Thank You Sir, May I Have Another: Spearhead NAFTA, Gut the Public Option, Get Labor's Endorsement?

by: David Sirota

Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:05


Rahm Emanuel was the chief legislative proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement under President Clinton. As an investment banker, he publicly campaigned on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to give China Most Favored Nation Status. Under President Obama, he was the chief architect of the deal that coddled insurance and drug companies by negotiating away the public option - a public option that union leaders said was crucial for their support of health care legislation.

I could go on and on with examples from Emanuel's career just like this. You know the story - and I won't bore you with it. And so considering this record of doggedly opposing the labor movement's most basic public policy priorities, you might expect that in Emanuel's newly announced run for Chicago mayor, labor movement leaders would at least remain neutral. You might even expect labor to consider funding a full-fledged campaign against Emanuel in a race where there are expected to be many viable - and more progressive - candidates.

According to Politico, you would be wrong:

"If I lived in Chicago, I would vote for him for mayor," said Gerald McEntee, president of giant public workers union AFSCME...McEntee said that Emanuel's record was, on balance "for progressive forces and ideas."

"When he was in the House he was an excellent vote for progressive forces," McEntee said. "He had a role to play in the White House. When he could, within that role, he was for progressive ideas and forces."

Let's set aside the hideously - almost laughably - dishonest attempt to portray Rahm Emanuel as a progressive force inside the White House, and let's instead look at the deeper truth this anecdote highlights - the truth about why progressives are so powerless right now.  

David Sirota :: Thank You Sir, May I Have Another: Spearhead NAFTA, Gut the Public Option, Get Labor's Endorsement?
In my recent book, The Uprising, I devoted a chapter to the rank corruption, cronyism and insiderism that plagues the Institutional Left in Washington, D.C. - specifically, a form of corruption, croynism and insiderism whereby leaders of "progressive" organizations regularly sell out their organizations' missions on behalf of their fellow D.C. insiders. This is not a universal plague - there are, indeed, some terrific and honest progressive organizations in the nation's capital. But it is a widespread phenomenon - and this McEntee/Emanuel story is about as perfect an example of that phenomenon as I've ever seen.

That it comes from a political actor as amoral as McEntee is no surprise. Remember, while McEntee is paid by workers' hard-earned wages to jealously champion those workers' agenda regardless of party, McEntee made headlines in 2007 telling Democratic congressional leaders that he would personally crush labor-oriented groups looking to exert pressure on Democratic legislators:

"I'm the sheriff of the incumbent-protection program, and if you need help, let me know. In Blue America, there's no room for PACs to chase vulnerable members they have differences with."

So with McEntee, this is certainly par for the course. And while Politico notes that his personal endorsement is not an official endorsement by AFSCME, the announcement goes a long way to further highlighting how progressives outside of Washington have been undermined by those purporting to act in their name inside of Washington.

This kind of thing is a huge, huge problem for an obvious reason that goes way beyond one race in Chicago and way beyond animus toward one career ladder-climber like Emanuel: When progressive organizations offer support to those politicians who have undermined those organizations goals, those organizations are sending a clear message. They are telling all politicians that they can expect support regardless of whether those politicians ignore progressive demands.

Call this the "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another!" dynamic. It's totally destructive - and the more we become aware of it, the more we can understand how to counteract it in the cause of rebuilding a truly principled labor movement that is so critical to this country and to the progressive cause.

Here's hoping other unions in Washington and across the country don't follow McEntee's lead.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is like when the Teamsters got behind Reagan in 1980 on a Municipal level (4.00 / 1)
the rank and file are not enthused all around. I can't imagine why. Whenever we have labor leaders making "Andy Stern" decisions to become an arm of a political party instead of remembering labor history, we get a weaker union movement. When the rank and file are not happy, that also means union leadership will be shaken up eventually. Workers don't appreciate Rahm or any neoliberal third way to worker hell.

This is a problem with all unions(Trumka getting too touchy feely with Obama accepting the tax union health benefits tax, even if ti got slightly less regressive) and this hurts the declining union movement in this country almost as much as Taft Hartley and Right to work laws.



3rd Party Time (4.00 / 2)
The conventional wisdom is that third parties can't win, but I think every 100 years or so things just get so pervasively corrupt that you have to start over. Power just plain corrupts.  I doubt there's been a time in the last 100 years when institutions of all types - government, corporations, media, labor, churches - have been as corrupt as they are today.

But I have to admit, I sure don't see the leaders out there ready to lead the way.  If we build it, would they come?  


"Power just plain corrupts" So, power to third parties! Uh, wait... (4.00 / 3)
...there's something confusing about this strategy...

[ Parent ]
so, build it in a way to avoid it being corrupted as much as possible (4.00 / 1)
I know, easier said than done!

maybe something with disallowing money (and power?) allocation from and to a single person?


[ Parent ]
maybe true but temporarilty the third (4.00 / 1)
party will be cleaner.  The greens have institutional rules against taking corporate money and going against the party platform.  You can lose your party endorsement if you don't abide by them.

I don't think they have to win to be worth voting for either.  If they make bad dems lose they are worth it in and of themselves.

My blog  


[ Parent ]
Third parties emerge (0.00 / 0)
when well-organized popular movements cannot influence the agenda of the two major parties.  The formation of abolitionist and free soil parties are the classic example of what happens when major parties refuse to acknowledge movements that interfere with parties' attempts to construct what they feel is a winning national agenda.  

Ross Perot was a third candidate who actually got 19% of the popular vote, more than half of George Bush's total.  Yet he had zero effect on the American political landscape, and this despite being the only anti-NAFTA candidate, because his candidacy wasn't the product of a movement dynamic.

If third parties are like bees that die after they sting, third candidates don't even amount to a mosquito bite.  Ultimately, they're innocuous.  


[ Parent ]
Well the Whigs and the Republicans were 3rd parties... (4.00 / 1)
...and they elected Presidents and Congresses.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
And the Whigs emerged (0.00 / 0)
as a self-aware class of elites in favor of a strong central state agenda against Jacksonian democracy created the Federalist party.  The Republicans were the culmination of the interrelated abolitionist and free soil movements.  

You haven't contradicted my point, you've provided still more evidence for it.  


[ Parent ]
They were 3rd parties that were successful and very influential... (4.00 / 1)
...Abraham Lincoln was a successful 3rd party candidate and I think we can agree that he was not innocuous.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Did you catch the part where I distinguished (4.00 / 1)
between candidates merely and movements?  What the hell do you think I meant by that?  There is no free soil agenda, and, by extension, no Abraham Lincoln without the abolitionist movement.  The reason why Lincoln held power - and the GOP isn't a third party, by the way, but it was the outgrowth of a few of them - is because his candidacy was the product of many decades of self-conscious movement building.  

[ Parent ]
I guess I was missing what you intended as your focus...and I was focusing more on your last statement... (0.00 / 0)
..."If third parties are like bees that die after they sting, third candidates don't even amount to a mosquito bite.  Ultimately, they're innocuous."

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Stinging causes damage (0.00 / 0)
and produces a response from within the body politic. The Liberty and Free Soil parties died but the abolitionist movement that made them possible created the context where a major party would have to take an antislavery position.  

Ross Perot's candidacy did none of these things.  If a pro-manufacturing, anti-free trade movement develops, we might point to Perot and the rise of political independents as a symptom of popular disaffection.  Should this happen, it will be a mistake for people to confuse Perot and independents with having caused such an outcome, however.  


[ Parent ]
Now you're changing the argument... (4.00 / 1)
Is a third party a long shot?  Yes, but then, so is influencing the Democrats.  When Perot ran, NAFTA had not been "seen or felt".   Today, Perot would walk away with the show:  Republicans, Independents and pissed off Democrats.  

[ Parent ]
Look at the 40% of the electorate ... (0.00 / 0)
... not registered Dem or Repub.  Despite the Reform Part itself being a disaster, he changed the political landscape permanently.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
How has the landscape changed (0.00 / 0)
in terms of the national agenda of the two major parties? However people may choose to register to vote, the neoliberal consensus has grown stronger despite Perot's efforts.  


[ Parent ]
Depends on your purpose (4.00 / 1)
Mine is to build an independent force.  The two major parties will do what they do.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
the only way to build an "independent force" (0.00 / 0)
is to work outside the parties.

What all parties "do"--major or not--is merely respond to pressures from organized movements. If a movement is strong enough, the existing parties will be swayed to do what that movement wants by political pressure. If not, doesn't matter how many parties you have, they won't lift a finger to do anything.

On the other hand, some people consider themselves radical free-thinkers, so they spurn the mainstream parties and want to build a third party for the sake of defying convention, in the same way some people gravitate towards independent films or music rather than watching Hollywood movies or listening to generic pop. That's not a basis on which to found a movement that has any significant political influence.


[ Parent ]
not true! (4.00 / 1)
The teabaggers, or elements of them, are an independent force within the Republican Party.  I believe our future lies in an alliance between progressive independents and progressive Democrats who are being left high and dry by the Obamacrats.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
So Dick Armey (0.00 / 0)
the former House Majority Leader and Sarah Palin, the GOP nominee for Vice Presidency represent "an independent force within the Republican party."

By that definition, the Blue Dogs are an independent force within the Democratic party.

Did you miss the fact that the NY State GOP is fully behind Carl Paladino, and Rick Lazio pulled his name from the Conservative party line?

What you say makes no sense.  


[ Parent ]
the teabaggers are a creation (4.00 / 1)
of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers, funded with corporate money and given media coverage disproportionate to their actual numbers by FOX. Mostly they are comprised of the GOP base, repackaged in shiny new form to shed the bad image that Bush gave the Republican party.

They are far from a genuine grassroots movement. Very much the opposite, actually.


[ Parent ]
Actually, the teabaggers are a creation of their mothers and fathers (0.00 / 0)
Here's Lawrence Lessig pointing out that there are, in fact, teabaggers who are against corporate interference in elections. He welcomes them to the Coffee Party lecture he gave, here (complete with video of real life conservatives who want corporations out of elections):

Your "GOP base" comment seems, well, off-base, as Tea Partiers are more inclined to support a new third party than the average American.

Thus, even though the tea party breaks down to 57% Republican vs. 41% Independent + Democrat, that 57% Republican contingent probably don't think too much about the Republican Party. I have recently made a crude estimate that at least 46% of Dems and Repubs are open to bolting from their party.

It's not a stretch, at all, to assume that at least 46% of the 57% Republican constituent of Tea Parties would be happy to dump the Republican Party. I mean, if they were hunky dory with the Republican Party as it is, why bother with a Tea Party?

Thus, my estimate for upper bound of Republican base in the Tea Party is: 54% (= 100% - 46%) of 57% = 30.8%.

About 24% of the population is Republican, so a Tea Partier is, at most, about 25% more likely to be a solid Republican than the average American. The rest of the Republican voters are practicing lesser evilism, apparently.

===========

I did a quick search, and apparently, in the summer of 2009, the majority of the tea partiers did not favor a third party.

However,

Two new polls - from The New York Times/CBS and from Gallup - have found that the majority of the country thinks it is time for a third party. While that tends to happen when people are generally dissatisfied, it is a significant increase from 2008 and is the highest Gallup has recorded for this question since 2003.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Well, for one thing (0.00 / 0)
Perot taught the M$Ps that is was a bad idea to let other candidates participate in the public debates.

I guess that wasn't really a change in their agendas - just a reiteration that they will do anything to maintain their tight grip on political power in the nation.


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


[ Parent ]
This kind of stuff can't go on forever. (0.00 / 0)
Union members are going to start to notice, and demand that their leaders stand for something . . . seriously.

This kind of stuff has already gone on for very long. (0.00 / 0)
So, we can only hope that the internet with it's faster, better available and more diverse informations can make a difference, slowly but surely. Only informations about the atrocities can result in the bums getting voted out, one after another.  

[ Parent ]
On the other hand (0.00 / 0)
An information overload may make it so that all of this gets lost in the shuffle.  The most effective political messaging then becomes that which targets people who maintain a narrow channel of information, while movements trying to build upon people with diversified information access are doomed to underachieve.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
How much do people care about NAFTA? (0.00 / 0)
It's a weird issue, where Ted Kennedy voted for it and Strom Thurmond against it.  Who here remembers and holds grudges against Democrats still in the Senate who voted for it (such as Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, and Murray)? Who still has a corner of their heart reserved for the Democrats who voted against it (such as Reid, Conrad, Feingold, and Feinstein)?  Do you even know which politicians running for Senate or Governor this year were in the House back then and how they voted?



Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


I sure do...it may have been the defining vote of our age... (0.00 / 0)
...it led to the emasculation of a superpower and its economic downfall.  Those who voted for and supported it helped destroy the country I grew up in, all to meet the demands of multinational corporate power.  I will never forget the NAFTA vote, and those who voted for it, and those who voted against it, until the day I die.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
People may not put it in those explicit terms (0.00 / 0)
but they do care about a declining standard of living that directly correlates to the decline in power of the union movement, which permitted legislation like NAFTA to be passed.

The anger we're seeing from the radical right is in no small part a byproduct of the fact that a self-service service economy driven by financial manipulation has failed our nation spectacularly.  What NAFTA represents is a big part of that, as is Obama's complete failure to address the popular outrage against the financial collapse in any meaningful way.  

These phenomena are very closely related on a number of levels, even if it isn't explicit in a simpleminded literal way.    


[ Parent ]
The only thing I could add there... (0.00 / 0)
...is that Labor fought this issue as hard as they could.  Bonior and Gephardt were doing everything they could to stop it.  In the end this issue showed the world that Labor could not influence the leadership of the Democratic Party, even on an issue that was a stake in the heart of Labor.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean to suggest that the union movement itself permitted NAFTA, but that it's decline created the conditions that made it possible.  That sentence is unclear.  

[ Parent ]
I thought I knew what you were getting at...I just wanted to add on.... (0.00 / 0)
...NAFTA really was a defining vote the more you think about it.  In another post I call it possibly the defining vote of our age, which I do not believe is an exaggeration in the least bit.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Who cares about NAFTA? (4.00 / 4)
Everybody who ever had a job..... Manufacturing is what drives the labor market and pays (at least once upon a time) a wage able to sustain a middle class.  You can't make shit without IT, engineering, business, distribution, and communications.   It drives the labor market and the economy.  Right now, it is doing a dammed fine job of driving China's.    

[ Parent ]
this diary almost gets to the "underpants gnome" debate (4.00 / 4)
The union leaders are just doing the same as Paul suggests we do, and have done before....vote for/support/endorse the least evil candidate.

David points out some flaws in this repetedly tried and failed approach.

With no penalty for ignoring the public needs, the "lesser evil" just gets more evil over time. And the country goes from bad to worse continously.

"Reward our friends, punish our enemies; vote"... Samual Gompers.

I will not vote for a political enemy again, even if they do wear a democrat's coat.


Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


To put a finer point on it reggiewhitefish (4.00 / 1)
To win under Paul's condition, Democrats need only be a sliver of evil less than Republicans to earn the vote.  Therefore, that's where they stay.

In David's condition, it is constant pulling them higher while punishing any that fall behind.  The risk is that you could lose seats and possibly never gain them back (doubt that, but must mention it is possible.)


[ Parent ]
it's OK to disagree with Rosenberg's strategy (4.00 / 2)
But don't pigeonhole it as "vote for a sliver less than evil Dems and go sit down". That hardly does justice to the actual argument.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

[ Parent ]
Almost! (0.00 / 0)
Sirota writes:

the more we become aware of it, the more we can understand how to counteract it in the cause of rebuilding a truly principled labor movement that is so critical to this country and to the progressive cause.

I would gather that Sirota is highly aware of it.  So we could ask him, how indeed do we "rebuild a truly principled labor movement"?

We go so far as to issue critique after critique, devastating critiques.  But then folks start dancing around the "what is to be done?" business.  When do we start drawing hard lines in the sand, and actually punish those Democrats who cross them?  When do progressives begin to constitute themselves as an independent force?

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan


[ Parent ]
Many people disagree with the strategies you offer (0.00 / 0)
because they disagree with the usefulness of those strategies. That is, I don't see how either of the ideas you have offered will do anything to help progressives constitute themselves as an independents source.  It is a false choice to get behind you or be tarred as unwilling to act.  You need to consider the possibility that some people are simply unconvinced.

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 ]
So? (0.00 / 0)
It is a false choice to get behind you or be tarred as unwilling to act.

I have NEVER asserted that those were the only choices.  You state the obvious.

You need to consider the possibility that some people are simply unconvinced.

If everyone were convinced, I wouldn't have to be arguing my case, would I?

By the way, do you have any ideas to "help progressives constitute themselves as an independents [sic] source"?  Or do you not consider it a worthy (or possible) goal?

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan


[ Parent ]
I'll give two quick examples (4.00 / 3)
of the direction I think make the most sense.  

1) Less focus on electoral politics.  Right now I consider the Catfood Commission to be the greatest threat, and I think it will remain a threat regardless of the outcome of the election. That doesn't mean I would ignore elections, I just think they get too much play (this is not a new position, I've been saying this for a while. It's not unique either). Everyone understands how SS cuts affect regular people - that can be leveraged for greater political mobilization.  

2) Start local. Get progressives installed as Sec. of State or AG or insurance commissioner. Worry less about who chairs the DNC and focus on who chairs the state parties. There are a rash of unsuccessful progressives who made some netroots connections, but were beaten by the machines.  Could they be convinced to run for state chair, like 50 mini-Howard Deans?  Find places where turnout is low because there a little people power can go a long way.  Change things at that level and we'll have more leverage over Congress and the WH.  Otherwise, I think we're just shuffling which party leaders screw us.

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 ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
(1)  Amen!  The whole safety net shredding is a massive issue.  I have to say that being 62 years old with bad knees impacts how I can be involved.  Question is, how can we get something going with this.

I've had arguments about how the poor should organize themselves, how dare middle-class people meddle in their lives.  Bullshit.  Support structures -- legal and media -- need to be put in place to defend the grassroots organizers.  Aaargh, don't get me started.

(2)  Here I'm ambivalent.  How will movement flow?  Here's the problem as I see it.  I'm sure you're aware of the slippery slope of young radical joins the party, gets chipped away, some money here, some compromises there, all in the name of effectiveness, ends up an old conservative Dem.

My thinking re Dump Obama is that if something could crystallize at a national level, that would give the local builders an anchor that could counter the slippery slope.

I've tried hard to not posit Dump Obama as competition to other activities, but rather as a connecting link, an umbrella under which things could develop in a less fragmented manner.

If I sound vague at times, it's not because I don't think about all this stuff, but because so much depends on events and popular sentiment which are both out of my control.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan


[ Parent ]
I agree that a national hook is useful for (4.00 / 1)
catalyzing local organizing.  That's one reason why I'm stuck on this idea of getting progressive candidates to run - they are already part of a national narrative.  And they generally were able to get activist support already, who are the ones that matter as you try to win control of state and local parties.

Slippery slopes abound. One could also end up supporting a conservative Dem against Obama because he/she had a better chance at winning. Not sure there is a solution to that aside from eternal vigilance.  

I also like the message of turning our gaze from the WH and Washington. The way I see it, the bad behavior from those at the top is enabled and supported by the institution, and too often people think changing one person will fix that. I support strategies that reinforce the notion that one person is neither the cause, nor the solution, to our problems. That's not to say I think you believe that its all about the individual, only that I fear that's what people will hear when you say 'dump Obama'.

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 ]
And others accuse me of purity-mongering! (0.00 / 0)
Dump Obama is transitional, i.e., it would use the coin of the realm, with an emotional hook, to get a dead movement rolling.  With motion would come opportunity to transcend.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
David your piece is quite provocative.  It's actually like putting the final piece in a 1000 piece puzzle.  

Who's really in control and you've put forth a strong commentary on matter.  

Third Party's are not viable and both parties are certainly corrupt.  

The Tea Party is tearing the Republicans apart but reforming it.

The Progressive Movement is ready to do the same but realized how to do the same.

Right now Democrats have two choices Obama or Hillary.  I don't like either but I'm sick of Obama's false promises.  I want someone who has power and knows what to do with it.  Hillary is certainly a creature of power but at least she knows were power comes from and is willing empower us.  Obama is a sellout....


[ Parent ]
This takes so long that (0.00 / 0)
by the time you fix this, that is broken.  We need a real political revolution.  If we sit on our asses, better yet if we take the Dems down - they'll learn to watch their backs.  Do you think Eisenhower Republicans started out giving a damn about evangelicals and teabaggers?  They were "taught" to give a damn.  

[ Parent ]
You might consider the possibility ... (0.00 / 0)
... that increasing numbers ARE convinced.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
Not even close (4.00 / 1)
The union leaders are just doing the same as Paul suggests we do, and have done before....vote for/support/endorse the least evil candidate.

I assume you don't mean Rosenberg, who has criticized as bad strategy efforts to sink Obama in a primary, or to use a national third party strategy. Neither of which has one iota to do with crushing efforts to pressure Dems to do the right thing - which Paul has in fact supported, repeatedly. Paul's also never supported unions or other groups endorsing less progressive candidates in a primary.

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 ]
re: lesser (0.00 / 0)
With no penalty for ignoring the public needs, the "lesser evil" just gets more evil over time. And the country goes from bad to worse continously.

seems so


[ Parent ]
I thougth the one thing Chicago progressives could agree on (0.00 / 0)
in this race was opposing Rahm. Happily, McEntee doesn't live in Chicago so he is just shooting his mouth off.

I long suspected that Obama would be a disaster.... (4.00 / 2)
...at least in regards to progressive and populist issues.  That is the reason that I voted for Ralph Nader and a 3rd Party for the first time in my adult life instead of a Democrat.  After Obama's election, I hoped so hard that I was wrong, and that he would surprise me.  Then came Obama's first huge decision, that was the appointment of Emanuel, quickly followed by several disastrous economic appointments.  I as a progressive populist then viewed this Administration as an adversary which it has proven itself to be over and over again.  We fool ourselves in viewing those such as Obama and Emanuel as anything other than an adversary and a roadblock to a progressive populist future.  And if Labor continues down this road of helping these adversaries, they just make themselves more irrelevant than they already are.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox