sophiaserpentia | Entries tagged with partisan politics

Edit. This is dated two weeks ago. I'm just seeing it now? I was on vacation at the time, but i'm guessing that this did not make much of a dent in the mainstream media...

Holy Moley. Looks like the "smoking ~~gun~~ emails" in the Plame Affair have been found:

The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.

The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.

Sources close to the probe said the White House “discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them over to Fitzgerald last week. The sources added that the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI investigators when he was interviewed about the leak in early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s undercover status to reporters.

.... Cheney said he was unaware that Ambassador Wilson was chosen to travel to Niger to look into the uranium claims, and that he never saw a report Wilson had given a CIA analyst upon his return which stated that the Niger claims were untrue. He said the CIA never told him about Wilson's trip.

However, the emails say otherwise, and will show that the vice president spearheaded an effort in March 2003 to attack Wilson’s credibility and used the CIA to dig up information on the former ambassador that could be used against him, sources said.

Some of the emails that were turned over to Fitzgerald contained references to Plame Wilson's identity and CIA status, and developments related to the inability of ground forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the start of the war in March 2003.

According to sources, the emails also contained suggestions by senior officials in Cheney’s office, and at the National Security Council, on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

from White House 'Discovers' Emails Related to Plame Leak

Yesterday's observations about the Catholic Charities of Boston ending all of its adoptions in Massachusetts to avoid doing a few (probably less than 5%) to gay households is an example of why i am opposed in principle to moral absolutism.

Here's another: conservative groups like the Family Research Council are fighting the development and distribution of a vaccine for two strains of Human Papilloma Virus (which is known to cause cervical cancer) beacuse the virus is often (but not always) transmitted sexually. Their allegation is that an HPV vaccine will encourage premarital sex. The message this sends is that it is more important to preserve the moral absolute of "sex in marriage only," even at the cost of 3,700 women's lives per year in the US alone.

And here's another: the Bush Administration has aligned itself with moral absolutists who are spreading untruths about condoms being ineffective at preventing the spread of HIV. In fact, clinical evidence (which means, surveys of results from people actually using condoms) shows that condoms are more effective at preventing HIV transmission than any other STD. The Vatican's claim that condoms have "microscopic holes bigger than the HIV virus" (which in the US was latched onto by promoters of abstinence education) overlooks the fact that the virus is transmitted only within cells, which are bigger than microscopic holes.

The above are examples of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to which religious organizations have been driven by their adherence to moral absolutism. In this view, it is acceptable to perpetrate a huge wrong to avoid committing an arguably much smaller wrong. At the crux of this is the view that it is okay to "punish" people for having sex in ways not allowed by (a particular interpretation of) certain ancient moral codes. It's one debate whether or not God will punish people for having premarital or homosexual sex; it's another debate whether any person or agency can legitimately become an agent of God's judgment. I'm willing to take my chances on whether or not there will be any sort of Judgment Day, but i am not willing to sit back while people proclaim themselves the agents of "God's judgment" on the basis of scriptural claims which i believe are false.

So i didn't watch the State of the Union address. Does that make me a bad citizen?

But i figured, why bother? Grandiose proposals he made will have no relation to actual policies the White House pursues, nor to what the Republicans in Congress will actually enact. $15B for AIDS in Africa, remember that promise? "No child left behind," how about that one? Automotive fuel cell technology and lowered reliance on foreign oil? Heard plenty of talk in recent decades, but we're still waiting on the follow-through.

And, i couldn't stand the thought of hearing him pep talk about the war, especially 'supporting the troops' (who are scrambling through scrapheaps for makeshift armor for their vehicles when they're not dying of dehydration to avoid being raped on the way to the latrine at night). I couldn't stand the thought of hearing him talk about rebuilding the gulf coast when he's pulled his support for coastal wetlands restoration, does not support funds for actual rebuilding, and is actively stonewalling the investigation into the federal response. I couldn't stand the thought of hearing him gloat about the medicare prescription drug benefit when it's been no help at all to millions.

Lastly, i couldn't stomach the thought of hearing him say, "The state of our union is strong." Strong? Not the America i live in. I don't think it's been so divided in decades.

As predicted, the Democrats have put up only vague, nominal, half-hearted opposition to Samuel Alito, who is going to confirmed for the Supreme Court today.

[Poll #663762]

It dawned on me just now, with a chill going down my spine, why the Democrats are not going to filibuster the Alito confirmation. They are going to campaign on look at how these evil Republicans have pulled our country down and are taking away your rights. In the process they are willing to sell out whomever Alito rules against once he's on the bench.

I'm getting a sense, from what i'm reading in blogs and commentary, that a weak Democratic opposition to Alito may be the last straw. Will it really? I tremble with hope. Will liberals finally realize that the Democrats have abandoned them and take their support for granted? That the Democrats stand for most of the same repulsive things the Republicans do?

Liberals have become increasingly disenchanted with the Democrats over the last ten years, and with good reason: ever since the election of 1994, when the GOP swept to power in the House and Senate, the Democrats have tried to take that power back by lurching to the right. They did so thinking that liberals, with no alternative, will just go along with whatever the Democrats do.

But this strategy overlooks two facts. First, the GOP did not take power by lurching to the center, they took power by energizing their base, giving the conservatives something to be excited about. I've heard murmurs that the Democrats are going to try a similar strategy this year, a Democratic "Contract With America," but i've seen no hint of it actually happening at all.

Second, and more importantly, about half of the people of voting age in the United States do not vote. Presumably, this portion of the population is liberal, independent, and/or conservative in the same proportions as the voting population. That means that 35-40% of these people are liberal, which in turn means that if a significant number of them could be energized enough to vote instead of staying home on Election Day, then the liberals could sweep their candidates into power. Therefore liberal views are not necessarily a liability, if the party can find a slate of candidates who make people excited about voting for a change.

Democratic partisans have been bellowing since 2000 that any liberal who votes for some other party "might as well be voting Republican," but they miss the point entirely. The duty of a citizen is to vote their conscience, their beliefs, their views. If the Democrats fail to draw out half of their base on Election Day, this is not the fault of the 5% of people who have come out in support of Nader or other leftist third parties. The idea that there is no "realistic alternative" to the Democratic Party is a self-promoting fiction; there have been upheavals in the two-party system before, and there's no reason why we can't have another one now.

The Republicans are waging a war against Democratic voters. I am not saying this as hyperbole, and this is not just politics-as-usual. There is a deliberate and targeted effort to disenfranchise people likely to vote Democratic. The incidents are isolated and a different strategy is involved in each case, so there is a small level of plausible deniability. But consider these events all together, and a sinister pattern emerges. I defy anyone to argue that there is not evidence of a co-ordinated effort going on here.

It started in 2000, with the closely contested presidential race there. It came out in the months that followed that several thousand black voters had been denied access to the polls because their names were similar to those of convicted felons.

In 2002, to influence the outcome of a close senatorial race in New Hampshire, the Republican Party used a telemarketing firm to jam the phones of Democratic activists attempting to coordinate "get out the vote" efforts on election day.

The next year, in 2003, the State of Texas redrew its congressional district maps. By tradition this is done every 10 years, and had just been done in 2002. The new district maps were drawn with a ridiculous degree of gerrymandering to assure the GOP five additional seats in Congress in 2004, enough to secure their tenuous lead in the House of Representatives. This plan was engineered by Tom DeLay and associates, and funded illegally.

Gerrymandering, as has been often argued, is a way for political parties to disenfranchise political minorities by dividing up their voting blocks and ghettoizing viewpoints.

In Georgia, a law was passed requiring all voters to have a government-issued ID. A federal appeals court recently struck down this law, which opponents had described as a modern-day poll-tax. (Yes, believe it or not, there are people so poor they cannot afford the fees for a state-issued ID card.) Poor people and minorities, who typically vote Democratic, would have been effectively disenfranchised. But the contest is far from over on this front.

In Arizona, women (and transpeople) are being effectively disenfranchised by a new law. (Thanks to

ginmar for this link.) Since this is a registration-required article, i will quote the relevant portion:

A stringent new voter identification law being put into effect in Arizona — designed to keep illegal immigrants from voting — will also prevent thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots Tuesday, election officials say.

Proposition 200, which voters approved last year, requires Arizonans to prove U.S. citizenship to register to vote and to show a photo ID at the polls.

... In Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, more than 10,000 people trying to register have been rejected for being unable to prove their citizenship. Yvonne Reed, a spokeswoman for the recorder's office, said Friday that most probably are U.S. citizens whose married names differ from their birth certificates or who have lost documentation.

On the federal level, a group in Congress are considering ending the policy of automatic US citizenship to everyone born on US soil. The intended targets are children born to undocumented immigrants. If this effort succeeds, not only will this create a class of people who are not legally members of any nation -- an open door for egregious violations of human and civil rights -- it is aimed at decreasing the numbers of Democratic constituents in key states like California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

In all of these cases, the effects are felt mostly or primarily by those who, in demographic terms, make up core constiuencies of the Democrats.

It is absolutely no surprise that the major news media in the US declined to mention Lawrence Wilkerson's interview last week with NPR, in which he described his experience in a White House where the Vice President's office controls and modifies the flow of information to fit its warped view of reality, including the issuance of memos that tacitly inspired abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Listen to it, i insist.

Vice Presidential aide Scooter Libby was indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury.

You know, i feel a little weird about these kinds of charges, in the absense of an indictment for a crime that actually brought about the investigation. So far, you only have one person charged for crimes that would not have occurred except in response to an investigation. That's not to minimize the seriousness of the accused infractions -- they are all felony counts -- but it still feels vaguely dissatisfying.

Of course, that's because it's not over, this is not the final statement, but probably just a prelude. Given the very serious stuff that's come to light in just the last week or so -- the involvement of Steven Hadley and Ahmed Chalabi in the actual forgery of the Niger yellowcake documents, and the possible involvement of figures in the AIPAC espionage scandal in the outing of Valerie Plame -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have decided there's more serious digging to do.

Uh, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers had her bar association license suspended twice? Interesting how little attention that's getting...

Why are the conservatives upset by the Harriet Miers supreme court nomination? You'd think they would be happy to see Bush nominate someone who is abortion-hating and gay-rights-hating.

But they are clearly extremely upset. And, what's more, they are talking about Bush as though they no longer think he is one of them anymore. They talk about feeling betrayed, taken for granted, feeling like their efforts have been hijacked. I'm sure i'm not the only leftist thinking, "Hey, they're not allowed to feel demoralized! That's my job!"

They should feel on top of the world, no? The Democrats are not spoiling for a fight over Miers, so they are scant weeks away from acheiving their three-decade goal of stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortionists. Even so:

William Kristol: I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized.

Senator Trent Lott: "[i'm] not comfortable with the nomination. Is she the most qualified person? Clearly the answer to that is no."

Ann Coulter: Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years.

George Will: The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons. (thanks to

zarq for this link and the one before)

Maggie Gallagher: "Disappointed, depressed, demoralized." That's how Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, reacted to President Bush's nomination of His Girl Harriet to the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, that about sums it up. I've tried hard to shake the feeling. ... This is not political disappointment. This is something deeper.

Do you suppose they are truly this disappointed about Harriet Miers? Or... or, maybe they have just decided it is time to put as much distance as possible between them and Bush. In trying to make sense of this, i can come to only one conclusion: after all the recent indictments, after the Iraq debacle and the Hurricane Katrina debacle, after plummeting poll numbers, the neocons have lost their shine, and their support is collapsing.

I had been wondering which coalition was going to implode first, the left or the right. I think we're seeing the answer to that play out.

The timing of the Senate's landslide vote against the use of torture is very telling. Senator John McCain was harshly smeared by Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign, and one has to imagine that he's been waiting for the right moment to strike back. He chose his moment well; and i get the feeling that he is savoring the sensation of being the last one to stick his dagger into the chest of dying Caesar.

Since the news media seems loathe to provide a panoramic view of what is going on with the neocons and their legal troubls, allow me...

Tom DeLay: Was indicted yesterday on a count of "conspiracy to circumvent campaign finance laws." This is important, because the conspiracy involved a mean-spirited plan to force through a redistricting plan for Texas in 2003, which resulted in five additional GOP representatives in the US House. Normally the state redraws its districts every ten years, and had done so in 2000. The matter is still in the courts and so maybe the legality of the redistricting itself will be called into question (hey, a girl can dream...). We could also be seeing the collapse of the powerful "K Street Project."

Bill Frist: the SEC has upgraded its investigation into possible insider trading by Sen. Frist to "formal." I predict a reasonable chance though that Frist will come out of this without an indictment.

Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman: Pentagon Analyst Larry Franklin, who was supplying these two with classified information, today offered a guilty plea. The news report doesn't say whether or not he will testify for the prosecution, but it sounds like a safe bet to me. As Justin Raimundo commented, the indictment of Franklin, Rosen and Weissman reads like a spy novel. The ramifications of this case could reach very far, since AIPAC has been a major power player in Washington for 20 years.

Karl Rove and Lewis Libby: There haven't been any developments lately in the investigation into the Valerie Plame affair, but the Grand Jury is still deliberating. There has been speculation that the investigation may affect 'luminaries' like Ambassador Bolton or Condoleezza Rice.

Jack Abramoff: Was indicted for accepting bribes from Indian tribes seeking clearance to operate casinos, and is being investigated in other matters of corruption. Now there have been arrests for murder in connection with one of his deals.

Bonus legal stuff: More disturbing and graphic images from Abu Ghraib might be on the way.

Edit. Oh, my, i'd missed the arrest last week of White House official David Safavian for obstruction of justice in the Abramoff investigation.

Chief Justice John Roberts.

Neither of my senators voted to confirm him.

Edit. Voinovich wound up voting FOR him? After making a big public stink opposing him? Hmf.

The Bush Administration has dropped all pretense of holding an actual "investigation" into the Katrina aftermath. Who do you suppose would be the most biased person possible, the one with the most serious risk to his professional reputation, the one with the most to lose at this point? That's right, you guessed it.

Former FEMA director Michael Brown is being retained by the agency as a "consultant."

Brown was on the Hill today to speak with staff at a special House committee in preparation for his testimony at a Tuesday hearing on Katrina. In the session, Brown said that he was working as a consultant "to provide a review" of Katrina preparations and immediate aftermath, according to two congressional sources.

It is unclear what, if anything, he is being paid. "I would assume he is being paid, yes," an aide close to the committee said on background. But no one at the briefing asked that question of Brown.

thanks to riverheart for the link

The National Enquirer is claiming that George W. Bush has started drinking again. (Thanks to

supergee and

arisbe for the link.)

Now, the National Enquirer is what it is. It's not quite the Weekly World News (with its stories about Bill Clinton's dealing with the alien visitor who supported his campaign, but who later had a relationship with Hilary and fought over her with Bill) but its still far from credible. It is, however, the publication with the widest circulation in the United States. It didn't get that way by accident; it has its finger on the pulse of popular opinion.

Other articles i've been reading suggest that Bush is close to losing the support of even his core backers: the 40-44% of the US population who have backed him through thick and thin, who see him as our nation's last hope before it slides off into the abyss of un-Christian immorality and rampant taxing and spending. (I threw that last bit in there for humor, because i doubt there's anyone left who thinks that the GOP is still the party of fiscal conservatism.)

[T]he government's biggest mistake was its decision to privatize the evacuation. Those who owned cars fled. 100,000 poor people, who ride New Orleans' streetcar system, were left behind to die. Greyhound's nearly 2,000 buses could have gotten them all out--but commandeering private property is the act of a civilized nation, not the leaner, meaner, tough-break United States. Similarly, storeowners should have distributed water and other emergency supplies under a FEMA guarantee of reimbursement.

It only took a few days for New Orleans to descend into anarchy, for the survivors of Katrina to lose hope, for disgusted Americans to conclude that their leaders are too staggeringly stupid, incompetent and uncaring to protect them from bad weather, much less a terrorist attack. Now think about this: the citizens of cities under U.S. occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have been suffering under similar conditions, exacerbated by an identical lack of planning by the same U.S. officials, for nearly 900 days. New Orleans is Baghdad plus water minus two and a half years.

from Hurricane Victims Get a Taste of Life in Occupied Iraq

Let's say it outright. The truest measure of any president, of any leader, is how well he takes care of his own people. And Bush, well, Bush has done a simply spectacular job of taking care of exactly his own people -- the wealthy, the corporate, the extreme religious right, his core base of supporters -- while happily and fiercely ignoring, restricting, condemning, destroying the rest. Are you educated or progressive or liberal or alternative-minded or sexually open or homosexual or anti-war? This means you. Are you dirt poor and belong to a minority and don't drive an SUV and contribute six figures per annum to the RNC and maybe live in a flooded swamp in the Louisiana bayou? This means you, squared. Sucker.

Here, then, is the new American motto, as reimagined by BushCo: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and we'll let them die in a filthy and decrepit storm-ravaged American football stadium while our president languishes on vacation and ponders his oil futures and fondly remembers his good ol' days of getting drunk at Mardi Gras before going AWOL from the military. God bless America.

from George W. Bush Still Rocks! Stop criticizing! The rich man's CEO president is executing his job requirements perfectly

I urge Congress to create an independent, bipartisan committee immediately, to investigate the failures of the Hurricane Katrina evacuation and rescue missions.

We need this immediately because lives are still on the line. There are still people trapped in their homes and on roofs. It is still hurricane season. Other natural disasters, like a big earthquake, could occur at any moment. We are still at war, and terrorists may choose this moment to strike the U.S.

The sooner the chain of failures can be identified, the sooner we can improve our nation's response to the next emergency.

This panel has to be bipartisan, because already the Republicans are looking to blame the Democrats, and vice-versa. Already the feds are looking to blame the locals, and vice-versa. Congress wants to blame the bureaucracy, and vice-versa. No one is going to willingly own up to their piece of the disaster.

The failure was systemic and we need to make changes at all levels. We need to ask hard questions. Why was the budget for Louisiana wetlands recovery slashed? Cuba has a hurricane evacuation plan that moves everyone out of harm's way, including the poorest; why did we have nothing? Many of the deaths in New Orleans could have been prevented by keeping a cache of water, emergency rations, and medicine in the area; why didn't we?

We also need this immediately because many people have lost faith in their leaders. Thousands of people have died, many of them needlessly. The stability of our democracy depends on accountability.

As President Bush said in the State of the Union address this year, "a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable." By that measure, we've come up short. For many it's too late, but let's fix what we can.

The AFL-CIO splintered on Monday, spooking some Democratic Party leaders and the ranks of organized workers, their futures in the hands of labor rebels who bolted the 50-year-old federation vowing to reverse the steep decline in union membership. "Our goal is not to divide the labor movement but to rebuild it," said Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He and Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said their unions would leave the AFL-CIO, paving the way for other unions to follow.

Their action drew a bitter rebuke from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it a "grievous insult" that could hurt workers already buffeted by the global economy and anti-union forces in Congress.

... His Change to Win Coalition consists of seven unions, four of which boycotted the AFL-CIO convention: The SEIU, Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile, hotel and restaurant employees. Labor officials expect the UFCW and UNITE HERE to leave the AFL-CIO later. Those four unions represent one-third of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members. The SEIU and Teamsters alone account for more than $20 million of an estimated $120 million AFL-CIO budget.

Much of that money goes to Democratic candidates and to political operations that benefit the Democratic Party. Stern, Hoffa and their colleagues in the Change to Win Coalition pushed the AFL-CIO to shift focus from such political activity to recruiting new union members, contending that a growing union movement would naturally increase its political and bargaining power.

"They said no," Hoffa said at a coalition news conference held a few blocks from the AFL-CIO convention site. "Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians."

... Some Democrats cast the breakup in apocalyptic terms. "It's the worst thing that could happen to us as a party," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist with long ties to labor.

Others welcomed the challenge to the status quo. "The approach represented by progressive reform organizations like the SEIU represents the future — they grow in size, they have fresh ideas, they understand message in the media age, they connect with the middle class," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. "These groups are on the right side of history."

from AFL-CIO Splinters, Spooking Some Democrats

I see this as a very good sign for United States progressives. We've been taken for granted by the Democrats for too long. Now they're going to have to work for our vote. This might actually save the Democratic Party. Either that, or progressives will begin to realize en masse that they have to look elsewhere to find politicians who are going to work for them.

What can you say about Judge John G. Roberts Jr.?

Actually, what can you say? He's been a judge for two years. Is he a stealth Scalia or what?

The Supreme Court that installed President Bush in 2000 may have just brought him down.

Some background on this. Some time ago, someone in the White House leaked the name of a secret agent to several reporters, one of whom printed the agent's name -- Valerie Plame -- in a newspaper essay. This was an act of vengeance against Plame's husband, a spook and former ambassador who wrote an op-ed piece critical of the administration's Iraq policy. But it was also an all-out assault on the CIA; a large number of field agents were endangered by the revelation.

The leak was illegal, and a grand jury was convened to investigate. The reporters refused to say who the source was though, arguing that the confidentiality of anonymous sources is crucial to the way the press operates. The grand jury held two reporters, one from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times, in contempt of court. The two reporters, having recently exhausted their legal options with the Supreme Court's ruling, were prepared to go to jail, until Time Magazine announced that it was going to give up the information the grand jury wants.

The source of the leak is Karl Rove, the Bush campaign mastermind.

Time Magazine has turned over documents to the Grand Jury which is investigating the Valerie Plame leak. On the McLaughlin Group Friday night, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, said that the leak came from Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

from Rove Source of Plame Leak?

So what was it that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, said that made the White House so upset in the first place? Wilson contended that the White House was twisting and fixing evidence to make it seem like they had a strong case for going to war with Iraq -- which is precisely what is shown happening in the Downing Street memos. So the grand jury, and perhaps more people in Congress, will hopefully become curious enough about why this charge would so upset the White House, that this matter of the fraudulent "case for war" will finally receive the scrutiny it deserves.

Bush hired a lawyer for his defense in the Plame leak case last year, before the election.

Profile

sophiaserpentia

December 2021

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 25th, 2025 04:08 am

The Serpent's Wisdom

Eat of this fruit; your eyes shall be opened, and you will be as Gods.

Entries tagged with partisan politics

(no subject)

moral absolutism: cutting off your nose to spite your face

dubya's happy horsesh*t

(no subject)

why the dems aren't going to filibuster

the dems' last chance to keep their liberal base

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

et tu, McCain?

neocon indictment watch

(no subject)

you gotta be f*ckin' kidding me.

(no subject)

lightning-rods rall and morford on hurricane katrina

today's letter to the Boston Globe, President Bush, and my homies in Congress

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Profile

December 2021

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags