pro 7.11 Final cheap price buy ivr software
cheap software autodesk land desktop low cost History Sweeper v2.91 cheap price buying database software
download encryption software for windows low cost Home Studio 2004 cheap price buying pre written software
down load spanish software low cost HTTP Analyzer Full Edition 3.0.5 cheap price cheap software students
download ble code software low cost HttpWatch Professional 5.0 cheap price cheap desk help software
edumedia software solutions low cost HumanConcepts OrgPlus Professional 5.1.168 Final cheap price cheap software cd
download epson scanner software for vista low cost HumanSoftware AutoMask 4.68 for Adobe Photoshop cheap price cheap software sale
cheap education dollar software low cost HumanSoftware PhotoFixLens.v2.03 cheap price educational software versions
cheap software neverwinter nights low cost HumanSoftware PhotoRepeat 1.53 for Adobe Photoshop cheap price cheapest software microsoft outlook
cheap bankruptcy software low cost HWiNFO32 v1.7 cheap price buy arcview 3.3 software
cheap burning software download low cost Hyperionics Hypersnap 6.21 cheap price download digital voice recorder software
educatonal software low cost I2E Intelligent Image Enhancer v2.0 cheap price cheap software used
call center data software low cost IBM Lotus Domino 6.5.4 cheap price cheap classified software
download 007 spy software 3.20 low cost IBM Lotus Notes 6.5.2 cheap price buy cheap microsoft office software
buy software games low cost ICQ Monitor Sniffer 3.0 cheap price cheap software title
download expect software