Obama comes through on foreclosure issue: what's next?

by: Mike Lux

Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 18:00


When the notarization on foreclosures issue suddenly flared up over the last 24 hours, my heart sank. Just as regular homeowners were starting to get some legal traction to fight back against fraud and predatory lending by big banks, it seemed, some bank lobbyist had managed to sneak something through in the dead of night that would screw people over again. It was Washington at its worst: the bank lobbyists in control, and Congress asleep at the wheel.

But then, that most delightful and rare of Washington moments happened: the system worked. Consumer advocates started raising hell on the blogs and in traditional media, the White House started looking more closely at the issue, and literally within a matter of hours, Obama announced that he was not going to sign the bill. No long, painful, drawn out internal debate at 1600 Pennsylvania. No twisting round trying to split the middle on the issue. As soon as the issue was raised, the White House team focused on it, and made the right decision quickly. Elizabeth Warren, the new Assistant to the President and Treasury Secretary, weighed in. Pete Rouse, the new Chief of Staff, got engaged immediately. And the President made the right decision.

So what did we learn? First, that exposing sleazy dead-of-night deals cut by the special interests does sometimes work. And second, that having good people in key government roles really does matter. Obama might well have done the right thing without Warren and Rouse there, but it sure did happen quickly and easily with them around.

So, okay, I haven't lost it: I know that not all these decisions are going to go the right way as far as progressives and consumer advocates are concerned. But I think it is fair to ask ourselves what happens next and how the progressive community should respond to it.

I know the progressive community has a lot of folks who strongly dislike Obama, and won't change in that view. I know others who still strongly support him. (For myself, I have been in the middle- critical on quite a few things, supportive on others). But the tensions between Obama and many in the progressive community have been quite palpable for quite awhile now, on both sides. The question now is how progressives respond if Obama does start to move in a more progressive direction.

I know all the past sins people commenting on this post will recite (commenters, start your engines), but look at the past few weeks: the move toward more progressive and populist rhetoric on the campaign trail; the appointment of Warren; insisting on letting the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year expire; the replacement of Rahm with Pete Rouse, who is thought by many inside the White House to be more sympathetic to progressive points of view than Rahm was. Based on what I am hearing, there will be more outreach to progressives over the next several weeks than there has been for a while.

So is it all nirvana? Is Obama turning into Bernie Sanders? Of course not. But if the Obama White House starts a concerted effort to reach out to progressives, and appoints some of them to key positions, and works with them constructively on more issues, does that change how the progressive community works with the White House?

I hope so. In the late '50s and early '60s, John and Bobby Kennedy did not start as avid civil rights advocates, and LBJ was cutting deals in the Senate for incredibly weak, watered-down civil rights bills. But the movement pushed them, and they responded by eventually moving left. Same with FDR and labor in the 1930s, and Lincoln and the abolitionists in the 1860s. Those movements had the flexibility and strategic sophistication to protest those Presidents when they needed protesting or work constructively with Presidents when they moved in the right direction- they didn't engage in a one size fits all tactic of protesting everything all the time. I hope the progressive community today has the strategic wisdom.

I don't know for sure what will happen next in the White House, or whether there will be more outreach and appointments and policy decisions us progressive activists cheer- it is way too early to tell. But progressives should be ready to move to meet the President halfway and work with him in the areas where he does move our direction, and we shouldn't always assume the worst. We should keep our healthy skepticism, push hard when we need to push, but be ready to engage when a door is opened to us to engage on.

Mike Lux :: Obama comes through on foreclosure issue: what's next?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This sums up progressive thinking better than anything I have seen: (4.00 / 4)
"But progressives should be ready to move to meet the President halfway and work with him in the areas where he does move our direction, and we shouldn't always assume the worst. "

In the face of caving from someone who has not supported them, progressives think its time for progressives to compromise.

In the face of caving from someone who has not supported them, conservatives think its time to call all in on what they want.

Until you get that, you will continue to be lose. The truth is that you should take a reserved position whereby you say "Okay, let's see what else you are going to do next?"

You shouldn't be making a comment on what progressive should be doing at all if you were trying to influence the president. But, what do I know- i just negotiate shit in the private sector, and in that context, such telegraphing is considered a bad idea.  


It's bad to telegraph that good behavior... (4.00 / 1)
...will be rewarded? Not sure I understand the "wisdom" of the "private sector" then.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
No you clearly don't understand negotiation in the private sector or otherwise (4.00 / 3)
The point of negotiation is to obtain one's interest rather than "reward" the president.

This is something that you can learn in negotiation 101 in a  book like "Getting to Yes" which discusses interest based negotiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Coupled with the various strategies- understanding these things are  a powerful tool for understand what's wrong with your statements and those of the writer above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

After a long period of being denied on most fronts of negotiation, and the other party finally throws you a bone, that's not a basis for then "rewarding" the other side for doing so. Its a basis for seeing what else you can get in terms of your interest.

Why?

Because you are no longer early in this presidency. There is water under the bridge that tends to or should with normal people involve what is the likely behavior that is appropriate under the circumstances. Normal people don't respond in a negotiation by caving at the first signs of an upper hand.

Its not about rewarding their good behavior to agree with them. Its about getting what you want out of the process. The president is actually as far as your interests are concerned- if they are progressive positions- irrelevant but-for his role in the system, and thus, the need to play hardball tactics with him. But, then- that's the problem. Do you know how to play hardball? The answer is likely no.

You only seem to ever focus on these 60s esque hippie "why can't we all just get along" cliches that the right can manipulate.

If your strategy or that of the diarist were working we would see political proof of this. Yet, you can not cite any meaningful examples of how soft tactics are going to work here.

What you can cite is something like this issue on foreclosure that is happening during an election cycle in which the president feels general pressure to act in a manner that happens to coincide to a position favorable to progressive views on this issue. Do you believe in 2011,  you will get the same thing?

Let me explain it another way. The point of negotiation isn't to meet  the other side half way. That's a DC "progressive" bubble think analysis. Certainly, the GOP understands this. They aren't  meeting you half way. And as a result they are about to win in a cycle that should have been the consolidation of centrist Democratic power in DC.

For all the whining about the Tea Party- they are also about to win several Senate seats (I count 3) this cycle. Meanwhile, progressives are about to lose at least 1 or more seats because they let the centrists control the steering of the car and thus took the party over the cliff.

Frankly, this issue of negotiation strategies is a activist base issue. I think the Democratic leadership understands negotiation too, but it suits the strategy of feigned weakness in the service of neo-liberal policy making to pretend that they don't so that the activist base such as yourself can go on believing as you do. That you can 'reward" neo-liberals for noticing you on some small policy front. What you are projecting is weakness. Not the conciliation that you imagine.

The purpose of negotiation is to serve your interest. Progressive interests here are progressive policies that they believe will help the American public. This is negotiation 101.



[ Parent ]
Came through or Outed? (4.00 / 5)
How did the bill get to his desk in the first place?  It seems the real lesson on this is that the party can't be trusted to do the right thing unless their dirty deals are outed.  The extent of the corruption is mind boggling.  

Well, according to the diary, (4.00 / 1)
"Congress (was) asleep at the wheel"

Since "the bank lobbyists (were) in control", I hypothesize, as follows:

The bank lobbyist tip-toed in, real sneaky-like, slipped some sleeping powder into the Senator's water bottles (when they weren't looking, of course), and then mimicked their voices during the vote, as the Senators dreamed sweet dreams. (Probably of 7 figure lobbyist contracts, after their years of "public service" have ended.)

Hmmmm. No, now that I think about it, that doesn't seem too likely.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
More likely the lobby for the industry (4.00 / 3)
 drafted the bill as other lobbies for other industries draft bills in DC because that's "pragmatic." Laws are written in such a way as to allow either a lack of regulation or regulatory capture.

[ Parent ]
For one .. (4.00 / 4)
it was passed with unanimous consent in the Senate(when was the last time that happened for some non-Post Office naming deal?) ... so the Pukes were in on it .. and it passed in the House by voice vote in the House .. meaning there is no record of who voted how(meaning that Orange Julius was complicit as well)

[ Parent ]
February 2010 - Senate - (4.00 / 3)
last time I recall for non-Post Office naming deal.

The Senate Wednesday evening passed a one-year extension to the Patriot Act, a Bush-era homeland security law that has been much maligned by Democrats but described by Republicans as key to the war on terror.
...
The law was passed by voice vote, which does not require debate on the Senate floor. link


[ Parent ]
An Immaculate Conception (4.00 / 2)
It was a miracle!

[ Parent ]
I think this is wrong .... (4.00 / 14)
I know the progressive community has a lot of folks who strongly dislike Obama, and won't change in that view.

like has nothing to do with it ... it's the fact .. due to stuff like HAMP .. that a Democrat in the WH is catering to the banksters and other assorted crooks .. maybe it's wishful thinking that he'd be more FDR-like .. but what good is history if you don't learn from it?


One of the standard tools of conservative thought (4.00 / 6)
is to try to individualize or personalize what are often debates over systemic issue. Thus, disagreement over the impact of policies becomes "you are saying this because you dislike the person." Remember, the GOP reps were also never responsible for the system that produced what we saw with the GOP. That was individual reps rather than the system that the GOP allowed to continue. The same here. If you have a problem with obama, the conservative mindset says you must be discussing obama rather than the policies. Here, we are thrown a bone, and thus, rather than wanting more, if you say that this is a small step, then you are just a hater for wanting more.  And, in fact, to make sure you don't want more, you should meet him half way, which will turn out to mean that if you disagree, then you are whining. Nice rhetorical traps.  

[ Parent ]
If Obama disbands the (4.00 / 20)
Cat Food Commission, I will be more open to working with him.

Yep. I should have mentioned that too. (4.00 / 6)
That's the Grand Dealbreaker Deluxe for this crew. If the Dems go forward with this atrocity, it's Game Over in my book.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
There is no Grand Deal (4.00 / 2)
There is no Grand Deal and there never will be.

Support the stuff you like, fight the stuff you hate.  Use both sticks and carrots.  At the most basic level, it isn't all that complex.

There is no need to pretend that one good act has any impact on any other bad acts.  We don't have to choose whether Obama is a villain or hero.


[ Parent ]
Don't have to choose between villain or hero (0.00 / 0)
More into issues and not personalities. I do choose to decide if the Dems actually support legislation by their votes not their rhetoric that are in line with my positions and the weight that I personally assign to each issue.  So far the majority of the major Dems legislation along with Obama's civil liberty actions do not lead to my support. Also, I strongly disagree. A Dem president and Dem congressional support to cut Social Security would be a major deal to me.

[ Parent ]
Of course. (4.00 / 2)
I wasn't referring to any real Grand Deal. I was merely saying that if the Dems go forward on the Catfood Commission's recommendations, Game Over. They can stop trying to convince me that they are worth anything other than early retirement through a party-wide revolt.

That's it. One has to draw the line somewhere and that's where I draw mine... as I suspect a great many others will as well.  

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass


[ Parent ]
But we do have to choose ... (0.00 / 0)
... whether or not to challenge him in the 2012 primaries.

We don't have to choose whether Obama is a villain or hero

just treats us like a bunch of over-emotional ninnies.  I'll call him a hero, but I still want to Dump him.

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


[ Parent ]
Don't worry about it (4.00 / 1)
I doubt he's going to run in 2012.

[ Parent ]
That's silly. (0.00 / 0)


miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I'm not entirely sure (0.00 / 0)
I've thought several times recently that Obama doesn't look very excited about the thought of 2 more years, and isn't really positioning himself for a second term.  Just an impression, and no one who isn't named Michelle probably knows (if her), but worth thinking about.

sPh


[ Parent ]
Worth thinking about, yes (0.00 / 0)
but that's a far cry from:

*[new]  Don't worry about it   (4.00 / 1)
I doubt he's going to run in 2012.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Binary Choices (4.00 / 6)
I'll admit there are often binary choices in politics.  Reps can only vote yes or no.  At the ballot you can only vote for one person.

In this case, though, you know my stand.  We've been over this several times.

If you actually had a well calculated, holistic plan to expose Democratic corporatism that included primarying Obama as one component, I'd support that almost no matter what Obama did.  He'd have to radically veer left for me to change my mind.

If, on the other hand, you stick to your current plan of just making this all about Obama, as if he personally was the cause of what troubles the Democrats and this country, then I think the idea is stupid, regardless of what Obama does.

In this case, I see no binary choice, other than be holistic and smart versus personal and stupid.  (Hint, choose holistic and smart.)  Obama has no control over that.


[ Parent ]
It's obviously not all about Obama (0.00 / 0)
So I'm glad you don't think the idea is stupid.

If, on the other hand, you stick to your current plan of just making this all about Obama, as if he personally was the cause of what troubles the Democrats and this country, then I think the idea is stupid, regardless of what Obama does.

No issue is all about any one thing in this inter-connected world.  It's a matter of tactical focus.  Obama represents the Democratic Party.  Obama represents neo-liberalism.  Obama represents false promises.  Obama represents corporate power.

By taking on Obama, one can take on all of the above, per your suggestion, with a tactical focus.  By taking on Obama, all the above come into play.

And who's getting personal here?

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


[ Parent ]
Tactical focus is precisely why your idea is so problematic. (4.00 / 3)
Besides the obvious personalization, which is tactically stupid, the fact is you're putting the cart before the horse.

If you recognize that this problem goes well beyond one person (Obama), then simply focusing on that one person makes no sense. The Party Apparat can jettison one person or another as offal, without changing a damn thing. That's the whole problem here.

Your tactical sense makes no sense because there's no strategy behind it. You're not willing to deal with the larger issues and as such, you will get nowhere.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass


[ Parent ]
Wrong. (0.00 / 0)
The Party Apparat can jettison one person or another as offal, without changing a damn thing.

They can but they won't.  There's the seeming logic of what you say, but there's the reality of how it would develop.  If people like you won't jettison Obama, why would they?

As for there being a strategy behind it, a Dump Obama campaign would pull progressive forces together for it, and hopefully they could be organized into something that would outlast the campaign.  An independent force, something we now lack.

See further:

Time for a Dump Obama movement
Dump Obama:  more urgent than ever

You think  I haven't thought about any of this?

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


[ Parent ]
Um, no. (4.00 / 2)
First off, I've already "dumped" Obama, for what little that's worth. I'll write in my cat's name on the Preznitential ballot if I don't have anyone else to vote for in 2012. Well, that's if they don't radically change their tune--I know, I give it about a 3% likelihood.

Second, I don't mind you or anyone else attacking, ie subverting, the Obama administration. I find personalizing it the way you do to be in bad taste and not politically sound, but that's just my opinion.

We've already been over this too many times for me to spend much energy on this. So I'll just reiterate a point I made a long time ago: When you personalize politics, you reinforce those who buy into the Cult of Personality. Obama's defenders will only get pissed off and start making some really inflammatory accusations. In this case, he's the first black president, so you'll be lumped in with the TeaBirchers at some point... by certain people. If you want to go that route, that's your prerogative. But you can leave me out of it.

Barack Hoover Obama is just the tip of the iceberg. The other 90% of the ice is underwater. Making this all about him only allows the rest of the apparat a safe place to operate from, since they won't be getting the attention they so well deserve.

One of the reasons Americans are so shitty at politics is they tend to personalize everything. Dubya became our national bete noir, so when he left office, people went back to sleep. The establishment apparat is still there and unchanging, but that doesn't matter, because that coke-addled nitwit is gone. As long as this dynamic stays in place, nothing will change, because the American polity will just see a new face and go back to sleep, just like changing channels on the TeeVee. Oh look! Oprah's on!

I appreciate your  stubborness and your passion. But I disagree with you on this and always will. You can't get there from here.


"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass


[ Parent ]
Thank you for that much (0.00 / 0)
Second, I don't mind you or anyone else attacking, ie subverting, the Obama administration. I find personalizing it the way you do to be in bad taste and not politically sound, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, it's vulgar.  The way I see it, it's utilizing the coin of the realm.  It's a way of appealing to popular instincts, I admit it.

If Obama wins the primaries, then it will still be Obama vs. Republicans.  That's a different dynamic.  If Obama is dumped in the primaries, then he's out of the picture and that's that.

It just that Dump the System isn't on the ballot, Dump Corporate Democrats isn't on the ballot, etc., etc.  Obama will be.  That outweighs, in my view, many of the shortcomings that you are absolutely right about.

There is much else to be done.  I don't see Dump Obama as in competition with any of them.  My hope is that movements spill over their  boundaries.

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


[ Parent ]
Well, what's the real prize we're keeping our eyes on here? (0.00 / 0)
I think that's a question that gets in the way of spilling borders.

Let's say Obama pulls an LBJ in 2012, after two more years of economic depression, quagmires, latin american coups, other newer wars that will never achieve anything beyond profits for certain corporations. Oh, let's through in one or two more environmental disasters too, since we're almost certainly headed that way as well.

Let's say Obama sez, "I think I'll cash in my $200 Million in chips and go enjoy all this money instead of dealing with you people."

Then what? Oh, we'll definitely get Hillary. Then we'll have to have a "Dump Hillary" movement so we can enjoy the pleasure of being called "misogynists," since that's a great way to deflect attention away from the Right-Wing Authoritarianism and it's incipient corruption.

Wash, lather, rinse, repeat. It goes nowhere because it stands for nothing aside from personal likes/dislikes.

So what's the prize and how do we get there?

"Dump Obama" isn't a strategy. It's a very narrow response to a broadly systemic problem that will not go away as long as people think in such pedestrian terms.  

I say all this because like you and many others, I'm fed up with the Neo-Liberal establishment and their total corruption. So I have no problem with people attacking the establishment or the administration.... as long as it's true and principled.

Personally, I'd love to see a primary against Obama, but I seriously doubt it will happen at all. I just don't see how a prinicpled person can possibly compete with a complete corporate sell-out who's loaded up in corporate cash. Obama himself is relying on this very fact.

I would suggest this has to be done from the bottom upward, because that's where we live. Aiming at the top has always been a quixotic venture.


"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass


[ Parent ]
Good questions! (0.00 / 0)
We're not terribly far apart.

"Dump Obama" isn't a strategy. It's a very narrow response to a broadly systemic problem that will not go away as long as people think in such pedestrian terms.

In other words, it's a tactic.  If Obama bails, if what you outline comes to pass, we'll claim victory and then have to figure it out from there.  No, moving to Dump Hillary isn't the kneejerk response.  But if Obama bails, then there will surely be various primary contenders.

My bottom line isn't Obama.  It's what tactic  or tactics can be used to solidify some kind of independent infrastructure within the DP that can link up with progressive independents and ...

... and what circumstances dictate.  That independent force is my goal above any particular tactic.  There are so many possibilities as you mention, and the wildcard of what kind of mass movement develops or doesn't, that positioning is far more important than predicting any particular set of developments.  Whatever I advocate on any given day, it is NEVER the totality of my thinking.

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


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure why Progressives should feel any pressure to do anything just because of one act of decency. (4.00 / 12)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he did this. But the timing is also not very good, as it seems this act of goodness only happened once the proverbial cat was out of the bag thanks to Reuters actually running a story that's already a week old. No one else did.

So the day after the story gets out, he makes this decision. Quite frankly, he would be deserving of a lot of praise if he had acted like a leader and trashed this crap bill a week ago, defiantly announcing (as opposed to "thinking about what to do") his immediate veto. He would have picked up 3-4 points in Job Approval if he had.

But still, he still did the right thing in this instance, so a couple minor style points for POTUS. This, after doing hundreds of awful things and essentially waging offensive warfare against most of his own Party's base.

Mike, I don't know where this perception among elites--that Progressives are such terribly unreasonable people-- comes from. It's certainly not deserved. One should be able to understand that when the elites go out of their way to insult and smear a group of people, that group of people will become increasingly intolerant of their arrogance. That's not politics, that's just human nature.

When the Party Leadership does good things, they will gain support. When they do bad things--which is their wont most of the time--they will further erode their base of support. That's not some Unreasonable Progressive talking, that's just life.

Ii don't know why so many progressive elites spend so much time worrying about Barack Obama. It's really just silly. He was elected by a large majority of record-making proportions. He can enjoy that support any time he Does Good by the people.

That's all up to him and his handlers, advisors, staffers and corporate paymasters.

Whether he succeeds or fails is completely up to him and him alone. It has nothing to do with us "little people" (which the WH reminds us all the time).  If he goes down as the Second Worst President after Dubya, it's because he ended up promoting that agenda and the vast proportion of Americans have shown their distaste for that agenda over the previous two election cycles. They may do it again this time as well, which is too bad for the Bush-League Dems.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass


Of course progressives are ready (4.00 / 9)
to support Obama if and when he does progressive things.

And we're ready to raise bloody hell if he supports the recommendations of the CFC and generally continues to govern as the love-child of Robert Rubin and Olympia Snowe.

The second scenario is much much more likely, of course.  


are you fucking kidding me (4.00 / 8)
But progressives should be ready to move to meet the President halfway

Should I even bother posting the list at this point?  You've already cynically dismissed the legitimate objections to the president's unabashed neo-liberal agenda that the commenters on this site (who you clearly hold in low, if any, regard).  Why bother pointing how fucking tone deaf and borderline insane that sumation is?

This isn't just ignorant, it's fucking insulting.  You know better than this.  Yes, it's good that Obama didn't sign off on (yet another) giveaway to big banks and corporate hegemony.  That's his FUCKING JOB as the de facto leader of the "left" party.  To quote a great man, "what do you want, a cookie?"

To stand there with your hands on your hips and lecture REAL leftists as to who they should compromise with (i.e. "everyone") in the interest of having more meaningless "wins" demonstrates that you're either not paying any god damn attention or that you're just plain cruel.  I can't decide wish.

God damn.


you are absolutely right. (4.00 / 2)
it is fucking insulting.

[ Parent ]
Go. Read. (0.00 / 0)
Get the big "progressive" picture.....

http://www.ianwelsh.net/object...


Authoring an "Obama Doctrine" paper (4.00 / 1)
in a public journal of suitable stature that refutes the so-called "Bush Doctrine" that sought to justify pre-emptive wars such as that against Iraq. This would become the official correction of the international affairs that was taken so far astray by his predecessor.

In the same document, or another if he feels the need to pad his CV, he might consider an explicit roll-back of the unitary executive to, at least pre-Cheney levels.
That would be a positive next step. Wouldn't take too long either. He could probably knock out a rough draft while waiting for the motorcade to pick him up for the next fund-raiser. The staff can polish it up and deal with the submission process.

Thereby, he might get me to politely listen to his spiel about Afghanistan and extension into Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, before I start clamoring ever more loudly for a redirection of effort and resources.

I know that I'd cut him some slack prosecuting the folks at Gitmo and closing it down, because I think the Bush/Yoo team left a huge pile of legal doo doo all over Camp Delta and the rendition sites that channeled prisoners to Gitmo. So, yeah OK, its a tough one to sort out, I'll give you that, if you'll just write one or two short manuscripts. I'll even help with the editing.

Can you do it? (you know what I mean).



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






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS