Dispassionate Liberal: August 2007

8/28/07

8/27/07

8/26/07

Meta on Shrub's Vietnam Metaphor

Could it really be that Shrubby finally jumped the shark, even in the eyes of the 28%ers; and that he went one metaphor too many? Did he state something so backward, so profound in it's ignorance than not even the most adroit culture warrior can spin it back on itself?

There is an amazing amount of real and digital ink that instantly hurled it's outrage at the cockamaymee idea the Draft Dodger in Chief had any handle whatsoever on the real lesson of our Indo-China excursion. The one he managed to drink and snort his way through in the late 60's and early 70's.

Even Academia as well as the Punditocracy (with one or two notable exceptions), could not stomach the sheer wrongheadedness of the idea that pulling out of South East Asia a mere ten years and 58,000 dead soldiers later was evidence of American's capricious approach to causes requiring a more committed dedication than we are willing to pay -- especially us dirty hippies on the left.

Yes Virginia, some lies cannot stand up to the truth, no matter how strongly stated nor oft repeated.

I was first confused when Powerline only managed to pick the slightest nit with the critics and then entered the quagmire of analogies that Bush missed -- which highlight all the mistakes he repeated but should have learned from Vietnam.

Then I noticed that Sadly No! did not entertain us with the usual litany of nutjobbyness on "how we so so so so SO woulda won in Vietnam if only we’d stayed another 20 years," from the usual Kool-Aide drinking suspects. Now the Pajama Hadeen and LGF are linking up with Chris Hitch's 13 reasons Bush's analogy is moronic.

Hitchenson has indeed penned a piece of prose that will warm your heart:

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways.
***
As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, ...
***
If one question is rightly settled in the American and, indeed, the international memory, it is that the Vietnam War was at best a titanic blunder and at worst a campaign of atrocity and aggression.
***

The logic of history is pitiless and Bush is not the only one who will find this out.

Could it be now that Rove is busy plotting the removal of some other politician's brain, Bush is left on his own and no talking points are being faxed to the rest of the Right Wing Noise Machine? Are the GOP too, simply marking time until they can get rid of Boy Wonder, the Super Chimpleton? Or is this the way they pave the road for their next rabbit out of the hat -- the improbable election of another Republican goof-ball to the Oval Office?

As the Rude One opines, when it comes to the continued glory that is the conservative movement, the GOP frontrunner, Mayor Rudy is "George W. Bush without the nuance." Scary thought, but sure to be born out as the talking heads convene this morning, having come to the stark realization that all could be (deservedly) lost, 30 years of bamboozlement flushed down the drain. Unlike the post Vietnam era, the conservatives don't want to lose the argument that now will prevail until the next war -- Who Lost Iraq?

Seeing that of all the administration officials who talked the nation into this mess are now in the private sector save Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice, yet the stupidity grows ever deeper; I've got a pretty good hunch exactly who should be singled out for special consideration when the blame gets handed out.

8/25/07

[+/-]

Bush Breaks Another Promise

[+/-]

You Didn't Really Mean That, Did You?

Mr. Rubyan reminds me that in our existential struggle as the civilizations clash, Franklin's "real" existential dilemma of the USA, "A republic if you can keep it," there can be no compromise with those in the GOP that consider our 200+ year experiment in representative democracy "quaint."

In the context of Hillary Clinton's much discussed answer to one of those dreaded hypotheticals all politicians of her experience should know to avoid, she said:

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,"

You have to admit one thing. The perception that the GOP is better at security is not born out by the facts. They have been effective pushing the perception, not making us safer. (If you cannot agree with this premise, at least to the point that neither party holds a monopoly on security effectiveness wholly apart from their reputation, just stop reading. This blog is not your cup of tea.)

Hillary has internalized that perception and perpetuates it -- which infuriates me when she speaks like Rudy -- and ignores the considerable blame and backlash the administration would be subject to if we suffer another devastating attack despite two wars, torture, secret prisons, dilution of habeas corpus, a power grab by the executive that Nixon didn't even dare, and a wholesale and unilateral abrogation of international law and the Bill of Rights.

(Did I miss anything? I'm sure something else will come to mind.)

Can we keep the republic if another attack makes 9/11 pale in comparison? Will the terrorists win? They will if Bush and Cheney use the opportunity to do away with any pretense of normal electoral succession -- and suspend voting until they say it's safe.

If we lose the republic in the next 16 months via some terror inspired presidential coup, Clinton's contribution to the discourse is no more relevant than Cicero witnessing, opposing, but unable to prevent the fall of a great republic into empire:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."

However, with statements like Hillary's, in effect acknowledging that Bush/Rudy/Caesar and his supporters make the plebs feel safer and in the event the barbarian hoard arrives Caesar will win popularity as the citizens flock to his perceived strength -- the idea that she is the best person to stand in opposition to Caesar's coup will not stop the gates of Rome (or the doors to the White House) from swinging open to the 13th Legion to protects us all from the Hun.

And I fail to see where she made the case that she is the candidate most likely to stop the warmongers. She does not stand diametrically in opposition when she adopts the GOP spin, nor does Obama when he looks for the non-confrontational approach.

This is not a place for a negotiated settlement. In this existential battle for the continuation of the republic, we do not need to solved a problem -- "Get to Yes", as it were. We need to bury the extremists' conservative and neoconservative ideology, with their transparent partisan scare tactics and incompetent, partisan cronyism as a failed and discredited cult of personality.

If K-Lo from The (F-ing) Corner can twist Hillary's words to say this, and yet the essence of this spin cannot really be denied, Hillary did neither herself, nor our cause much good:

It's hard to tell from the Washington Post piece, but Senator Clinton appears to be acknowledging the fact that Republican frontrunners appear to more fully understand the jihadi threat America is facing tha the Democrats and the American people know that full and well and that another attack on the United S ates will only make that clearer. And she seems not to have offered a persuasive reason why that's a wrong train of thought -- unless she's straight-on going to blame Republicans (Bush/Cheney/'neocons') for the next attack. Anyway, seems like a dumb remark, but not for reasons other people are outraged.

Blaming them, the neocons, is precisely what she should be contemplating because the only justification the Bush apologists ever had was giving up a bit of liberty was the price of security. (Hmm, seems to me that Franklin said something wise about that too.)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
When they put me against the wall and I bite the filter off the end of my last cigarette, let none of the charges include that I enabled the Pax Americana Imperium by my silence or even tacit acknowledgment that we are in better hands in the face of the greatest usurpation of power since the end of the Weimar Republic.

8/21/07

[+/-]

Doing Beers With Huckabee

[+/-]

Grab Some Popcorn

[+/-]

Say Cheese

8/19/07

[+/-]

Well La, Freaking Dah

I was informed yesterday that "A single payer national health care system is 'socialized medicine,'" in response to a post I made defending John Edwards from getting labeled some kind of commie.

Fine. Point well taken, Professor. It's nice to have some straight talking language for a change. It's so refreshing in an age of Orwellian Double-Speak.

However, I'm sure you are well aware that certain phrases elicit emotional reactions over time, code words for an entire point of view. The term you prefer has been vilified over the decades to the point where it is counterproductive to advance the policy under that framing of the issue since it favors the corporate/conservative resistance to providing universal health care.

We could call it, "free" health care, since there would be little or no out-of-pocket expenses involved. That of course misleads since tax dollars are indeed paying for this "free" service. But even so, when the fire department rescues you, that is essentially a "free" service to the beneficiary.

I could live with "Government Provided" and/or "State Assisted," both of which are even more accurate than "single payor" since in theory Bill Gates could decide to be that payer (for a month or two anyway).

But I absolutely refuse to accept the purposely inflammatory right-wing framing you prefer. Besides, I don't care what the Brits called it. They talk funny and are principly responsible for making English perhaps the most ambiguous language on the planet where over half the words are not spelled like they sound and nearly all have more than one meaning -- and for insisting that a perfectly good word like "principly" is rejected by my spell-checker -- although they do make good tea.

It should be pointed out to the good professor that Edwards' plan is NOT single-payer, but sets up a competing government sponsored plan, an optional plan for all of us since he "mandates" that everyone get some kind of medical insurance -- just like found in many States regarding their car insurance. Ideally it will lead to single payer. Ideally I will be put in charge of a modest cohort in our socialist dystopia as well -- and be granted unlimited powers to abolish the tenure of any and all professors who piss me off in the future.

(Professor John Lott, to whom this reply was directed, is the Author of Freedomnomics and can be found on various "Fair and Balanced" editorial pages like the Moonie Times, NRO, and our favorite source for Double-plus-good fabrications -- Faux Noise.)

[+/-]

Cheney is a Dildo and Other Quyck Hyts

8/18/07

[+/-]

The Science of Political Science

I'm a big fan of "putting the science" into political science. Mostly this consists of polling and sophisticated statistical analysis, demographic and census tracking, case studies, or historical comparisons of current events. Of course, there never will be anything like a mathematical precision that's applicable to politics -- even in science fiction.

Bob Altemeyer's work studying "authoritarian personalities", famously brought to everyone's attention by John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience, goes beyond mere analysis and adds some experimentation -- essence of the scientific method -- which is highlighted by "Moonbat" at The Mahablog. Get it all in handy E-Book (pdf) form, free, from Altemeyer himself.

Frighteningly predictable results were documented when experimenters secretly divided over 130 or so volunteers into two groups -- by whether they exhibited authoritarian personality types or a more benign psychological profile -- and then unleashed them upon a virtual world.

I've seen this dynamic at several Model United Nations Conferences I (along with my good friend and fellow Kossack, TimRoff) helped run back in the Reagan years. I saw both types of folks of course, since no effort was made to segregate the delegates from each other by any artificial means other than the fact they desired to attend.

We solved most of the world's problems in less than a week, every year!

Of course, we were indeed segregated much along the lines Altemeyer positis, just not consciously. By attending, the students attending implicitly acknowledged that diplomacy in general, and specifically the United Nations, was something worthwhile, something with a genuine purpose and worthy of learning as much as possible about. Needless to say, there was a distinctly liberal bent to the participants overall. You don't even read the brochure, let alone come up with the cash to travel to Cleveland ... in January ... for a week ... unless you disagree with John Bolton's idea of the UN's utility.

Indeed, I would hazard that the vast majority would think that diplomacy is a means to solve problems, not simply Bolton's insistence that, "Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests." Rather, it's a way of getting the parties to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements, a way of Getting To "Yes."

If only they took their top-down mentality to it's logical conclusion. That is, instead of simply buying into the idea that what is good for the corporate and powerful elites is good for everyone -- all benefits trickling downhill -- but that what is good for the planet as a whole will trickle down to their greedy pockets too.

When Altemeyer put the Authoritarians in charge, those with:

a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
a high level of conventionalism.

... they blew up the planet in short order. When the game was restarted with proper admonitions that with nuclear warfare, the only winning move is not to play...

The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites [self-appointed leaders -- Mark], who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA [Right Wing Authoritarians -- Mark] Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, "Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together."
The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.
Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.

Maha has been sharing his insight into what exactly IS a conservative lately, and why on earth they get away with the crap we've suffered since the dawn of civilization. My own take is that ever since Caesar waded across the Rubicon signaling the emasculation of democratic institutions that carried on in name only -- yet ceded their powers to a would-be despot "for the good of the people" whose democratic principles were squashed in the name of (ironically) the Republic, nobody has been able to adequately diagnose the commingling of genetic markers that allow the apathetic and exploitative to continue down this evolutionary dead end. Reflect and meditate.

Mind you, there's a lot to be said for just calling them lying crap-weasels, but that only encourages more lying and weasel crapping to sift through. When I talk of burying the GOP, neo-cons, and hyperventilating harpies of the right, I know deep down that we will not destroy them, but must co-opt enough of them, teach them the errors of their ways so that they reject the unsustainable and internally disconnected policies they bought into.

[+/-]

Huckabee, The GOP's Edwards

David Sirota noted that Governor Mike Huckabee is the only candidate other than Edwards in the 2008 presidential race running explicitly on economic populist themes.

Mind you, he's still a Republican, and no matter how authentic he might be, I firmly believe the world will be a much better place if his friends spend a generation or two wandering in the wilderness. But that observation, coupled with the new interest in his campaign since his strong showing in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll made me pay more than the usual attention to yet another comment by yet another conservative presidential aspirant commenting on the Clintons' personal life -- especially since it sounded much more forgiving than anything I've heard from the right side of the aisle since 1996.

"But they kept their marriage together. And a lot of the Republicans who have condemned them and talk about their platform of family values, interestingly, didn’t keep their own families together." -- Mike Huckabee, quoted by NPR, praising Bill and Hillary Clinton. (via Political Wire)

Mike, it's not just Republicans who think the Bill and Hillary's marriage is fair game. Maybe he didn't catch this catty quote from Michelle Obama.

Our view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House,” Mrs. Obama said.

As I recall, noting the relative peace and prosperity of the 1990's, the Clintons did a decent job running the White House despite the constant harassment from people spewing exactly that kind of nonsense the First Couple's way, let alone the disorder, pain and humiliation "Teh Clenis" must have caused them on a personal level.

That, sadly, is in a nutshell why John Edwards is the guy for me. I can't stomach any more hate-filled invectives hurled towards Bill and Hill, and the eagerness with which Barack (and now Michelle) Obama embrace GOP framing and tactics is repulsive.

Not to mention I'm one of those economic populists kinda guys. If this thing should by some twist of fate end up a contest between Obama and Huckabee, I'm going to have a real problem choosing. A Republican who seems sincere and wants to speak for the little guy without sounding like a butthead, or a naive Democratic compromiser who refuses to do what must be done to the GOP -- bury it. Yikes.

8/16/07

[+/-]

Padila

[+/-]

The BSing of America Continues

8/15/07

[+/-]

Unleash Hell

[+/-]

Rose Colored Glasses

8/13/07

[+/-]

Exit Stage Right

8/10/07

[+/-]

Beyond Orwell, Herbert on Rhetorical Despotism

Unceasing warfare gives rise to its own social conditions which have been
similar in all epochs. People enter a permanent state of alertness to ward off
attacks. You see the absolute rule of the autocrat. All new things become
dangerous frontier districts-new planets, new economic areas to exploit, new
ideas or new devices, visitors-everything suspect. Feudalism takes firm hold,
sometimes disguised as a politbureau or similar structure, but always present.
Hereditary succession follows the lines of power. The blood of the powerful
dominates. The vice regents of heaven or their equivalent apportion the wealth.
And their know they must control inheritance or slowly let the power melt away.

An excerpt from God Emperor of Dune the fourth installment of the epic sci-fi series by Frank Herbert written in 1981 about mankind's far distant future. The following tracks a dialog Leto II has with his majordomo, Moneo that reminded me of the fanatics who still pay homage to George W. Bush -- those whose steadfast support can only be explained in terms of faith despite all reasonable evidence that suggests that faith is misplaced:

"Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism," Leto said. "Before the Bene
Gesserit, the Jesuits were the best at it."
"Jesuits, Lord?"
"Surely you've met them in your histories?"
"I'm not certain, Lord. When were they?"
"No matter. You learn enough about rhetorical despotism from a study of the Bene
Gesserit. Of course, they do not begin by deluding themselves with it."

***
"It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of
obscenities," Leto said.
"This . . . rhetorical despotism, Lord?"
"Yes! It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against
all arguments against the evil."

***
"It feeds on deliberately twisted meanings to discredit opposition," Leto said.
"All of that, Lord?"
"The Jesuits called that `securing your power base.' It leads directly to
hypocrisy which is always betrayed by the gap between actions and explanations.
They never agree."
"I must study this more carefully, Lord."
"Ultimately, it rules by guilt because hypocrisy brings on the witch hunt and
the demand for scapegoats."
"Shocking, Lord."

George Orwell wrote at excruciating length, both in his fiction and non-fiction works, of the way those in power use language gimmicks to convince the people they exploit that their oppression is good for them. Our government today, and much of our media seems to delight in such double-speak.

I can think of only two reasons this behavior continues despite it's transparency:

It works.
It helps powerful hypocrites sleep at night.

8/9/07

[+/-]

Hey Dick. War is Bad, MmmKay?

8/8/07

[+/-]

Worst Overreaction to Foot In Mouth Rhetoric, Ever

Citing Obama, Pakistan Says It May Impose State Of Emergency: "

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The government of embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday it may impose a state of emergency due to 'external and internal threats' and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.
Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said some sentiment coming from the United States, including from Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama, over the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan 'has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.'

Notwithstanding the fact that K-Lo thinks Barack makes Hillary sound "reasonable" for taking a position exactly the same as Senator Clinton's, methinks there's more than a little opportunism going on here -- both here and in Pakistan.

Musharraf has been looking for an excuse to at least look like he's cracking down and can now blame Obama for a little "surge" of his own, damn those Americans. Here in the States, everybody (and by that I mean anybody who is not already firmly in Obama's camp) has been waiting for the "Rock Star" to falter -- jumping on a badly delivered policy statement, uncharacteristically inarticulate for one of the most notable orators of a generation is a no-brainer.

If we've learned one thing from the Rovellians, it's that attacking your opponent's strength is a winning strategy. The great orator stutters. The guy who loves to remind us that he was right about our military strategy in the Middle East from the beginning sends mixed if not naive signals about his stance on an issue he should own. Of course he gets beat up.

But why not? Unless you're a policy wonk (or a political blogger), Oh, Bomb 'em's message was fouled up to the point where he's sounding stupid even though he advocates something that is already U.S. Policy -- POTUS is already authorized to act against terrorists in Pakistan upon "actionable intelligence" via the AUMF that got us into Afghanistan -- and as tempting as it might be to turn everything south of the Hindu Kush into molten glass for what Bin Laden's gang did to us, Obama's right. Nuking Waziristan might be considered a bit excessive.

In a political climate where there is more theater than substance, confusing rhetoric and losing the ability to keep "on message" is far more dangerous to political aspirations than any grooming questions, family problems or a sterling record of accomplishments everyone ignores.

The media is unforgiving in these things, parsing nuances to death, catering to the 8 second sound-bytes, ad nauseam, to feed the mindlessness of our two-word culture. Besides, as The Editors Note:

It is generally considered poor form to discuss bombing countries who are not actively hostile to you. Please do not do this. It just makes shit harder.

Unfortunately for Obama, as I noted here in a comment a couple of weeks ago to this post at Taylor Marsh's blog about Obama's announcement of his superior judgment concerning foreign policy -- compared to all the other candidates (including the current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Governor who has a record as an international trouble-shooter), it's time to sit back on the couch and see if "Barry" can stay dry as he leaps these shark infested waters.

Seriously, if you arrogantly proclaim your superiority to people who were dealing with dictators and fighting the good fight in Washington D.C. while you were looking for a date for Homecoming, I'm gonna get some popcorn. If you ask me, Obama was asking to be ganged up upon.

But to all our brothers and sisters in Pakistan, and especially you General Musharraf: Chill out folks, take a pill, drink a beer, light up a hooka, sacrifice a virgin, whatever it is you do to relax -- it's only primary season. And more importantly, it's our primary season, not yours. Get your own lame-brain politicians to get upset about.

8/7/07

[+/-]

dick Cheney vs. The Sopranos

8/6/07

[+/-]

Step Outta Line, The Man Come...

(Sorry, but I'll explode if I don't get this song out of my system.)

...And he take you away.

Very little information on the NSA Program's successes, failures, and abuses has come out thusfar; and indeed it may be less likely that more comes out in the future: Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports tonight that the administration has raided the home of a former DOJ lawyer, Thomas Tamm, seizing his and his kids' computers, on suspicion that he was involved in leaking the program's existence to the media. Now that Congress is out of the oversight picture, I suppose it's time to kill the messengers and thereby get the media out of it too.

What, you may ask led to Tamm being led off the the most convenient gulag? Fresh off their latest finger-pointing circle-jerk and pointless demagoguery, Wingnuttystan speculates that crazed lefty blogging is to blame:

What this Newsweek story by Michael Isikoff doesn't mention is what might have caused the FBI to be suspicious of the alleged leaker---BDS blog postings by Thomas Tamm. One such BDS posting was made by a reader identifying himself as Thomas Mann in the New York Times The Caucus political blog.

Shocking, just shocking that an American might want to express his outrage against something that until yesterday was indefensibly illegal action by the government. Even more frightening is that Bill O'Reilly isn't the only one scouring the comment sections on liberal blogs to find anti-American subversives.

Hopefully, Mr. Tamm can expect better treatment than some others who undoubtedly entertain the Malkinites on the right nearly as much as they would have enjoyed lions shredding Christians and Jews in the Arena in another era:

"The Red Cross went in and got to interview these people for the first time," said Mayer on the CBS Evening News. "What these people described was hanging from the ceilings by their arms and being water-boarded, partially drowned, put on leashes and knocked into walls and basically deprived of all kinds of sensory imagery for years." [my emphasis]

They don't "hate us for our freedoms." They hate us because barbarisms have been undertaken in our names. As the conclusion of Mayer's extraordinary New Yorker article points out, my earlier lament that a government that acts outside of the law, cannot legally put the bad guys away. What made these neocons believe that they were smarter than over 200 years of constitutional tradition and centuries of democratic jurisprudence is beyond me.

NOT being an arbitrary and capricious despotic tyrany was supposedly what separated us from the likes of the Taliban and Hussein in the first place.

[+/-]

Antiwar.com Original

What Mark"s Reading

Proud Realist

Facebook Badge

Contributors

Contact Me

Followers

My Blogroll

OHIO BLOGS

TOLEDO BLOGS

BLOGS I RECOMMEND

American Streeters

8/28/07

8/27/07

8/26/07

8/25/07

8/21/07

8/19/07

8/18/07

8/16/07

8/15/07

8/13/07

8/10/07

8/9/07

8/8/07

8/7/07

8/6/07

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

RealClearPolitics

Pollster.com

Blog Archive

Older Archives