A Win-Win for the Progressive Block

by: tremayne

Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 16:00


There's lots of worry on the Internets today over a report that the Obama administration will ditch the public option. But I would like to argue that for the progressive block in the House of Representatives it will be a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing.Why?

Win Scenario 1

Let's say, despite reports, that Obama decides to embrace the public option. This is an obvious win for the progressive block and the Democratic party as a whole. Progressives will have flexed muscle and won. Win. People who currently can't afford health care will eventually be able to do so. Win. The activist base of the party (which I would argue is quite large, not just a fringe) would be super enthusiastic and would likely go "all in" on donating and working for the party during the 2010 cycle. Win. Shore up the large Democratic base and Obama's approval numbers will also go back up. Win.

Win Scenario 2

The Obama team tries to lead from the middle and kills the public option in the Senate. The progressive block in the House responds by voting "no" on the resulting crappy health reform measure and the bill is defeated. What's good about this? While obviously not as good as win scenario 1 above, there are benefits to this:

a) In all future legislative fights, the progressive block will have to be bargained with and accomodated. There are more than 3 years left of President Obama's first term and, despite the current mood, a potential 4 years of his second term. That's a lot of bills the progrssive block will be able to mold if they are seen as potential bill killers. If they fold, they'll have no leverage in future fights. None.

b) Health care reform will not be dead if the first bill dies. Just like it won't be dead if Obama decided to veto the first bill. Democrats will still have large majorities in both chambers and can try again. The second time they will have no choice but to accomodate the progressive block.

c) Mainstream Democratic voters are just starting to engage on this issue and if the first bill is defeated may voice their displeasure loud enough for Representatives and Senators to really hear them.

Now, faced with a progressive block that will gain power and influence with either of the outcomes above, what will the Obama team do? My opinion: they really need a bill passed. If the progressive block sticks to their commitment on the public option the White House will have to bend to their will. As Chris has documented there are already enough votes to pass health care reform with a public option if Obama wants to.

The only "lose" secenario for the progressive block: cave in to Rahm Emanuel's scare tactics (which could be intense and convincing) and agree to some kind of crappy compromise. That's just a win for the insurance companies and a loss for any future demands progressives want to make on any future issue.

tremayne :: A Win-Win for the Progressive Block

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Win-Win for the Progressive Block | 68 comments
I agree (4.00 / 2)
Scenario 2 has always scared me, but the more I think about the more I approve.  Obama has bet too much on getting some major health reform passing to not try a second time.  The same goes for almost all of the Democrats involved.

My expectation is 1.5, though.  Obama stays neutral on the public option but we get it via congress anyway.

yes (4.00 / 1)
"1.5" is possible. I thought the whole purpose of his upcoming speech was to provide clarity and direction. But if anyone could try to accomplish that with the "1.5" path it would be Obama (or Bill Clinton).
[ Parent ]
You're assuming... (0.00 / 0)
.
A. The White House actually gives a damn about what's in the healthcare bill.

B. The "Progressive Bloc" exists and can hold together, which your scenario suggests the White House does not believe.

C. We can ever accomplish anything without first getting corporate money, influence & political whores out of the system.

D. That the best scenario is not complete failure of the whole healthcare initiative, followed by righteous public anger that sweeps corporate Repukelickin's and Blue Dogs out of power in NOV 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016...

E. We lack the organization and the drive to do such sweeping, of which, to the contrary, there is evidence that Yes, We Can.

If you're not wrong about "E," we're screwed.
.

Regarding Scenario 2b (4.00 / 3)
I'm very skeptical that health care gets a do over within the next decade, let alone in this congress, if the bill fails.  Politicians just aren't that given to taking big risks.

But this suggest why a strong progressive "block" would effectively guarantee Scenario 1. More "moderate" or conservadems won't reject reform en masse when the viability of the party depends on it and their electoral fortunes hinge on Obama's success.  

question for those with long memories: (4.00 / 2)
Has a big bill ever failed and/or been vetoed and then a "do over" bill passes and becomes law (not counting veto overrides)? Seems to me it has and the "this is it" story is being oversold.
[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
The Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill passed congress with overwhelming numbers after Clinton's helath care efforts failed.  It was supposed to end the exclusion of pre-existing conditions...

Yeah, that worked craptastically...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
The bailout bill is a recent example (0.00 / 0)
but that was corporate welfare, a well-designed health care bill is the exact opposite.

I can't think of any attempt to regulate in a meaningful way 5% of our economy that has met with failure and got a do-over.    

[ Parent ]
There is no do-over (4.00 / 1)
This is our one bite at the apple.  The 2010 elections are going to wreck us and we will be left with either tiny useless majorities, or pathetic minorities.  A Republican Congress is not going to touch healthcare.  If healthcare fails this time, Democrats will cower in fear about bringing it up ever again.  
that's the story being told by the White House (4.00 / 2)
and I don't buy it. Obama has the most to lose if no bill passes ever. That puts the White House in the weakest bargaining position with the progressive block.
[ Parent ]
It's only the weakest position (4.00 / 1)
if the progressive block stays strong.

And as you know, these bills originate in Congress - forget about healthcare coming up again anytime soon if it fails now.

[ Parent ]
I am now unsure of what you are advocting. (4.00 / 1)
The only thing to advocate is to get the progressive caucus' back, and vow to elect them and re-elect them. And thats just for starters.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I'm just saying that the progressives can't cave here (4.00 / 1)
if they're to be taken seriously.  The White House is only weakest against the progressive to the extent that the progressive stay strong and solid behind their principles.  

Of course we need to elect and re-elect people who share and fight for the ideas and policies that the progressive caucus stands for.  

[ Parent ]
Which is why Rahm knows... (0.00 / 0)
...the progressive bloc(k) will cave... Even without the public option, there are significant improvements for sick people in this bill... How can they turn that away when they know there is no chance for real reform ever again?

It's definitely a tough call for them...  I don't think I would be very happy with my rep if blocking the bill meant that I still had no access to health care on my own... The people screaming all or nothing are the healthy.  They can afford to be left with nothing.  The sick cannot.  The best scenarion we can hope for is for the block to squeeze every concession from the blue dogs they can to get the best bill possible...

...and the only way to do that is to threaten to derail the whole bill and hold fast for as long as possible.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I am sorry you feel this way lord_mike (0.00 / 0)
You are going to be disappointed by the upcoming elections, the upcoming pile up of crises. The world will be in sad fu07ing shape if the progressive caucus folds.

There are a whole lot of deep problems left to solve, and this one may even be the easiest to do.

If the progressive caucus folds, we haven't got a hope in hell of doing even the most rudimentary job on global warming, we havent even the slightest chance of tackling the economy and the banks, we havent even the slightest chance of dealing with the deepening crisis in foreign policy and war.

This is a real struggle to bring Democracy back to America. This is just the first task. The alternative is unacceptable.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I don't want the progressive block to cave.... (0.00 / 0)
...but, I also don't want to be left with nothing... 'cos even sub-adequate reforms would prevent many people from dying.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
That people being yours truly... and many on this board... (0.00 / 0)
...who have no access to health care on their own...  Even Romneycare gives people a chance, as limited as it is...

I want the progressive caucus to stand strong... and I'm closing my eyes and praying that they win 'cos if they don't... it will be a very bad for many, many people...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
You cant just wish, you have steel your back. (4.00 / 3)
You have to push and shove and risk. You have to know that strength comes from willing to face this shit.

WE MIGHT NOT WIN!

WE WILL NOT WIN IF WE DONT STAND FIRM.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
It's like watching any game which requires points to win and not just defense (0.00 / 0)
You can't win if you don't shoot and try to score even if your defense sparkles
[ Parent ]
Evidence? (0.00 / 0)
What, pray tell, shall cause the issue of a broken healthcare system evaporate should no bill be passed?

Is the need for reform an illusion - like "WMD stockpiles" - or is it a real issue?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
That's what we said in 1994... (0.00 / 0)
And look how long it took to try again.... no one will ever attempt it again considering what a political hit they have taken....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
I don't think the issue was as urgent in '94 (0.00 / 0)
Even the GOPper Gov and President-wannabe that runs my state (MN)has been telling us for years that at the current rate of increase, healthcare and insurance costs are going to swamp the entire state budget in the not too distant future.

Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall such a general consensus that the issue was critical in the early 1990's.

That's why I ask - what will make the issue evaporate? Or, being a paranoid sort, I ask: is it possible that the issue is an illusion?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The issue will not evaporate (4.00 / 1)
for the people suffering under the current system.

It will evaporate for the people in DC. They live in a bubble. They already have insurance, and don't know and/or don't care what normal people are going through. All they care about is politics, and if health care goes down, they're not going to risk trying again and failing again. At that point the "moderates" will probably be terrified and getting them to do anything will be impossible.

And unfortunately, it's this second group who is in charge.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps, rabbit, perhaps (4.00 / 1)
The same reasoning applies to a bad bill. Moreso.

If a bill is signed that does not relieve the suffering under the current system, the bubble will be a bit thicker. Thicker because, after all, we just reformed healthcare and its time to focus on something else.

Imagine a band-aid made out of the material in H. Potter's cloak of invisibility. That's what a bad bill will be.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
that's a round-about argument for this in 2010: (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with that. (4.00 / 2)
The chances for taking a second shot at healthcare are better if the bill is defeated than if something passes. But that doesn't mean that they're good. It's miniscule versus basically none, and I don't think the difference is meaningful.

(Though, upon second thought, if they pass a mediocre bill which is at least good enough to be regarded as a good thing by the public and a political win by DC, maybe they'll have enough political capital and courage left to pass some smaller bills improving upon it later. I dunno.)

Anyways, I'm not saying passing a mediocre-but-still-on-net-positive bill is the right thing to do (if the options come down to passing it or killing it); I'm saying that the question isn't an easy one. I highly doubt we'll get a freebie second shot, either way. It's mediocre-but-still-on-net-positive healthcare bill on the one hand, versus no healthcare bill but greater Progressive influence but within a worse political environment for Democrats overall, on the other hand.

(And, to clarify the clarification, if the bill is on net a negative, then obviously the right play is to kill it.)

[ Parent ]
The issue will evaporate (4.00 / 1)
Democrats will be scared to death to even touch the issue again if they lose on it this time.  Most people have insurance and majority almost always rules.  
[ Parent ]
If the majority rules (4.00 / 1)
then we have a government plan:
"Most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector."

NYT

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
A win for Rahm is (4.00 / 4)
Progressive caucus caves and the left and labor leaves the Democratic Party.

And then the anti war demonstrations about Afganistan start up with massive support and we see 1968 where the Democrats immolate over a war.  

Dems lose seats in 2010 and Obama loses in 2012.

Hmmm.  Maybe that's not a win after all.

The only way for Obama to win is not to play thermonuclear war with the left.  

Thank you Joshua, I'd like to play a game of eleven dimensional chess please. (4.00 / 2)
And a four to you sir.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Obama deserves to lose (0.00 / 0)
If he cant get a public option through.  
[ Parent ]
It is an odd thing to say. Who cares what Obama deserves or doent. (4.00 / 2)
I dont give a flying leap so long as he sits there signing bills the progressive caucus sends him.

Did you want someone else to run in 2012? Did you want soemone else to win?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
The Progessive caucus is powerless (0.00 / 0)
They dont make up a majority in either the House or the Senate.  Conservative Democrats will kill anything the progressive caucus supports.  I really dont care who wins in 2012.  If a Republican wins, we can simply use the time to regroup and rebuild.  
[ Parent ]
illogical (4.00 / 2)
how can progressives be "powerless" because they don't make up a majority when Conservative Democrats can "kill anything" while also not being a majority. Do you think the Conservative Republicans were powerless when the GOP controlled congress? On the contrary, the conservative Republicans, despite representing a minority of the full Congress, exerted out-sized influence.
[ Parent ]
Yeah thanks, you are now officially in the opposition (4.00 / 1)
I don't care what your politics are. Though I assume either nader or freeper

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
This will happen anyway: (4.00 / 3)
And then the anti war demonstrations about Afganistan start up with massive support and we see 1968 where the Democrats immolate over a war.  

But if Mr. Obama would stand with the left-wing of the party on the issue of healthcare, he just might be able to gain a little breathing room on the war issue because folks would see him as more of an ally, than an opponent.

Not that the anti-war protests won't happen, but the ferocity will be dialed back. More importantly: when he has to start explaining why his administration has an odor of neo-con about it, he may find the left a bit more willing to listen if he doesn't throw us away on healthcare.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
the "IF" in (4.00 / 1)
If the progressive block sticks to their commitment on the public option
Can probably be removed if WE make a pledge, to work ONLY for those democrats who are for a public option.
The only "lose" secenario for the progressive block (to) cave (0.00 / 0)
100%

Another scorchingly good front page article.

This is great stuff thanks all, tremayne of course, Chris and Adam and Paul.

(pardon any error of oversight)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Sometimes (4.00 / 2)
the obvious needs to be restated.

caving = losing, whodathunkit?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I wasnt disagreeing I was restating the main point for emphasis. (0.00 / 0)
It was a copy and paste, because I thought, think, its the main thing we all have to remember.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
me too.

Sorry if it came across as rude.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
lol lord no, Im just mending fences. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
The big IF is whether the progressives in congress will cave. (4.00 / 1)
Which we've known from day one would be weakest link.

Jeff Wegerson
poof (4.00 / 2)
They are the heroes of congress, stnding on the barricade with our support. Its the only defense for the public option, so yeah, but its the front line.

Go get on the line.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Remember the Public Option is already a compromise (4.00 / 3)
From the more efficient and more ethical Medicare for All solution. If we have to compromise from our compromises we aren't going to get anything good for the country.

If this bill fails, let's just beat the drums for Medicare for All. Redos aren't normal, but the exploding cost of health care makes this an exception. The government will have to do something. We can use the opportunity to plant "Medicare for All" into the public consciousness.

If the insurance companies start to see Medicare for All as a real possibility, they'll come crawling on their hands and knees for a delayed public option, instead of fighting it.

I agree. The progressive caucus adds one line to the pledge. (4.00 / 2)
This pledge is only good for this session of congress.

If we have to vote down your backstabbing bill, the next pledge is for single payer.

Then we start electing single payer democrats.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
if there is no health care bill then (4.00 / 1)
Dems lose big AGAIN in 2010 and majorities are gone or greatly diminished.  Drawing a line in the sand over public option is suicide.
You have to hold the line for as long as possible... (4.00 / 1)
...and if you do it right, you can win.  Unions do this all the time...  in the meantime, I'm scared as hell that we are going to lose the whole thing...  I hope it works out in the end...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Hold the fort! (4.00 / 1)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
We've lost the whole thing (4.00 / 1)
nine times before. Really, as much as it would suck...universal health care has failed nine times as far as I could count. Statistically speaking, we're favored to fail again no matter what we do...but we keep fighting anyway.

[ Parent ]
wrong (4.00 / 3)
1. Any health care bill, good or crappy, will have almost exclusive Democratic votes (maybe a few Republicans). The public will be told by Republicans how bad the new law will be regardless of what's in it. Might as well pass a bill that's good if you pass one at all.

2. A crappy bill will depress activist donations and volunteering which have been the cornerstones of success in 2006 and 2008. You want bad results in 2010 pass a crappy bill.

3. Pass no bill and the base will actually be energized and ready to fight FOR progressive candidates and AGAINST the Republicans who worked hard to kill health care reform (most of them). Congressional candidates are better off in 2010 with a motivated base even if that comes at the price of a delayed (but good) health care law.

[ Parent ]
How did that work in 1994? (0.00 / 0)
Democrats had no bill and lost huge in 1994 and were shut out of a majority for a decade.  
[ Parent ]
The dynamics are different today (0.00 / 0)
Health care reform is recognized as a critical issue to solve.

The post-Bush GOP is less likely to be able to garner much trust from the voters. (That's why Holder should not be restrained).



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The dynamics are identical (4.00 / 1)
The GOP is pulling into a tie with us on the generic ballot and is likely to win both Virginia and New Jersey governorships from us in two months.  
[ Parent ]
What will make the issue evaporate? (0.00 / 0)
If no bill is passed, why would the issue of healthcare reform go away?

If it does not go away, and the bill failed because it was not progressive enough, what will be the excuse offered to keep single payer off the table in the next round?

Do you not believe that the status quo is unsustainable?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Let me conclude (0.00 / 0)
Therefore: if you don't want single payer - your best bet is to compromise (nicer word than "cave") and provide a robust public choice that will act as a leverage to bring costs into line.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
There will be no "next round" for many years (4.00 / 1)
With Republicans firmly in control of Congress.  
[ Parent ]
2009 is not 1994 (4.00 / 2)
Clinton never had the mandate Obama did. He won 43% of the vote and didn't have the big margins in Congress. Not as many people identified as Dem to begin with. Clinton was pushing issues, in many cases, before there was widespread public support for them...for example gays in the military. There are other differences as well.  
[ Parent ]
Remarkably similar (0.00 / 0)
House: 258 in 1992; 257 in 2008
Senate: 57 in 1992; 59 in 2008 (60 now)
Electoral Vote: 1992, 370; 2008, 365
Popular vote (President): 1992, +5.6%; 2008, +7.2%

Clinton has the edge in two categories; Obama has the edge in two categories.  Obama's main advantage is that liberals/progressives have the Speaker of the House.  I dare say, Obama has not relied on the Progressives but has catered excessively to the Blue Dogs. And built them up.

[ Parent ]
Don't agree. (0.00 / 0)
Obama and Democrats of both Chambers had popular vote majorities.  None of that was true in 1992.  In fact, House Dems lost ground in 1992.  

Aside from all the other demographic differences, and many value shifts from the GSS, the popular vote totals do indicate a much stronger mandate in 2008.

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
Congress was more similar than I recalled. The Presidential results are difficult to compare given the Perot factor. Hard to argue Clinton's victory, with 43%, gave him a huge mandate for progressive policies....he tried though, at least in that first year.
[ Parent ]
Wrong (4.00 / 5)
Yes, passing nothing will hurt the Dems in 2010. But a bad health care reform bill will haunt the left for decades. Just as an example, how do you think all those 18-29 year old voters who supported the Democrats by 30-40 point margins are going to feel if all they get is a mandate to buy private insurance? That's the kind of thing that could send an entire generation of voters over to the Republicans.

Better to kill it if the bill sucks. The Progressive Block needs to stand firm.

[ Parent ]
The Progressives (0.00 / 0)
Does the Progressive block have a leader or "ramrod" who speaks for the group and can stand up to Rahm? Or are all members free lancers and Rahm can pick them off one by one?  In other words, are they disciplined?  I bet not.

so far Pelosi has been pretty strong (4.00 / 2)
has consistently said "I cannot pass a bill without a public option." And, "I have the votes to pass a bill with the public option." She had made it quite clear to the White House I think and that's why Rahm is so pissed.
[ Parent ]
The sad irony (4.00 / 1)
is that the Progressives actually have a conscience, want to help people, and don't just care about power, and it is precisely this reason why they are politically weaker.

The calculus for them isn't "oh, well if we kill it, we'll gain power, we'll be a force to reckoned with - win-win!". They actually want to get something done. For them, the calculus also includes "if we block it, more people will die and/or go bankrupt than if we don't". For people with a conscience, that sort of thing weighs heavily. And the problem isn't this; the problem is that the the other side knows it.

So for "Win Scenario 2", the Progressives have to weigh the amount of good a mediocre healthcare bill could do against the amount of good they could accomplish if they kill the bill and use the influence they gain to improve other legislation later. So it's not as clear-cut. And there's also the tendency for people to take what they can get rather than gambling on what they might be able to get in the future.

(So, according to this theory, if the bill really is nothing but an industry giveaway which doesn't actually help people or even hurts them, I'd expect the Progressives to vote against it; but if it's an industry giveaway which also helps people, I really don't know.)

The split the baby problem (4.00 / 1)
Yep.  And it will always be this way.  Progressives will never be in favor of splitting the baby.  Note that Chris in (2) assumes we don't split the baby, even if we block health care reform.  For the plan to succeed, the Progressive Block needs to believe this is true.
[ Parent ]
It's going to be win-win for them anyway (4.00 / 2)
Most of the Progressives represent fairly safe blue districts. Even if 2010 becomes a wave election for the GOP, very few progressives will lose re-election.

The Blue Dogs who represent red districts could potentially be decimated, teaching them all a lesson not to obstruct their own party's progressive legislation, leaving the progressives with a much larger profile in the government.

Another lose scenario (0.00 / 0)
White House comes out for public option, it passes the House, but dies in the Senate and the whole thing dies.

and progressives and the President are left trying to defend why they didn't compromise on healthcare reform, even if it would be worse.

I do believe a push would get the public option through the House, where Democrats have 2010 to be concerned with, I do not think it would in the Senate where Democrats are up every six years. Pretty much every Democrat up for reelection in 2010 except Lincoln supports it. the problem are the Senators not up until 2012 on; Baucus, Conrad, etc.

Trying to defend (0.00 / 0)
killing a plan that forces people to buy crap insurance without giving them a chance at at public option -- I'll take that problem. No one likes that plan except Blue Dogs, the insurance syndicate and, apparently, Obama.


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
A Win-Win for the Progressive Block | 68 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox