December 22, 2009

Who is against job creation in the U.S.?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Greg in cheeseland @ 2:13 am

According to former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), “the big banks, Wall Street, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Business Roundtable, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, Corporate America, the President of the United States, Congress of the United States” are against creating jobs in the U.S. because of “money.”

According to Hollings, “the Council on Foreign Relations ought to be renamed the Council on Making Money,…financial interests organized the Business Roundtable to continue off-shore investment and profit [and] Tom Donahue and the United States Chamber have sold out to the financial interests and oppose jobs and producing in the United States.”

Hollings concludes:

The economy is in the hands of Summers, Bernanke and Geithner. Campaign contributions are in the hands of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. The poor President is smart, diligent and working his head off campaigning. But he is inexperienced and not governing, and the Congress is in a Mexican standoff over an archaic filibuster rule that reveres democracy by the minority. Of course, the media, which knows this and keeps it top secret, is owned by big business. If I don’t meet you in the breadline, my children will.

Merry Christmas!

Read more here:

December 21, 2009

It’s Her Party Now…


December 20, 2009

Lieberman the Great Compromiser

Filed under: Commentary,Opinion — Tags: , , , , , — RS Janes @ 1:58 pm

U.S. Sen. Lieberman Says He Would Have Compromised on Slavery

Cites economic costs of American Civil War

By Woody Nichols
Staff Writer
The London Daily Advocate
December 19, 2009

In an interview with the Hartford Courant newspaper to be published Monday, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the controversial independent from Connecticut who has been criticized by some Americans for delaying health care reform in that country, said that if he had been a member of the U.S. Congress during the era before the American Civil War, he would have voted to compromise with the southern states rather than risk conflict over the issue of slavery.

After stressing his “long record of accomplishment” on civil rights legislation, Sen. Lieberman said, “I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that the Civil War had a terrible impact on the economy of that time, increasing the national debt and unfairly imposing the government on our profitable textile businesses, and so it was not morally justifiable on that basis. I would have sought a compromise rather than subject our nation to that war.”

The 2000 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate added, “But I would have imposed some regulations on the slaveholders, such as insuring that the slaves were fed and clothed adequately by local standards and that slave families were kept intact when possible. I would have also guaranteed each working slave a half-hour daily lunch break.”

Sen. Lieberman concluded the interview by saying that he thought slavery would have passed away eventually “by natural processes,” although he admitted it might have taken another 50 or 60 years. “But look at the money that would have been saved if there had not been a Civil War,” he summarized.

Asked about U.S. health care reform, Sen. Lieberman offered, “I don’t believe our economy can afford health care for everyone right now without unfairly impacting our profitable insurance companies in a negative way, but someday I’m sure we’ll have a better system, perhaps by 2060 or 2070.”

© 2009 RS Janes.

December 19, 2009

Wanna play the shell game with your vote?

Filed under: Guest Comment — Tags: , , — Bob Patterson @ 3:09 pm

Now that American voters have become anesthetized to the dangers of the electronic voting machines which do not leave a paper trail, it wasn’t very surprising to read Riya Bhattacharjee’s page one story in the December 10 – 16 issue of the weekly newspaper, The Berkeley Daily Planet, informing readers that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Machines had been <a href =>OK’d for use in Alameda County</a> because for a cynical, alarmist, conspiracy theory columnist this new topic set off internal sirens and alarm bells in a major way.   Not only was Instant Runoffs (also known as ranked voting) a new concept, there were stealth indications about the possibility that “they” had found a new way to deprive Americans of their voting rights in a sneaky, underhanded, and obscure way.  Instant runoffs seemed like a major candidate for becoming “the next big thing” in the blogisphere. 

The Daily Planet story explained how the new system would give voters the chance to list candidates in a prioritized way so that the machines could anticipate any potential runoff elections and provide enough data for that expensive election result to be avoided.

With IRV people rank their selection and the machine uses the results to compute the various mathematical permutations and potential match ups of candidates in case the voting doesn’t provide a clear statistical majority winner. 

Is it possible that the machines could skew the results in favor of some predetermined winner?  Surely, advocates of the cost cutting innovation will stoutly maintain that only conspiracy nuts will worry about that and that they have engineered the system to avoid such a (theoretical) dastardly manipulation of the sacred American ritual of casting votes and expecting honest election results.

The “they” turned out to be Sequoia Voting Systems.  Aren’t they the same ones who were instrumental in producing the machinery and technology that delivered, as promised, the Ohio electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2004? 

If folks are going to be concerned about such a remote possibility is it any wonder that patriotic Republicans see Democrats as worrywart obstructionists who are only delaying the implementation of a quick easy way to cut the costs of runoff elections?

This new voting innovation can be ready for use in next year’s midterm elections but local voting officials must act quickly to implement this cost cutting new technology.  (Gee, didn’t the “act quickly” philosophy work so well with the invasion of Iraq?)

Expediency is often an integral part of a sales pitch.  You must act now!  Sale ends Sunday.  Fear, such as the possibility that during the current economic slump (Great Depression 2.0?) precious city, county, and state funds could be spent on a runoff which could have been avoided if this magical new voting machine had been approved quickly, can also be used to motivate a fast approval.

Here’s the deal:  sometime when there are a great many candidates for a particular  office, the results will not produce a clear-cut winner and the expenses of a separate subsequent runoff election must be incurred.  With ranked voting, (advocates maintain) that expense can be eliminated and save cities, counties, and or states all the money that would have been spent for a runoff election. 

As advocates of IRV see it, the Great Depression 2.0 is going on now and the nitwits who would want to delay implementing such a cost cutting innovation must be obstructionists who would accede to their greed for power and use obfuscation to hinder and delay this remarkably efficient way to speed up the process and (did I say this before?) cut costs>

(Gee, did the possible expenses involved in a recount prevent Norm Coleman from demanding one?)

Is it possible that the IRV machines could award a win, when one Republican gets all his party votes and the Democratic vote is divided up among several candidates, to someone who didn’t get a majority of all the votes?  At this point Republican advocates of this remarkable innovation might resort to muttering the old W. C. Field’s line:  “Go away, boy, ya bother me!” 

If the IRV system is implemented quickly, could it then be used to cut down on the exorbitant costs to both parties (and campaign donors) for holding long primary campaigns to earn their parties Presidential candidacy?  Once IRV is implemented on a large national level; would it be too much to then sell the suckers (whoops, that word should be voters) to use the cost saving method for a National election? 

People have already become complacent about election results that contradict extensive and well done polls that predicted different results.  What’s not to like about the possibility that such technology could be in place by 2012?  Just imagine an upset victory by Jeb and the restoration of the Bush dynasty.  Wouldn’t the Democrats feel more comfortable bitching about a Bush in the White House than they would if they had four more years of complaining about disappointments delivered a fellow Democrat?

This columnist sent a news tip about this heretofore unheard of topic to some online sites.  Neither the one devoted to the downside of electronic voting nor another one detailing  the misdeeds by liars and crooks used the tip, as far as we could ascertain.  They didn’t even send back a suggestion that a chill pill might be advisable.  

Some groups are challenging this cost cutting way of speeding up the voting process. 

Does this new method of eliminating the costly runoffs produce a paper trail?  Who knows; who cares?

“How many votes did you get?  Was it five or six?  You know in all the excitement, I kinda lost track.  Now, you have to ask yourself another question:  ‘Do I feel lucky?’  . . . Well, do ya, Democrats?”

Could the IRV machines produce inaccurate results?  The various vague answers bring to mind the old H. G. Robinson line:  “You’ll take it and like it.  See?”  Just think of all the great columns that could be written if IRV helps put Jeb in the White House.  So if you don’t like IRV; shut up, sit down, or go read a news update about Tiger Woods. 

Philadelphia native W. C. Fields has said:  “Start every day off with a smile and get it over with.”

Now, the disk jockey will play the Stones’ Street Fightin’ Man.  It’s time for us to go do some <a href =>Zappadan</a> gift shopping.  Have a “Don’t Eat Yellow Snow” type week.

The Tattlesnake – The Political Good, Bad and Ugly Edition

Good: Your husband has decided to get more involved in
local politics.
Bad: He’s running for congress as a conservative Republican.
Ugly: He’s Karl Rove.

Good: Your wife just got a great-paying job.
Bad: She’s on Fox News.
Ugly: After fifteen years of marriage, you never knew she was a wingnut.

Good: Your 22-year-old daughter just announced she’s marrying the man of her dreams.
Bad: He’s old enough to be her grandfather.
Ugly: He’s Mitch McConnell.

Good: Your 21-year-old son’s new book is about to be published.
Bad: It’s a biography of George W. Bush.
Ugly: He’s started talking like him.

Good: Your wife buys a new hat for her birthday.
Bad: It has teabags hanging off the brim.
Ugly: They’ve all been used.

Good: The recently discovered Bush emails prove conclusively that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al, committed high crimes while in office.
Bad: Holder’s Justice Department refuses to prosecute them.
Ugly: Obama excuses them by saying, “Anyone could make a mistake.”

Good: You laugh at an Andy Borowitz satire about Glenn Beck ‘editing’ and releasing an ‘abridged’ version of “1984″ wherein Big Brother’s name is replaced by Obama’s.
Bad: Turns out it’s not an Andy Borowitz satire.
Ugly: The MSM quote from the book as if it were George Orwell’s original version.

Good: Your daughter just got a new job.
Bad: She’s working for Bill O’Reilly.
Ugly: She just bought a case of loofahs.

Good: Your son just got a new job.
Bad: He’s working for FreedomWorks.
Ugly: He’s Dick Armey’s ‘butt boy.’

Good: You just got a tenured job at a university.
Bad: You’re teaching ‘Creation Science.’
Ugly: At Messiah College.

Good: The ideas of Tom Paine are being discussed on TV.
Bad: By Glenn Beck on Fox News.
Ugly: Beck has made liberal agnostic Paine into a far-right Christian fanatic just like himself.

Good: Your son has been signed to star in a major motion picture.
Bad: It’s “The Life of Rush Limbaugh.”
Ugly: He was hired due to his strong resemblance to the subject.

Good: You’ve accepted a $50,000 speaking gig.
Bad: At the next CPAC convention.
Ugly: Your topic is “The Incredible Genius of Sarah Palin.”

Good: You’re not feeling well and your friend says he will find you a good doctor.
Bad: You’re flat broke.
Ugly: Your friend is Joe Lieberman.

© 2009 RS Janes.

December 18, 2009

Harry Reid’s Chamber of Horrors


December 17, 2009

Ye Olde Scribe Presents: A Big Ziggy Heil to Our New Commander in Chef

Filed under: Commentary — Ye Olde Scribe @ 2:40 pm

“‘Chef’ says, ‘Soon coming to a non-Jewish deli near you!’”


The Health Care Grapes of Graft


Russ Feingold: Obama got the health care bill he wanted

Filed under: Uncategorized — Greg in cheeseland @ 3:01 am

According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, the ultimate responsibility for a Senate health care bill without a public option or Medicare expansion lies with the Obama administration.

Many progressives have painted the Obama administration as powerless to stand up to the will of Congress, blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for single-handedly forcing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to drop the public option and Medicare expansion from the bill. It may not be realistic, however, to believe that one Senator has that much power and influence. On the other hand, it may be more practical to believe that the White House, with Presidential directives, veto and other means does have the power to force or mold legislation.

Russ Feingold probably knew exactly that when he said, according to The Hill:

It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise…[because] President Barack Obama…could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation. This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.

If one looks closely at the twists and turns in the health care debate over the past few months, there is much evidence to support Feingold’s assertion.

Read more here:

December 16, 2009

Kill the health care bill, time for reconciliation

Filed under: Uncategorized — Greg in cheeseland @ 2:17 am

When the word reconciliation and health care bill are used in the same phrase, most may think compromise.

Reconciliation, however, is a little-talked about, but well-known and perfectly legal Senate process that can be used to pass any bill with 51 votes rather than the 60 votes Democrats have been saying is necessary.

Reconciliation can be used to pass bills if they are justified in terms of reconciling the budget – that is, if the bill can be justified in terms of changing current law in order to bring revenue, spending, and debt-limit levels into conformity with the policies of the annual budget resolution.

Howard Dean, former Gov. of Vermont and former DNC chairman, told political reporter Bob Kinzel today on Vermont Public Radio that the removal of the Medicare buy-in means the Senate health care bill is no longer worth supporting. “This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate.” According to Greg Sargent at The Plum Line, Dean also said, “honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

The only real question is, will the Senate Democrats have enough courage to do that? If recent developments are any indication, probably not. The bottom line at this point may be: Either Democrats use their power now, or lose it in 2010. Oh and…reconciliation would be a fitting way to kick Joe Lieberman to the curb.

Read more here:

December 15, 2009

Robert Parry on Lieberdouche: Protecting Israel?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Greg in cheeseland @ 9:46 pm

I know Bart doesn’t care too much for Robert Parry anymore, but Parry may have hit the nail on the head with this one. Malloy read this in its entirety on his show tonight and it makes sense. It’s definitely worth a read and consideration.

Here’s the link:

And full text:

Is Joe Lieberman Protecting Israel?
By Robert Parry

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s latest threat to scuttle health-care reform – vowing to join a Republican filibuster to block an over-55 buy-in to Medicare, a proposal that he has long championed – is raising questions about his motives. But no one is mentioning the unmentionable, the cause that has come to define Lieberman’s career: Israel.

Is it possible that Lieberman’s obstructionist behavior doesn’t relate to Connecticut’s insurance industry or to his political ego – the two most cited explanations – but rather to a calculation that he can use his leverage on health care to limit the pressure that President Barack Obama can put on Israel to make concessions on a Mideast peace plan?

After all, the more common explanations of Lieberman’s behavior have holes in their logic.

While it is true that Lieberman’s constituent Hartford-based insurance companies fear any government intrusion in their industry, the actual proposals for the Medicare buy-in or the tightly constrained “public option” actually would benefit the industry in the near term.

Those uninsured Americans 55 to 64 are customers whom the insurance industry doesn’t want. They are the part of the uninsured population that is most likely to need medical care, which is why private insurers have driven up the rates so high that these people can’t afford to buy health insurance.

Letting these desperate Americans buy into Medicare wouldn’t cost the health insurance industry much of anything – and it would reduce the moral (and PR) crisis that has led so many Americans to view private insurers as vultures preying on the most vulnerable.

In his past position in favor of the Medicare buy-in, Lieberman has recognized this reality, noting that this over-55 group faces a particular crisis because they have “retired early or unfortunately have been laid off early” and can’t afford health insurance.

Though Lieberman has long been a major recipient of health insurance industry backing, that has never before prevented him from favoring this Medicare buy-in. Only now does Lieberman say that he would join a Republican filibuster to kill the entire bill if his earlier proposal is included.

So, Senate Democratic leaders have reportedly agreed to drop the buy-in provision to appease Lieberman even though such a watered-down Senate bill may complicate reconciliation with a more liberal House bill and is infuriating the Democratic base.

Killing the Public Option

Similarly, Lieberman has protested any inclusion of a government-run insurance option even if it is only triggered by the failure of private insurers to offer affordable alternatives or if it is so tightly constrained that it would attract only a few million customers, again drawn primarily from the ranks of Americans most in need of medical care.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about six million people would sign up for the House version of the public option whose rates would likely exceed those of private plans because the sick would gravitate to the government plan. The current Senate version, with a state-by-state opt-out provision, would draw even fewer customers, the CBO said.

Yet either version actually helps the health insurance industry by siphoning off sick people and thus allowing the industry to corner the market on healthier customers, where the biggest profits lie.

So, Lieberman may not be serving the industry’s best interests by jeopardizing passage of a health reform bill. Not only does the industry stand to pick up tens of millions of new customers who will be compelled to buy insurance – and sometimes with government subsidies – but a decent reform bill also blunts demands for more radical changes.

If Americans grow more furious with the current system – its rising costs and its failure to cover nearly 50 million people – voters might press for a single-payer approach which could eliminate private insurers altogether.

For these reasons, the Lieberman-is-in-the-pocket-of-the-insurance-lobby explanation isn’t entirely convincing.

Another hypothesis is that Lieberman’s behavior on health reform reflects his huge political ego and makes sense if he intends to seek re-election in 2012 as a “centrist” Republican.

However, that political positioning argument doesn’t hold much water either. If Lieberman is blamed for sabotaging health-care reform, he will solidify Democratic hatred of him, and many Republicans will still distrust his liberal positions on social issues like abortion.

I have a Democratic family member from Connecticut who helped launch Lieberman’s political career and who now considers that one of the biggest mistakes of her life. Lieberman might have softened that resentment by helping to pass a strong health-reform law, but his current position only energizes those voters determined to remove him from the Senate.

The Israel Factor

Which brings us to Israel, which arguably has become Lieberman’s most treasured priority in his political life.

Mark Vogel, chairman of the pro-Israel National Action Committee, once said, “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”

It was Lieberman’s embrace of neoconservative ideology and his aggressive support for wars against Israel’s Muslim enemies, the likes of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, that led Connecticut Democrats to deny Lieberman the Senate nomination in 2006 and prompted his successful run as an Independent.

Partly because Obama opposed the Iraq War, Lieberman went on the stump for Republican John McCain in 2008, even questioning Obama’s patriotism.

Standing with McCain in August 2008, Lieberman called the election a choice “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.’

Since the start of Obama’s presidency, Israel’s hawkish Likud government has made no secret of its concern that Obama might pressure it into making territorial and other concessions to the Palestinians and Syria to secure a Mideast peace agreement.

In Washington, the still-influential neocons also have been demanding that Obama continue Bush’s belligerent policies and side with Israel in a hard-line approach to Iran.

In that sense, Lieberman and the neocons have much in common with Republicans, such as Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, who declared in July that “If we’re able to stop Obama on this [health reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

A broken Obama could be easier to manipulate regarding Mideast peace talks and Iran.

In recent months, Washington’s neocons hectored Obama about escalating the war in Afghanistan and crowed about their success when Obama agreed recently to dispatch 30,000 more troops.

Now, the neocons see their chance to complete Obama’s transformation into a more articulate version of George W. Bush, making Obama a President who can sell their pro-war positions with much more polish and class.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on Dec. 10 drew high marks from neocons as he minimized the bloody excesses of post-World War II U.S. foreign policy behind the five-word phrase “whatever mistakes we have made” and asserted the overarching morality of U.S. military interventions.

“The shift in rhetoric at Oslo was striking,” observed neocon theorist Robert Kagan in a Washington Post op-ed on Dec. 13. “Gone was the vaguely left-revisionist language that flavored earlier speeches, highlighting the low points of American global leadership — the coups and ill-considered wars — and low-balling the highlights, such as the Cold War triumph.”

If Lieberman succeeds in sinking Obama’s chief domestic priority – health care reform – or waters it down so much that it alienates Obama from his liberal base, Obama may find himself essentially the captive of the neocons, needing their blessing to maintain any political viability in Washington.

Lieberman has been careful not to connect his disruptive behavior on health-care reform to his support for Israel, but there can be little doubt that a chastened Obama, either defeated on health care or forced to sign a bill that liberals will view as a betrayal, will have much less political capital to expend in applying pressure on Israel.

A hobbled Obama won’t be able to push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt expansion of West Bank settlements or to take other steps that might lead to a Palestinian state. Obama also could be pushed around himself if Israel – itself an undeclared nuclear power – decides to launch airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Israel explanation for Lieberman’s behavior on health-care reform is the one that seems to make the most sense.

A Tale Told By More Than One Idiot


“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

– William Shakespeare, “Macbeth,” Act 5, Scene 5.

Senate drops public option, Medicare buy-in from health bill

Filed under: Uncategorized — Greg in cheeseland @ 2:31 am

Senate Democrats have ceded two key components of President Obama’s health care reform proposals: The proposed Medicare buy-in for those ages 55-64 and a public option.

These components of the bill were apparently dropped in a cave-in to Republicans, centrist Democrats, and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Sen. Lieberman, a crucial vote if the bill is to garner 60 votes, threatened to join Republicans in a filibuster of the bill if it includes either the Medicare buy-in or a public option. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Lieberman said that in order to get 60 votes in the Senate, “You got to take out the Medicare buy-in. You got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act.” According to The New York Times, “Mr. Lieberman is also insisting that he will not vote for a fallback public option that would create a government-run program if the legislation otherwise fails to accomplish its goals. The Class Act is a reference to a proposed long-term care insurance program that was included in the bill.” Lieberman’s other condition is eliminating a government insurance program focused on home health care for the disabled.

Some Senate Democrats attempted to rationalize the concessions by suggesting that the passage of any bill is better than no bill at all.

It is unclear exactly what Democrats are referring to that will remain in the bill constituting significant health care reform besides a ban of insurance companies denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The bill would include mandatory private sector insurance, which would be a profit windfall for big insurance and pharmaceutical companies on the backs of millions of the poorest Americans who currently cannot afford coverage.

Any bill that might pass Congress at this point will be a flawed compromise, one that will deeply disappoint the Democratic base-and one that will leave unaddressed major flaws in the health system. Perhaps no bill at all may be a better choice at this point.

Read more here:

December 14, 2009

The Tattlesnake – A Stake Deep in the Heart of GOP Texas Edition

Judging by this, Lone Star state Republicans may have much to fear in the future.

I’ve made plenty of fun of Texas and that breed of Texan that keeps electing crooks and nitwits like Tom DeLay and Junior-clone Rick Perry against their own best interests, but it seems things have gotten bad enough down there that even Houston, the nexus of Bush Oil Country, has elected a lesbian Democrat, former City Controller Annise Parker, as Mayor rather than face a corrupt and/or dumb Republican. (Albeit that Houston has been trending Dem for some years and the last mayor was a Democrat.) Although Parker has some past ties to the energy industry, her most recent non-political gig was running a bookstore and she is regarded as fairly liberal, at least by Texas standards.

It’s no secret the GOP has raped the state from one end to the other, giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations while cutting social safety-net programs to the bone, eviscerating the educational system, and putting workers at the mercy of employers – it was the neocon corporatist blueprint for what King Junior tried to do in Washington, but didn’t quite succeed at entirely. Now that the economy has gone all to hell, fed-up Texans are worse off than most of the nation, and they have no one to blame but the laissez-faire policies of the Republican Party.

Sure, the voting machines have been rigged and districts redrawn to keep the GOP in perpetual power, but even that may not be enough to underwrite the Republican Party’s future in Texas.

The Tattler’s prediction: Within ten years all the major state offices will be held by Democrats, as well as the two US Senate seats. Texas was, at one time, a populist state; I think it will be returning to those roots – who knows, maybe the great Jim Hightower will end up in office again, if he can stomach campaigning one more time.

Houston biggest US city to elect openly gay mayor

Monica Rhor, AP Writer
December 13, 2009

HOUSTON – Houston became the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor, with voters handing a solid victory to City Controller Annise Parker after a hotly contested runoff. [...]

Parker, 53, has never made a secret or an issue of her sexual orientation. But it became the focus of the race after anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups endorsed Locke and sent out mailers condemning Parker’s “homosexual behavior.”

Read the rest here.

“Anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups” couldn’t defeat an openly gay woman in TEXAS?! Oh, yes, the doom come soon for the GOP.

© 2009 RS Janes.

December 13, 2009

Astroturfers Fight Creeping Socialism


December 12, 2009

The Teabaggers’ Tainted GOP Love


« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress