About.com US Liberal Politics

RIP John Murtha, Grand American Patriot and Great Democrat

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:44:56 +0000

I'm terribly saddened to report that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) passed away today from complications after surgery.

Congressman Murtha is a hero for courageously and forcefully speaking out in 2005 against the Iraq War, then a very unpopular move, especially for decorated, 37-year Marine veteran and longtime war hawk.

Mr. Murtha was a Vietnam War combat veteran who was awarded two purple hearts, a bronze star, the Navy Distinguished Service Award, and an American Spirit Honor Medal.

When I named Mr. Murtha one of Five Liberals Who Made a Difference in 2005, I wrote:

"Almost immediately after his impassioned and powerful speech, Rep. Murtha was humiliated and and his reputation tarnished for his differing viewpoint by several members of the Bush Administration, who branded him unpatriotic...

"Rep. John Murtha is an extremely close confidant to top brass in the US armed forces... Many in public life assumed that Murtha was speaking for top generals, and all acknowledge that Rep. Murtha would never speak out without their private permissions.

"Because of his extraordinary courage to speak out about his change of heart on the War in Iraq, Rep. John Murtha singlehandedly changed the national conversation regarding the need for an exit plan for US troops from Iraq."

Liberals were delighted when blunt-talking John Murtha scolded Bush guru Karl Rove over the Iraq War on the June 16, 2006 Meet the Press :

"... he's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan.

"I mean, this guy--I don't know what his military experience is, but that's a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he's saying."

In memoriam for a grand American patriot, and a great Democrat, please reread the text of John Murtha's impassioned November 17, 2005 plea for the U.S. to leave Iraq, at Full Text of Rep. John Murtha's Plan to Exit Iraq Now.

Mr. Murtha was 77 years old, and had suffered from ill health in recent years. Rep. Murtha most recently served as Chair of the House Defense Appropriations committee. His leadership will be greatly missed in Congress.

RIP John Murtha, Grand American Patriot and Great Democrat originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, February 8th, 2010 at 15:44:56.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Two Supreme Court Justices May Retire in 2010

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0000

The best political news in the last few weeks for liberals... other than President Obama (finally!) smacking down snarky Congressional Republicans last Friday... is the ABC News report today that "Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring." Per ABC News:

"Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court."

Obviously, I wish only excellent health and good personal fortune for all nine Supreme Court justices. I also fervently hope, though, that if justices decide to retire, that they do so while President Obama is in office, and preferably while he still has a large enough Senate Democratic majority to smoothly approve his nominations.

The President made a superb Court nomination with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And I fully anticipate that his other potential nominations to the Supreme Court would be equally qualified, both in terms of education and professional qualifications, and in outlook, temperament, and life experiences.

The recent Citizens United decision, which destroyed all vestiges of ethical campaign-finance reform by opening the flood gates to unlimited corporate funding of partisan political advertising, made abundantly clear the urgency of appointing to our nation's highest judicial bench non-activist judges not hellbent on pleasing corporate interests whenever remotely feasible.

If, indeed, Associate Justices Ginsburg and Stevens do retire this summer, look for Senate Republicans to create as much unnecessary sturm-and-drung as possible to delay and drag approval of Obama's Court replacement nominations until the new, 112th Congress takes office in January 2011. And when Republicans will almost certainly have more Senate seats then they do in 2010.

If that occurs, liberals need to hope that President Obama continues his smart, coolly self-confident takedown of roadblock Republicans... rather than wilting back into passive non-leadership, as Mr. Obama disastrously did for much of 2009.

(Photo of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens arrive for a reception in honor of new Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the East Room of the White House August 12, 2009: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Two Supreme Court Justices May Retire in 2010 originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 15:15:52.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Blue Dogs Fire Preemptive Fiscal Warning on Obama Budget

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:34:11 +0000

Last week, House Blue Dog Democrats issued a 2010 Blueprint for 15 Fiscal Reforms in anticipation of... (or preemptive strike on?)... both President Obama's State of the Union address and his fiscal 2011 budget plan, which was released today.

I suggest "preemptive strike" because all 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are eager to distance themselves from the President's economic record as they prepare to face angry voters in November. The majority of Blue Dogs hail from Republican-red states, and are rightly nervous about their reelection prospects.

Some of the Blue Dog's 15 fiscal reforms are realistic and make a lot of sense, while others are generic, perfect-world statements that everyone agrees are wonderful goals, albeit completely unachievable in the nation's near future. Clearly, some of these fiscal reforms were included primarily to protect the electoral hides of jittery Blue Dogs.

The Blue Dog 2010 Blueprint for 15 Fiscal Reforms is politically very interesting because it provides a glimpse into the principles which will guide Blue Dogs in deciding, in 2010, whether or not to support President Obama's policies and budget proposals.

In 2009, of course, the Blue Dog voting block was often resistant to legislation endorsed by both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Obama White House. In some instances, because of their unified response, Blue Dogs forced liberal-leaning legislation to be modified into more conservative bills.

Take a look at the first fiscal warning shot from Blue Dog Democrats as they arm for their 2010 campaigns, at Blue Dog 2010 Blueprint for 15 Fiscal Reforms

Learn more about this stubbornly cohesive House Democratic voting block at Blue Dog Democrats, Fiscally Conservative House Members, which includes the names of all current 52 coalition members.

Blue Dogs Fire Preemptive Fiscal Warning on Obama Budget originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 16:34:11.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Obama's Policies, Plans in 2010 State of the Union Address

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:35:27 +0000

I thought President Obama delivered a sensational, pragmatic first State of the Union address, and so did my husband, who is usually bored silly by any political speech that lasts more than, say, five minutes.

Obama's delivery was snappy and feisty with a feel of genuineness, and he appeared both chipper and dapper. If Obama was striving for likeable-guy-you-could-share-a-Starbucks-with rather than his usual stuffy law professor persona, the President did well by his goal. My guess is that the President's speech was closely watched and well-received by the public.

His speechwriters smartly included some lines so ringingly patriotic that recalcitrant Republicans felt compelled to stand up and begrudgingly applaud Mr. Obama. ("I do not accept second place for the United States of America!" and "I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight.")

And all those policies, plans and achievements... well, any liberal would be bowled by over a huge chunk of the hundreds of statements he crammed into his 75+ minute speech.

But I got to thinking... exactly what DID President Obama promise the American people in his first State of the Union address?

To answer my question, I've listed every single policy achievement or plan, sans the fancy rhetoric and feel-good stories, here at Obama's Policies in 2010 State of the Union Address. All are presented in SOTU speech order.

I like and support at least a whopping 85% of President Obama's myriad of policies and plans included in his 2010 State of the Union address. (Not so sure about nuclear power plants, and being a Californian, I'm especially unhappy over new offshore drilling initiatives.)

But then again, I almost always like what Mr. Obama promises...

I'm sticking to my 2010 New Year's resolution "to judge President Obama by his actions, and not by his words."

While President Obama delivered an impressive sounding first State of the Union address, I will use Obama's Policies in 2010 State of the Union Address as a scorecard to determine how many of these promises he pursues and accomplishes.

Check back here next December. Then I can tell you just how sensationally the President actually performed in 2010.

His first State of the Union address was a sound start.

Related Reading

Obama Squandered Democratic Political Capital in 2009
In 2010, Judge Obama by His Actions, Not Eloquent Words

Obama's Policies, Plans in 2010 State of the Union Address originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Thursday, January 28th, 2010 at 19:35:27.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

State of the Union Advice: Never Bet Against Barack Obama

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:37:51 +0000

I hope pollster Charlie Cook of The Cook Political Report was wrong when he recently commented on MSNBC that State of the Union addresses don't impact a president's approval standings... because President Obama needs all the help he can muster right now.

By all reports, President Obama plans to include the following in his State of the Union speech later today:

Acceptance of "responsibility, though not necessarily blame, for failing to deliver swiftly on some of the changes he promised a year ago," per the New York Times.
A call for a three-year spending freeze on non-discretionary domestic spending, which excludes spending for the Pentagon, war, homeland security, and foreign aid, as well as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The spending freeze would cover such areas as farm subsidies, national parks, and nutrition, which includes food stamps.
Tax cuts for small businesses, which Obama anticipates will lead to creation of new middle-class jobs.
Continuing support for passage of health care reform legislation, although pared-back from the bills passed by Congress in 2009.
A 6.2% boost in education funding to "highlight his commitment to education reform... including his plan to improve outcomes for students at every point along the educational pipeline," per the Wall Street Journal.
Establishment of a bipartisan commission to recommend ways to meaningfully reduce the U.S. budget deficit.

Predictably, conservatives are complaining about Obama's first State of the Union speech before he even delivers it. And echoing persistent Republican paranoia when they're not in charge, the National Review opined yesterday, "... we remain wary that he could be using the spending freeze and the budget commission to set the table for large tax increases and to duck responsibility for the structural changes that are needed."

While I'm skeptical about several of Obama's apparent proposals planned for tonight's State of the Union address... most notably domestic spending cuts while not touching war spending or the bloated Pentagon budget... I say give the guy a fighting chance by listening to his ideas with an open mind and heart.

And remember... in his political history, no matter how far Obama has been beaten down, he always came back surprisingly strong. Despite pollster Charlie Cooks' words to the contrary, never bet against Barack Obama.

President Obama's first State of the Union address will be telecast tonight at 6 pm.

(Photo taken on election night, November 4, 2008: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

State of the Union Advice: Never Bet Against Barack Obama originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 12:37:51.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Are Bland Obama Appointees to the Senate Hurting Democrats?

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:06:03 +0000

Under the Obama administration, Democrats have hand-picked a record four U.S. senators to partial terms of one year or less, three of them as "placeholders" for other liberal candidates waiting in the wings.

In 2010, Democrats are in danger in losing three of these Senate seats, in Delaware, Colorado, and Illinois. And the fourth, in Massachusetts, was lost last week in a shocking upset by Republican Scott Brown.

Appointment of a U.S. senator is usually an anomaly, most often occurring when a senator becomes ill or passes away (Massachusetts, when an aging Kennedy insider "filled" the seat). In 2009, though, three appointments occurred due to President Obama's election (Illiniois) and cabinet staffing decisions (Colorado, Delaware).

Oddly, all four Democratic Senate appointments under President Obama have been unimpressive and ineffective enough, in one short year or less, that Democrats are in danger of losing all four of these seats in 2010.

I struggle to find a clear explanation for this historical phenemenon.... other than to suggest that Obama's preference for obedient blandness in his appointees is at the root.

Tim Kaine has been wholly unexciting as DNC head, thus far, and has achieved dismal fundraising and membership levels that don't begin to compare with those of Howard Dean, who led the party for four years with sizzle, authenticity, great energy and excellent results.

And I clearly remember the uproar in summer 2008 among rank-and-file Democrats when Obama's short-list of vice-presidential candidates leaked out. Liberals were mystified, and somewhat horrified, that among Obama's top choices were some of the most boring, milquetoast Democrats imaginable: Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, then Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, then Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. (We all breathed a huge sigh of relief when ebullient Joe Biden got the VP nod.)

The question occurs to me as I ponder this curious pattern: Is President Obama's obvious taste for quietly obedient, bland "yes" men and women in government hurting the Democratic party?

And isn't it self-defeating (or perhaps naive?) for the Obama administration to, directly or indirectly, appoint unelectable "placeholders" until formal elections can be held? Why not appoint a strong real-deal right away, and give that Democratic candidate a leg-up on Republican competition?

What do you think? Please share your thoughts. And while you're thinking about elections, take a look at my newly updated 2010 U.S. Senate Races - Who's Winning, Who's Not, which briefly handicaps all 37 Senate races in 2010.

Are Bland Obama Appointees to the Senate Hurting Democrats? originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, January 25th, 2010 at 20:06:03.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Good News Liberal Postmortems for MA Senate Race

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:50:49 +0000

Several good news postmortems have occurred for liberals since Democrats' devastating loss several days ago of the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for 47 years.

First, judging by his biting, animated words today in Ohio, President Obama no longer appears comatose on the dire economic issues affecting the daily lives of middle and working class Americans.

Of course, Obama gives great speech, but in his first year, has too-often failed to follow-up on his supposedly impassioned ideas. He needs to back-up his words with strong actions this time on jobs creation, college affordability, reform of egregious Wall Street greed, and no-frills health care for uninsured Americans, sans the intrusive social engineering.

Obama's new fighting attitude today, though, was an encouraging start in a more constructive direction.

Second, President Obama finally... FINALLY... ignored the tepid, inaccurate economic advice of Wall Street insiders Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Economic Council Director Larry Summers. Instead, Obama finally... FINALLY... stood firm with the prudent instincts of Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Bank Chair, by announcing a bold plan to limit banks' size, and to restrict banks' trading activies.

I can only hope that Geithner and Summers and their banker pals are horrified. Next step: FINALLY getting Geithner to step down from the Obama administration.

Third, the uber-complex, 2,000-page Senate health care "reform" bill, which contained no reform whatsoever and greatly enriched insurance industry coffers, is dead. But health care reform is surely not dead, as President Obama firmly declared today.

More sensible legislative options are now under consideration that were not previously pondered by Congressional Democrats, including passage of a pared-back, more liberal bill via the reconciliation process (which only requires 51 Senate votes), and passage via a series of simpler bills which each address a separate aspect of health care reform.

Frankly, I believe that both of these two approaches are more thoughtful, preferable options to the Senate Democrats' frenzied pre-Massachusetts-election process of desperately compromising away the heart, soul, and substance of actual reform of health care.

Good News for Liberals
The good news for liberals is that the electric shock of losing the Massachusetts Senate race may jolt the Obama administration and Senate Democrats to FINALLY "get it," and to listen to and act on the pained voices of the American people.

But just in case Democratic leaders in D.C. still don't "get" the message sent by blue-state Massachusetts voters, I suggest they read the brilliantly poignant speech last week by labor leader Richard Trumka on Why Americans Are Angry.

Essential Reading

Obama Loses Liberals in MA Senate Race For Good Reason
Obama Should Heed Labor Leader Trumka on Economic Woes

Good News Liberal Postmortems for MA Senate Race originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 at 18:50:49.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Obama Loses Liberals in MA Senate Race For Good Reason

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:20 +0000

Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat in blue state Massachusetts yesterday because Democrats did not vote to support President Obama's weak-kneed, hyper-political, sleight-of-hand agenda, especially on health care reform. Simple facts tell the story of angry voters, including liberals:

22% of registered MA Democrats voted for Republican Brown, not Democrat Coakley
In Massachusetts, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a whopping 3 to 1. If the other 78% of Democrats had turned out to vote for Coakley, she would have won handily. But the indisputable fact is, a huge portion of MA Democrats stayed home from the polls.
82% of Democrats who voted for Brown firmly support a public plan option as part of health care reform. 86% of Democrats who didn't vote in the MA Senate race firmly support a public plan option. Obama, of course, nuked a public plan option despite his innumerable public speeches to the contrary.
52% of Democrats who voted for Brown believe that "When Democrats took power, they didn't change much about how Washington works."

Several weeks ago, I warned President Obama and his insider pals he's installed at the DNC that:

continually letting down liberals,
continually going back on the campaign promises that catapulted Obama to the White House, and
continually kowtowing to and compromising with the conservative minority in vain hopes of garnering their support...

... is most assuredly not a formula for Democratic success. It is a formula for Democratic weakness that guarantees failure and loss.

Are you listening yet, Mr. President? Did the wallop delivered to your "bipartisan" agenda yesterday by MA Democrats finally get your attention?

If not, absorb these remarkable, piercing observations today from the college newspaper of one of the supposed bastions of youthful liberal elitism, Yale University:

"Obama was a politician who inspired us to volunteer and make phone calls and even vote. He galvanized our generation into action with a call for activism and hope. But, like Obama's promise of change, these feelings have not survived the long year behind us.

"Our optimism has reverted back to cynicism as we have seen the same politicking and brokering in Washington under Obama's leadership that we saw under President Bush and President Clinton...

"After all, our country has a stagnant economy and is fighting two wars in the Middle East. We have a health care system that allows malpractice lawyers to profit while doctors suffer. Our intelligence system simply does not work...

"... the message Brown sends is one that may change business in Washington more than Obama's election did last year. What voters in Massachusetts told Congress and Obama yesterday is that they and we are fed up. We're tired of Nebraska getting special deals and health care reform that does not address some of the most important problems with health care.

"We're tired of change that never comes... Here's hoping Brown's win will make our country focus a little more on true change."

Listening now, Mr. President? As is, you've even lost the highly prized Democratic youth vote which is requisite to Democratic electoral success.

UPDATE - Read He Wasn't The One We've Been Waiting For by New York Times columnist and Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman late today, in which he concludes, "I'm pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in."

Related Essentials

Obama Loses Liberals in MA Senate Race For Good Reason originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 15:54:20.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Coakley Loss Could Improve Chances for Single Payer Option

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:19:59 +0000

Despite all the gloom and doom, losing the Massachusetts Senate seat could provide liberals an enormously opportune opening to add the single payer or Medicare buy-in options back to health care reform legislation and pass it.

That is, if Obama really does want a single payer or Medicare-like option, as he claimed over and over and over...

Follow my reasoning:

If Republicans win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat tomorrow, Democrats' vaunted 60-seat super-majority is gone.
As a result, no amount of intra-party compromising with DINOs Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and the like will allow Democrats alone to overcome Republican attempts to filibuster bills.
However, urgent bills can be passed via the reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes.
If Obama further dilutes the Senate health bill by compromising for Republican votes, he risks losing dozens of House votes for the final, integrated bill.
Logically, since Obama no longer needs to dilute the bill for the DINOs, he is free to add back liberal reforms that will retain only 51 Senate votes, not 60 votes.
Thus, the Senate bill would become closer to the more liberal House bill, which includes a single payer option.

The bottom line is this: If Martha Coakley loses the Massachusetts Senate election tomorrow, Obama no longer needs to contort like an ideological pretzel to please the "centrist" Democrats who, via bribes and threats, diluted what Obama has long-claimed to support: a single payer or Medicare buy-in option.

Fifty-one Democratic senators will definitely vote in support of health care reform similar to the more liberal House bill. And Speaker Pelosi will easily hold together a House majority to pass health care reform with a single payer or Medicare option.

Passage of health care reform that includes a single payer or Medicare buy-in option will finally place a controlling lid on exorbitant prices that profit-hungry, bonus-greedy private insurers can charge Americans.

And, without doubt, angrily dispirited Democrats, such as those in blue-state Massachusetts, will return to the Obama fold, reenergized and ready to support his agenda again in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Oddly, Democratic loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat could free Obama from the tyranny of having to attract votes from all 60 Senate Democrats and Independents. And would free Obama to more easily enact the agenda he campaigned on. The choice, of course, would be President Obama's.

But I wonder: Is that what President Obama really wants?

Or would Obama rather continue to feign as hapless victim while moving his agenda to the mediocre middle? My advice? We'll know by his actions, not by his golden, soaring promises.

Essential Reading

In 2010, Judge Obama by His Actions, Not Eloquent Words
Narrowing MA Senate Race Shows Damage to Democratic Brand

(Photo of Obama and Coakley taken on Jan 17, 2010: Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

Coakley Loss Could Improve Chances for Single Payer Option originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, January 18th, 2010 at 15:19:59.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Harold Ford Could Win the Senate Due to Anti-Incumbency Fever

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:03:40 +0000

To the apparent surprise of many New York Democrats, Harold Ford, Jr., a Congressman and an active Blue Dog Democrat from 1997 to 2007, may throw his hat into their state's electoral ring to challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for her seat's Democratic nomination.

I say "apparent surprise" because of the very public gnashing of teeth in various Democratic corners since ever-brash Mr. Ford told the New York Times earlier this week that "if I am elected senator from New York, Harry Reid will not instruct me how to vote."

Sen. Gillibrand, who served as special counsel to Housing & Urban Development during the Clinton administration, was a surprise appointment by unpopular New York Gov. Paterson to take the place of Hillary Clinton, who resigned to become Secretary of State. Gillibrand took office one year ago, on January 23, 2009.

In what the Times called "a clear swipe at Ms. Gillibrand," Ford quipped that "he would not be a lap dog for Democratic leaders in Washington." Sen. Gillibrand is widely known to be close to the Clintons, and has proven a malleable adherent of the Obama agenda. Hence, President Obama thought he had "cleared the Democratic primary field for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, two Democrats said" in May 2009.

But recent polls have shown that Sen. Gillibrand is not a particularly strong candidate for reelection to the remaining two years of this seat's term.

And since his narrow but bruising, racist-tinged defeat in the 2006 Senate race in his home state of Tennessee, Ford has been itching to get back into politics. With his 2008 marriage to a New Yorker, Ford has warmed to a new political career in the Empire State.

Some of the Democratic party establishment is none-too-happy with Ford's challenge of Gillibrand for the Senate seat. And one wonders what compelled the New York Times to publish an unflattering, semi-hit piece on Ford yesterday. (Full disclosure: About.com is owned by the New York Times.)

But Ford's candidacy has been "encouraged by a group of influential New York Democrats" and top Democratic donors who are dissatisfied by Sen. Gillibrand, per the Times.

Instead, I agree with U.S. News & World Report columnist Linda Killian when she penned today:

"Like all successful politicians, Ford does not suffer from a lack of self-esteem or ambition. There is very little downside to him making the Senate run, and he has almost nothing to lose.

"He might irritate some Democratic leaders in the process, but it will certainly raise his national profile and should he be unsuccessful, position him for something else down the road.

"And of course it would be a lot of fun to watch."

2010 may be the year that Congressional incumbents, both Democratic and Republican, are defeated in droves. Anti-incumbency fever may be Harold Ford, Jr.'s overdue ticket to the U.S. Senate. I say... let the race begin!

You can read about Mr. Ford's interesting history and background at Profile of Harold Ford, Jr., U.S. Senate Candidate from New York

Also take the time to read 2010 U.S. Senate Races - Who's Winning, Who's Not, my handicapping of all 37 Senate races in 2010.

Harold Ford Could Win the Senate Due to Anti-Incumbency Fever originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Thursday, January 14th, 2010 at 23:03:40.

Permalink | Comment | Email this