Here is the short letter I sent to both of my Democratic Senators. If you feel similarly about this or some other issue, I suggest considering a similar course of action. We still have the right to vote, it's time to send anyone packing who doesn't meet even a minimal standard of competence or integrity.
Dear Senators Mikulski and Cardin,
Hi, I'll keep this brief. I am an Independent who tends to vote Democratic, but no longer. Your vote to confirm Ben Bernanke for a 2nd four-year term as Fed Chairman is the last straw. I have voted for both of you in past elections, but never again. Anyone who would reward such catastrophic failure with another four years has completely lost touch with reality and what it means to govern. Good luck with your re-elections, I suspect you are going to need it, as many other Independents, and dare I say Democrats, will reach the same conclusion that I have. You and many in your Party have become a sorry spectacle. I will not support you again.
Regards,
Tod Strohmayer
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Howard Zinn: An Exemplary Life
I was saddened to hear today of the sudden death of Howard Zinn at the age of 87. Unfortunately, many Americans probably know little of Zinn, or worse, may have never heard of him at all. To the extent that this is true we can thank our cowardly, corporate-driven media that systematically excludes and distorts all but the most narrowly defined commentary. But known or not, Zinn was in many ways the conscience of our nation. He served as a bombardier in World War II, and was decorated for his service, but it was apparently that experience which, in his words, "crystallized his opposition to war."
He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.
His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.
Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!
He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.
His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.
Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Clearly Not Getting It: Obama Channels Hoover
In my last post I lambasted the Democrats as the Party of stupid. I did so with a rather general critique, and did not wade into the details too much. Suffice to say that they had abandoned most of the allies responsible for their majority status and have essentially governed as corporatist Republicans might have. While "change" was Obama's over-riding mantra, he has delivered precious little of it. The ever eloquent Glenn Greenwald filled in some of the details, and Norman Soloman pointed out that the Dems have simply emboldened the right-wing populists with their Clintonian triangulation. I concluded with the speculation that the Dems would not draw the correct conclusions from their Massachusetts debacle, but rather would conclude exactly the opposite, that they should govern more "from the center," meaning more like Republicans, and to their own electoral demise.
Well, that was a week ago, and I think we have now seen enough of the Democratic response, and particularly the actions of Mr. Obama, to conclude that I was right, and that indeed, the Democrats are completely without a clue. Of course in immediate reaction to the events in Massachusetts one of the first things Obama did was to ratchet up a little populist rhetoric, talk tough to the banks a little bit. But the banksters and most Americans now know that this is just more meaningless huffing and puffing from Obama. If anything can be gleaned from his first year it's that Obama can certainly talk a good game, but when it comes to actually backing up all that talk with action, well, he seems much less adept at that, or a more cynical conclusion might be that he rarely intends to put into action that of which he speaks. This has become such an obvious pattern that, as Bob Herbert has pointed out, he is very rapidly exposing a "credibility gap" with many voters, but particularly with left-leaning, traditional Democrats. One might think he would want to reconsider such actions, since these people were after all largely responsible for his election! But apparently re-election is not a primary concern for Mr. Obama, if comments to Diane Sawyer are to be believed. No, he would rather just be a "good President." Fair enough, but a good President for whom, Wall Street bankers?
The Democrats are so inept, or maybe it's simply corrupted by corporate money, that they can't even recognize when someone comes bearing political gifts. In the wake of the populist rage in Massachusetts a number of Democratic Senators still had sense enough to be able to read the tea leaves (or was it tea bags?) accurately and decided that come November they didn't want voters to see their name next to a reconfirmation vote in the affirmative for "Mr. Bailout" himself, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Indeed, stiffer opposition to Bernanke arose quickly after the Massachusetts special election, and even from within Republican ranks, including no less than John McCain. Heck, if it's one thing Republicans are good at it's shameless political opportunism. If ever there was an obvious gift to Democrats then this was it. As a first step toward showing the people he was really serious about all that tough talk with the banks, Obama could have accepted the gift from these Democratic Senators who bravely tried to throw him a lifeline. Why not let Bernanke's term lapse, and then appoint a more Main-Street-friendly Fed chairman. Well, that's what Obama should have done. What did he actually do? Believe it or not he has now spent what little political capital he has left and gone on the record expressing "full confidence" in Bernanke, and is now essentially demanding that the Senate confirm him for a second term, or else! Or else what may you ask? Or else the markets will become "unsettled." Perhaps even more laughable was word of Obama's Treasury Secretary, Wall Street insider and ethically conflicted bank servant Timothy Geithner, also demanding that Bernanke be confirmed, or else! Or else what, no more bailouts for Wall Street gamblers? I can see the Republicans quaking in their boots after that threat, Not!
Judging from these actions it seems clear that the Democrats must really have no idea of how this is playing with regular working folk, nor how well the Republicans will be able to use this to their electoral advantage come November. No, they don't seem to fathom the problem with hooking their caboose, and the Nation's economic recovery, to the guy who helped usher in the second coming of the Great Depression. Moreover, while Bernanke dished trillions of dollars of taxpayer cash to the banks, who are now writing record, business as usual bonuses, an unemployment disaster descended on America, and has yet to be adequately addressed. Who does Obama think is going to re-elect him come November, a handful of rich, greedy bankers, or millions and millions of struggling Americans who see their economic dreams being trumped while billions go to aid banksters? One could scarcely imagine a more delusional and self destructive political calculation, but there you have it. We are talking about Democrats here after all.
But it gets worse. Apparently in an attempt to try and re-capture the mythical "center"--what that center might actually be I have not the slightest idea--Obama has announced a "freeze" on some Federal discretionary spending. You got it. At a time when we need more than ever the spirit of FDR, Obama is channeling Herbert Hoover so as to tame the awful deficit, and demonstrate to the folks that matter (ie. bankers and other corporate elites), that he is a true fiscal conservative. Of course, off the table from the get-go is all "security" spending, meaning that the already obscene defense budget (war budget would more accurately reflect the nature of the spending) will simply continue to grow. It already amounts to more than the combined defense expenditures of most of the rest of the world. With such profligacy you might think that evil hordes were swarming the national territory on every border, while in reality we are kept in mortal fear and told we must spend our children's inheritance because of, "... those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of a broken country?" While any real effort at reigning in spending would have to look at the defense budget, there are lots of other arguments against this ludicrous plan, and many were articulately made by none other than Obama himself during the 2008 presidential campaign! So, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we now have Obama arguing against his own plan, before he's fully announced it! He doesn't have a credibility gap, it's a credibility ocean!
With all this it's hard not to think of FDR, who taught us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If only Obama would begin to listen to those instincts, the instincts of a community organizer that he must have harbored in his heart at one time, rather than the pratings of Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and other denizens of the corporate bubble that suffocates Washington, perhaps we could hope for a more people-centered governance from here on out. I wouldn't hope to hard though, for that may be Obama's greatest failing since taking office, he has done more to kill hope than any Republican could have. No doubt we will hear some additional details, and excuses, during his first State of the Union Address tomorrow night. I however, would simply sum it up thusly, FUBAR.
Well, that was a week ago, and I think we have now seen enough of the Democratic response, and particularly the actions of Mr. Obama, to conclude that I was right, and that indeed, the Democrats are completely without a clue. Of course in immediate reaction to the events in Massachusetts one of the first things Obama did was to ratchet up a little populist rhetoric, talk tough to the banks a little bit. But the banksters and most Americans now know that this is just more meaningless huffing and puffing from Obama. If anything can be gleaned from his first year it's that Obama can certainly talk a good game, but when it comes to actually backing up all that talk with action, well, he seems much less adept at that, or a more cynical conclusion might be that he rarely intends to put into action that of which he speaks. This has become such an obvious pattern that, as Bob Herbert has pointed out, he is very rapidly exposing a "credibility gap" with many voters, but particularly with left-leaning, traditional Democrats. One might think he would want to reconsider such actions, since these people were after all largely responsible for his election! But apparently re-election is not a primary concern for Mr. Obama, if comments to Diane Sawyer are to be believed. No, he would rather just be a "good President." Fair enough, but a good President for whom, Wall Street bankers?
The Democrats are so inept, or maybe it's simply corrupted by corporate money, that they can't even recognize when someone comes bearing political gifts. In the wake of the populist rage in Massachusetts a number of Democratic Senators still had sense enough to be able to read the tea leaves (or was it tea bags?) accurately and decided that come November they didn't want voters to see their name next to a reconfirmation vote in the affirmative for "Mr. Bailout" himself, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Indeed, stiffer opposition to Bernanke arose quickly after the Massachusetts special election, and even from within Republican ranks, including no less than John McCain. Heck, if it's one thing Republicans are good at it's shameless political opportunism. If ever there was an obvious gift to Democrats then this was it. As a first step toward showing the people he was really serious about all that tough talk with the banks, Obama could have accepted the gift from these Democratic Senators who bravely tried to throw him a lifeline. Why not let Bernanke's term lapse, and then appoint a more Main-Street-friendly Fed chairman. Well, that's what Obama should have done. What did he actually do? Believe it or not he has now spent what little political capital he has left and gone on the record expressing "full confidence" in Bernanke, and is now essentially demanding that the Senate confirm him for a second term, or else! Or else what may you ask? Or else the markets will become "unsettled." Perhaps even more laughable was word of Obama's Treasury Secretary, Wall Street insider and ethically conflicted bank servant Timothy Geithner, also demanding that Bernanke be confirmed, or else! Or else what, no more bailouts for Wall Street gamblers? I can see the Republicans quaking in their boots after that threat, Not!
Judging from these actions it seems clear that the Democrats must really have no idea of how this is playing with regular working folk, nor how well the Republicans will be able to use this to their electoral advantage come November. No, they don't seem to fathom the problem with hooking their caboose, and the Nation's economic recovery, to the guy who helped usher in the second coming of the Great Depression. Moreover, while Bernanke dished trillions of dollars of taxpayer cash to the banks, who are now writing record, business as usual bonuses, an unemployment disaster descended on America, and has yet to be adequately addressed. Who does Obama think is going to re-elect him come November, a handful of rich, greedy bankers, or millions and millions of struggling Americans who see their economic dreams being trumped while billions go to aid banksters? One could scarcely imagine a more delusional and self destructive political calculation, but there you have it. We are talking about Democrats here after all.
But it gets worse. Apparently in an attempt to try and re-capture the mythical "center"--what that center might actually be I have not the slightest idea--Obama has announced a "freeze" on some Federal discretionary spending. You got it. At a time when we need more than ever the spirit of FDR, Obama is channeling Herbert Hoover so as to tame the awful deficit, and demonstrate to the folks that matter (ie. bankers and other corporate elites), that he is a true fiscal conservative. Of course, off the table from the get-go is all "security" spending, meaning that the already obscene defense budget (war budget would more accurately reflect the nature of the spending) will simply continue to grow. It already amounts to more than the combined defense expenditures of most of the rest of the world. With such profligacy you might think that evil hordes were swarming the national territory on every border, while in reality we are kept in mortal fear and told we must spend our children's inheritance because of, "... those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of a broken country?" While any real effort at reigning in spending would have to look at the defense budget, there are lots of other arguments against this ludicrous plan, and many were articulately made by none other than Obama himself during the 2008 presidential campaign! So, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we now have Obama arguing against his own plan, before he's fully announced it! He doesn't have a credibility gap, it's a credibility ocean!
With all this it's hard not to think of FDR, who taught us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If only Obama would begin to listen to those instincts, the instincts of a community organizer that he must have harbored in his heart at one time, rather than the pratings of Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and other denizens of the corporate bubble that suffocates Washington, perhaps we could hope for a more people-centered governance from here on out. I wouldn't hope to hard though, for that may be Obama's greatest failing since taking office, he has done more to kill hope than any Republican could have. No doubt we will hear some additional details, and excuses, during his first State of the Union Address tomorrow night. I however, would simply sum it up thusly, FUBAR.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Party of Stupid
Well, they did it. Martha Coakley, the Democrats mediocre--at best--candidate for the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy, was defeated by truck-loving Republican Scott Brown. No one would have believed it possible a few months ago, but never ever again underestimate the depths of stupidity that the Democratic Party can sink to. Only the Democratic Party could be so blunderingly, incompetently stupid as to lose the Democratic Senate seat held by Edward (Teddy) Kennedy for almost four decades. And the irony is even richer that they would lose the seat after rather shamelessy pushing through the special election law while a Republican occupied the Massachusetts State House in order to keep the other Massachusetts seat--that held by John "vanilla" Kerry--blue. Talk about your just desserts, I hope the stupid Dems find them tasty!
While no doubt Coakley ran a lackluster campaign (lackluster may be too kind), and the Democratic Party will try and lay all the blame at her feet, my sense is that the real failures go up a lot higher. This massive fiasco by the Dems reaches all the way up into the White House and the circle of "New Democrat" incompetents that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with, starting with his choice of White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Here's what stupid Democrats can't seem to get through their stupid skulls; the country was sick and tired of governance under the Republican rule of Bush and company. Bush was roundly despised, with approval ratings in the mid-20's, and Republicans in general were not far behind (and still aren't). Voters wanted a change in direction, the change that Obama ran on and said he would deliver. So, after Obama and his Democratic team deliver another year of essentially unchanged Republican-like governance, the Democrats are suddenly shocked and dismayed to see that the voters are not so happy with them?! I mean come on, how stupid can they be? Oh, that's right, we're talking about Democrats here, the Party of stupid.
Now, you might think that after this kick in the pants the Dems might get some smarts, but you'd be wrong, because smarts don't come easy when you're this stupid. You might think that this wake-up call would get the Dems reconnecting with the voters who sent them to Washington with large majorities in the Congress. However, I'm willing to bet that this is not what the Democratic leadership is thinking. No, I bet they are thinking exactly what Joe Lieberman is whispering in their ear, "that they need to shift back to the center." That is, that they need to govern even more like Republicans. Well, you know where this is leading. Expect a Democratic "blood-bath" at the mid-term elections if they listen to old Holy Joe (and odds are they will). Yup, you can be almost certain that Democrats are stupid enough to listen to their "ally" who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and is vowing to derail their health care efforts, rather than the voters who elected them. One should expect nothing less from the Party of stupid.
While no doubt Coakley ran a lackluster campaign (lackluster may be too kind), and the Democratic Party will try and lay all the blame at her feet, my sense is that the real failures go up a lot higher. This massive fiasco by the Dems reaches all the way up into the White House and the circle of "New Democrat" incompetents that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with, starting with his choice of White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Here's what stupid Democrats can't seem to get through their stupid skulls; the country was sick and tired of governance under the Republican rule of Bush and company. Bush was roundly despised, with approval ratings in the mid-20's, and Republicans in general were not far behind (and still aren't). Voters wanted a change in direction, the change that Obama ran on and said he would deliver. So, after Obama and his Democratic team deliver another year of essentially unchanged Republican-like governance, the Democrats are suddenly shocked and dismayed to see that the voters are not so happy with them?! I mean come on, how stupid can they be? Oh, that's right, we're talking about Democrats here, the Party of stupid.
Now, you might think that after this kick in the pants the Dems might get some smarts, but you'd be wrong, because smarts don't come easy when you're this stupid. You might think that this wake-up call would get the Dems reconnecting with the voters who sent them to Washington with large majorities in the Congress. However, I'm willing to bet that this is not what the Democratic leadership is thinking. No, I bet they are thinking exactly what Joe Lieberman is whispering in their ear, "that they need to shift back to the center." That is, that they need to govern even more like Republicans. Well, you know where this is leading. Expect a Democratic "blood-bath" at the mid-term elections if they listen to old Holy Joe (and odds are they will). Yup, you can be almost certain that Democrats are stupid enough to listen to their "ally" who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and is vowing to derail their health care efforts, rather than the voters who elected them. One should expect nothing less from the Party of stupid.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Framing the "Security Debate"
It's now officially an election year, and Republicans sense they may have an opportunity to redress some of the substantial losses they have sustained as voters began to turn away in droves from the corrupt and incompetent governance they ushered in during the long nightmare of the George W. Bush era. That this is even conceivable, given the depths to which they dragged the country over the last eight years, is testament to how sorry the Democrats have been since achieving majority status. And the fact that the entire American political system is at present more or less a basket case.
The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.
Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.
In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.
Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."
Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.
The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.
Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.
In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.
Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."
Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)