Rahm tells Reid to cave to Lieberman; Senate Dems seem ready to comply

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 18:51


A new report from the Huffington Post claims that Rahm Emanuel told Harry Reid to cave to Lieberman's double-cross, and just pass anything:

Rahm Emanuel visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his Capitol office on Sunday evening and personally urged him to cut a deal with recalcitrant Sen. Joe Lieberman, two Democratic sources familiar with the situation said.

Some readers may not accept reports from anonymous sources.  However, consider that if any Senate aide put their name to a report about Rahm s/he would be fired instantly and faced an immediate end to his or her career.  The White House deny the report anyway, the vast majority of die-hard Obama administrations believe the White House anyway, and the aide would have been reviled by huge numbers of rank and file Dems.  In short, if an aide had been willing to attach his or her name to the report, it wouldn't have changed anything, except ruining the aide's life.

Further, it fits into a broader pattern of Rahm Emanuel protecting conservative Democrats in Congress at all costs.  For example, it was Rahm Emanuel who argued against more strident tactics on ending the Iraq war, because he thought it would hurt conservative Dems.  It was Rahm Emanuel who organized freshmen Dems to vote against their own caucus on motions to recommit, to try and protect conservative Dems from Republican attack ads.  It was Rahm Emanuel that conservative Democrats worried about leaving the House, as they publicly whined about a more progressive House leadership.  It was Rahm Emanuel who castigated progressive groups for attacking conservative Democrats.  It is Rahm Emanuel that conservative Democrats still long for, whenever they complain about Nancy Pelosi.  Above all else, Emanuel has always been about defending conservative Democrats no matter the consequences to the rest of the party. Unsurprisingly, the conservative Dems in congress love him for that.

Last year, The White House told Democratic Senators to cave and allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship.  They dutifully complied.  Now, the White House is again telling the entire caucus to cave to Lieberman, and once again it looks like they are going to comply:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) just walked walked into the Democrats all-important caucus meeting tonight sounding defeatest about the chance that a Medicare buy-in or public option trigger will survive Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) decision to block the compromises this weekend.

Asked by a reporter if the Medicare buy-in will be pulled out, Harkin said "looks that way," before praising a Democratic health care bill without the two public option compromises.

Earlier today, Matthew Yglesias argued that Matt Taibbi's criticism of the Obama administration on financial policy is off because Congress largely has purview over that policy.  Instead, the Obama administration should be criticized for those areas of policy over which it has more direct control:

If you want to complain about the Obama administration, you should complain about their conduct of issues they actually have control over. Foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan, for example.

However, these two Lieberman incidents show that the Obama administration does, in fact, have a lot of influence over many Democrats in Congress on virtually all issues.

By picking Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, President Obama immediately signaled that the White House was not going to use this influence against conservative Democrats in Congress who sought to water down the Democratic agenda.  Then again, as I pointed out last night, Democrats in Congress also don't seem interested in putting pressure on the more conservative members of their caucus who seek to water down the Democratic agenda.  At the highest levels of the Democratic Party, no pressure ever seems to be applied to conservative Democrats who seek to water down the Democratic agenda.

Whatever pressure is applied is going to have to come from the grassroots.  However, there are limits to what pressure we can apply on our own, as Matt Stoller articled in his farewell post on Open Left. Clearly, one year later, we still have a long way to go on solving the Rootsgap.  Despite everything that has happened, we are still in a very difficult environment for passing progressive legislation.  

Chris Bowers :: Rahm tells Reid to cave to Lieberman; Senate Dems seem ready to comply

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You know what? Screw Obama. (4.00 / 7)

  I hope Russ Feingold or one of the other actual Democrats in the caucus kills this joke of a compromise of a cave-in.

   If it means no bill passes, and Obama is embarrassed, then so be it. Obama's screwed his own presidency enough as it is; killing this bill isn't going to affect it any way or the other.

  I'm fed up with this utter fraud of an administration. Let them go down in flames. That was their choice.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Why hasn't Feingold said it is time to remove the filibuster (0.00 / 0)
This is Feingold's fault. If feingoild wants my support for anyhting he had better get behind removing the filibuster, or he can forget it.

Boxer too. And every other Senator except Harkin.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Feingold can USE the filibuster (4.00 / 5)

  He can join the Republicans in killing this carcass of a health bill.  

  If it makes Rahm look bad, than that's a zillion bonus points right there.

  And Obama is irrelevant. He's made himself so.


"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Well, I hope so, but WILL Republicans vote against this crap? (4.00 / 1)
Thinking about this, I'm not so sure Snowe would oppose this. What's in this bill left that she doesn't like???

[ Parent ]
They were never going to vote for it. (0.00 / 0)
And Gingrich is lobbying them to repeal it when they win back Congress.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
But Snowe? Really, Sadie, why shouldn't she vote for this? (4.00 / 1)
Anything still in it that she doesn't like? My point is, of course, if progressives manage to find only one Senator willing to support the filibuster, that may not be good enough.

[ Parent ]
It depends on whether or not you think she's arguing (4.00 / 3)
in good faith. I don't think she is.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yup, that's the unsettled point. (0.00 / 0)
I have to admit I still believe she's basically an honest person (as honest as she can be as a politician), because, after all, she was the only one in the GOP caucus who voted against Iraq. But I have been disastrously wrong before in my judgment of people before. Not very often, but sometimes.

[ Parent ]
Well, in that case, a Dem Senator joining the filibuster may decide the issue. (0.00 / 0)
Prpogressive leaders should really start (if they haven't alrady done that) to check for which Senator this new cutting down may be a bridge too far. We need someone acting as a buffer stop now. End of track!

[ Parent ]
Yeah THIS bill really shouldn't pass. (4.00 / 4)
Only important thing left is the verbot of preexisting conditions. It's an important issue for many people, but is this worth creating a huge giveaway for the insurance companies by creating a mandate, and all those subsidies? And let's not forget that passing this crappy bill will greatly reduce pressure on the Congress to pass another healthcare reform soon. There won't be a chance to improve this shit for some years. And all this, just because the WH is for capitulating to Lieberman, and against going through reconcilation, which is possible? Wait an moment, what did the people vot for in 2008, Lieberman for president? Regardless what to make of Obama's carfully phrased campaign spin, but nobody can seriously go that far!

No, imho this shouldn't be allowed to pass. Which Senators can be won over by progressives to oppose this shit? Franken? Feingold? Anybody else?


[ Parent ]
and subsidies (0.00 / 0)
They're important, but perhaps not big enough.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Without reasonable incentives for cost reduction... (4.00 / 2)
...a big part of the subsidies will simply be transformed into additional profits for the insurance companies anyway!  

[ Parent ]
The pre-existing coverage is another decoy (0.00 / 0)
just like the medicare buy-in was. The reality is - as several have already pointed out - that there's nothing to prevent the insurance companies from jacking up the refusal rates for treatments. They can also raise premiums and co-pays in ways that cut a circle around the coverage provisions. There're lots of devils in the details. As for expanding coverage to the poor - that too will be hacked - watch and see. What will be left are mandates, super-expensive coverage (just like now, if not worse) and cut-backs to medicare (rationing).

When all is said and done, we know that where there's a will, there's a way, and insurance companies will is to maximize profits and nothing else.

Progressives like Lux and Bowers were way quick to fall for the false promise of the medicare buy-in - basically if it looks good to them it won't happen - that much we've learnt. The same yard-stick should be applied to everything else in the bill - if it looks good to progressives (like a bone thrown to a yelping doggie) count on it being compromised. This should be the main lesson from the entire debacle.

That's why I think this bill should be killed and will so write to my representatives. It was a huge waste of time that's not worth one page of the 1000's it's been written on. It's better to go back to ground zero, because the bill is worse than nothing and is bound to boomerang on democrats from all directions next year.

The behavior of the white house on this whole matter was textbook clintonite. So the question is - would we have really been all that much worse with Hillary or McCain? (yes, yes, I know there was palin and the supreme court, but what else? now that i think of it, perhaps McCain would have successfully mishandled a few things in a major way - enough that the need for real reform - financial, what not - would have become self-evident?). maybe things were just not bad enough to justify real reform in people's minds. It's a thought.


[ Parent ]
I've been pretty patient... (4.00 / 3)
But I'm losing it. FAST. Harry Reid knows his political future here depends on the passage of a real health care reform bill WITH  a real public option. I hate saying this, but at this point I hope he just ignores Loserman AND The White House at this point and just goes forward with "the r word" or "the nuclear option". I don't care if it's not "bipartisan", and I don't care if Holy Joe throws a fit.

Just get it done, dammit, and GET IT DONE RIGHT!

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


Disillusionment is a powerful thing (4.00 / 7)
More powerful than I think Rahm and Obama have even considered.

I have to have faith that engaged, informed, people - activists - know that they have been punked.

We just have to channel the disillusionment effectively and not play into their hands i.e. allowing O'Rahmo to lay any blame for future electoral defeat at the feet of progressives.

They - O'rahmo, and their enablers such as Lieberman,  will own it.

More articles like Taibbi's  and sites like this help immeasurably.


Is there some way that we can maybe pull a fast one on this? (4.00 / 2)
Say, pass this rapidly deteriorating bill with Lieberman (and probably Snowe once it's been sufficiently watered down, which it appears it will be), then someone introduces the PO and Medicare buy-in aspects, kick Joe out of the caucus, and just get this shit through reconciliation?

A guy can dream...


Maybe, but this would mean a long, hard Conference... (4.00 / 2)
And from there, who knows what might happen next? Will Nancy Pelosi stick to her guns on the public option? Will the House ConservaDems try to preserve the Stupak language by threatening to torpedo the final bill without it? Will Snowe and Loserman back out anyway if they don't get their way in Conference?

It seems we'll be taking BIG risks either way. If Reid goes reconciliation, then much of the bill will be temporary and subject to extension after Obama leaves office. If he doesn't, then Snowe, Loserman, and the House ConservaDems can still try to hold health care hostage.

Either way, it will be a tough road ahead for us.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


[ Parent ]
Or maybe not... (4.00 / 3)
From CNN:

   As the White House rushes to the finish on health care reform, fissures on the best way to get there are developing between the White House and Senate Democrats.

   Two sources have told CNN that White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the budget process known as reconciliation to push through health reform - and that Reid has rejected that request.

   The procedure, which can only be used on budget measures, would allow Senate Democrats to bypass the 60-vote threshold required to end debate on the current bill, and pass the proposal by a simple majority - but would require major changes to the legislation.

   Reid's resistance, said the sources, stemmed from concern that adoption of the strategy would spark major political pushback from Democrats facing re-election next year.



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!


This is the beauty of anonymous sources (4.00 / 3)
They can leak all sorts of crazy things and there is never any accountability for it.

On the other hand, this leak is rather implausible.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Sigh... (4.00 / 2)
Who to believe...  If this is true, Rahm is actually taking the politically smart tack here (which so happens to also be the policy-smart thing to do as well).  Passing nothing is political death, and passing a shit sandwich to please Lieberman would be pretty much the same thing.  Barring some sort of change in heart from Lieberman, this would seem to be the only option left.

[ Parent ]
Well, you pass this thing... (4.00 / 1)
...then you craft a reconciliation bill with the good stuff in it... even if it is as limited as expanding medicare (which would be easy to do), it would be worth it.

Of course, you can't tell anyone until it happens, but Reid just may be mad enough to do it.  He is incredibly pissed at Lieberman right now.  Reid's re-election is in serious doubt without making liberals happy.

I don't see it happening, but maybe there is an ounce of spine in Reid's body...  

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 ]
"but maybe there is an ounce of spine in Reid's body..." (4.00 / 1)
Yes, maybe they'll stop beating us.  They promised they would!  They don't mean to do it; it's just that we keep making them angry by demanding so many unreasonable things like better and more access to affordable health care, and end to wars, justice for war crimes, and a lot of other crazy liberal extremist stuff.  No, they wouldn't hit us agai--

Wait, no, dear, we didn't mean to mention "those things" -- AHHHHH!  SMACK


[ Parent ]
CNN is not a credible source. (4.00 / 5)

 And neither is Rahm.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
You mean, HARRY REID?! (4.00 / 3)
Reid's resistance, said the sources, stemmed from concern that adoption of the strategy would spark major political pushback from Democrats facing re-election next year.

As I said upthread, Reid's reelection next year mostly depends on us Nevada Democrats turning out en masse for him. And as long as we turn out for him, he wins.

This is our card that we need to keep playing with him... And for that matter, all the other Senate Dems playing center stage in the health care debate. If they bail on us, we bail on them. If they deliver for us, we'll bail them out. Simple as that.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


[ Parent ]
Fear, uncertainty, doubt. (4.00 / 2)
You can't believe anything you read coming from "anonymous" sources any more, it's all spin! Disregard that deliberately spread disinformation. Just look at the actions of the people. And no matter who actually did what, both Rahm and Reid deserve to be kicked in their asses.

[ Parent ]
Or, maybe not not (4.00 / 3)
Updated, from the same link:

Updated 6:30 pm ET: Earlier today, two sources - one White House and one Senate - indicated White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had suggested to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the possibility of using budget reconciliation to pass health care. Both sources now tell CNN that Emanuel did not make that suggestion. One of the sources said there had been some recent White House interest in using the reconciliation process. However, the source acknowledged that the idea now appears to be a non-starter. Reid has said he opposes using the legislative maneuver.


[ Parent ]
So much for that little ray of hope... (4.00 / 1)
I suppose it's better for it to have been smothered before it was taken seriously by us.

[ Parent ]
Right, because there's no way they would retract it on the orders of the WH after getting caught leaking info, is there? (0.00 / 0)
Ever notice how the instant unpleasant leaks, well, leak out, there's a sudden reversal and denial?  Is it that Emanuel never said those things, or that he ordered the leakers to retract what they said?

[ Parent ]
It's a real kabuki theatre out there! (4.00 / 2)
A great time for conspiracy theorists. For progressives, not so much.

[ Parent ]
Oh, yes (4.00 / 2)
because the voters in the states where the Democrats are facing tough races are following the procedural voting processes of the Senate with bated breath.  

That is the lamest excuse of them all.  Using reconciliation versus using a 60 vote cloture vote will cost barely more than zero votes come election time, and everyone knows it.  99% of voters don't follow arcane procedural bullshit that isn't even explained coherently by TV news.  


[ Parent ]
It may (0.00 / 0)
Be about time to insert Lieberman for Specter in your signature line.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
What now? (4.00 / 1)
"Reid's resistance, said the sources, stemmed from concern that adoption of the strategy would spark major political pushback from Democrats facing re-election next year."

Huh?  Can anyone explain that to me?  Democrats who have to run next year don't want reconciliation because they are afraid of what will happen if they successfully pass a law helping their voters?  What am I missing here?


[ Parent ]
Looks like the idea is, better a crappy bill this year... (0.00 / 0)
..then a better bill next year. Some "logic".
8-0

[ Parent ]
Rockefeller, Harkin on board (0.00 / 0)
that is, they say they could vote for the bill even without Medicare buy-in.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


We are officially a one-party state. (4.00 / 4)

 Change we can believe in, indeed.

 I want my primary vote back.

 I almost want my general vote back. A John McCain administration could have served up this crap sandwich.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Not to speak of Romney! (0.00 / 0)
Really, how does this crap compare to the Massachusssetts reform???

[ Parent ]
"Health Care Reform in our time!" (4.00 / 6)
So long as Obama can wave a piece of paper and claim that in a purely technical sense, who cares if it ultimately amounts to dogshit on a popsicle?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

"Live long and prosper"! (4.00 / 1)
So that you may have a chance to get to know the true promise of meaningful healthcare reform. Coming soon, maybe around 2021 or so!

[ Parent ]
Is Open left prepared to punish the Democratic Party as a whole? (4.00 / 3)
Because that's what it's going to take, the netroots joining together to actively campaign against the Dems, in order for the left to be taken seriously.  This will require the following going into next year, and building up going into 2012:

1.) Draft an 8 or 10 point list of progressive policy principles that encompass a broader array of more specific issues (for example, on the economy: tight regulation, public investment in infrastructure through direct job creation, and steep, direct taxation of the wealthy).

2.) Get as many Democrats as possible to sign -- in physical writing -- a commitment to support and implement these policy principles.  If they refuse, deny them all fundraising and votes in next year's primaries.

3.) Seek out vetted candidates to run in primaries against incumbents who refuse to sign the pledge.  Also have independent candidates ready to run in the general elections as a backup plan.

4.) Instead of giving money to Democrats, use it to target them in newspaper, television, and Internet ads on their many failures to follow through on voter expectations.  Use grassroots on-the-ground campaigning to encourage voters to go with primary opponents from the left or with independent candidates from the left -- but get them out to vote.

5.) Offer full support to any Democrats who do sign on to the pledge.  If they sign and then renege, be prepared to follow through on #3 and #4.

I hate to say it, because I've been a registered and loyal Democrats since I was old enough to vote, but we will probably have to punish the party at the polls next year.  The leadership won't take us seriously unless they know for a fact that we will no longer cave in and support them unless they do as they're told by us.  And if they decide they'd rather be Republican-wannabes out of power in perpetuity, then so be it.  The left doesn't need the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party needs the left.  It's time we prove that to them.


There's no need to go after the party as a whole (4.00 / 5)
It's counterproductive. The teabaggers have the Republicans groveling just by picking off 2 or 3 Congressmen per cycle. Politicians are cowards.If we ostentatiously thump off a few Blue Dogs the rest will shut up.

If the teabaggers had fought like you propose against the Republicans - well, we'd have had the public option in April.


[ Parent ]
This is precisely right (4.00 / 2)
If Lieberman had gone down in 2006, then we would be looking at a radically different landscape today.  

Rather than going against the whole dem establishment, perhaps looking for a primary challenger to a vulnerable-seeming Harry Reid might be more productive.    


[ Parent ]
Oh yes there is. (0.00 / 0)
It's not at all counterproductive.  Do you have a better idea for how the left can make itself be taken seriously again?  I'm all ears.  (Or is it eyes in this case?)

[ Parent ]
Hold them accountable (4.00 / 1)
The party needs to be held accountable for what they deliver not for what some of them promised in bad faith.  I don't care how many months they pretended they might pass a public option or pretended they intended to pass a landmark healthcare bill.  Did they deliver?  

As far as I am concerned, they have totally failed.  They have taken our big chance and screwed it up.  I will hold accountable in 2010 and 2012.  


[ Parent ]
Please ignore me. (4.00 / 1)
I'm sure I'm getting my hopes up when I shouldn't, but....

Wouldn't the best way to use reconciliation be to keep it a secret until after the rest of the bill is passed? If you announce that you're using it, opposing senators can threaten to filibuster the non-reconciliation half of the bill. But if they've already passed that part...


Right... (0.00 / 0)
Kind of my "dream scenario" I announced above... That'd be nice, but I'm guessing it's not feasible for one reason or another.

[ Parent ]
Too many pols don't want a public option (4.00 / 2)
and have acceded to it only because they thought they had to to get the HCR they want politically. Once HCR is passed they'll happily drop the issue. There were only 51 or 52 public option "supporters" in the Senate. I figure we'd lose about 10.

[ Parent ]
It's pretty sad... (4.00 / 5)

  When Harry Reid is the most progressive actor in this drama.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Well, at least we know he's more progressive than Rahm. (4.00 / 2)
And so this gives more weight to the version that he was pushed by the WH (no matter how they call that) then that he rejected Rahm's proposal to use reconcilation (somewhat ridiculous, this scenario).  

[ Parent ]
But he is, and those of us here in Nevada... (4.00 / 1)
Are doing what we can to get him working for a better bill. He's done better than expected so far (though admittedly I had low expectations going in), but that won't matter if we then end up with President Obama praising a sh*t sandwich awaiting his signature. We just need to encourage Reid & Pelosi to deliver the best bill possible, regardless of what Rahm Emmanuel thinks about it.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, do you know anyone close to Reid... (4.00 / 1)
..for getting a maybe more honest report about what the eff is going on behind the scenes?

[ Parent ]
Rootsgap (4.00 / 2)
What can we do about this?  It seems as though, Matt's boss excepted, Democratic office holders aren't particularly interested.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

At this point it looks like the only game in town..... (4.00 / 2)
....is not to be blamed for the failure of health insurance reform.

I wonder what Teddy Kennedy would think of this debacle.


He's rolling in his grave! n/t (0.00 / 0)


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 ]
Rolling? If he could be conncted to a generator... (4.00 / 1)
...that would be lots of clean, sustainable energy!

[ Parent ]
Teddy would have given them hell, I guess. (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, I know he was the master of the carefully crafted compromise, but I don't think he would have tolerated this huge departure from the starting point, nor the totally unprofessional way this was done. Only my guess based on what I read about him, of course.

[ Parent ]
Lieberman's absolute win? Liberals kill HCR (0.00 / 0)
This would be the ultimate win for Joe -- not only screw progressives on every last HCR agenda item, but make it so bad the progressives actually kill it and take the blame for killing it. Naturally, capitulating to every last Lieberman demand plays right into his hands.

My anger says NO DEAL! But I just know the Village will spend the next 15 years repeating that it was the unreasonable, radical hippies who killed HCR if we don't capitulate...

We're screwed every which way. Just shoot me.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


Who gives a rat's ass what the Village says? (0.00 / 0)
The Vichy Dems are slitting our throats but they are slitting their own in the process.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Suicide is Painless (Mash Theme Song) (4.00 / 1)
The Plum Line
Greg Sargent's blog
Poll: One Third Of Dems Less Likely To Vote In 2010 If Public Option Dies
12/14/2009, 09:32 AM EST

And, we can be relatively confident that what the public imagines as a "public option" might not be the public option at all.

And, if that weren't enough, how do you like this for timing?

The Plum Line
Greg Sargent's blog
Gallup: GOP Losing Lead Among Independents
12/14/2009, 04:36 PM EST

Dear doG, I hate watching slow motion train wrecks.  I've never been willing to step between someone and the gun they've pointed at themselves, and I'm not about to start now.... But, doesn't anyone in the Democratic party know how to play this game?

lyrics


Poll (0.00 / 0)
You are asking people who have no concept of accountability to fear being held accountable.  Joe Lieberman sticks his finger in their eyes every chance he gets but they still give him what they want; they probably plan on us doing the same.  

And how DARE you bring up the possibility of hurting the Republican party?  We live in a POST-PARTISAN age, don't you know old chap?


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox