Posts Tagged ‘White House’

Like many, if not most, liberals, and probably more than a few moderates, I am sickened, or at least saddened, by the so-called “debt deal” on the verge of passage. It was pure political/economic terrorism. And one can argue ad infinitum about President Obama’s negotiating skills, lack thereof, whether he’s a true progressive, a centrist, a closet Republican or simply so fixated on “swing” voters that he risks alienating his entire base in the belief that, come Election Day, it’ll fall in line. Or how this manufactured “crisis” played out entirely on Republican turf—how the Beltway media, and our politicians obsessed over long-term deficits at a time of high unemployment and lame economic growth.

Indeed, worst of all is what the deficit mania, and this deal, may do to the economy, specifically to the middle class, the poor, the unemployed and the soon-to-be-unemployed. Obsessing over deficits at this economic moment is like cutting back on cement while the dam is bursting. You might save some extra cement for those “children and grandchildren” in the pols’ talking points—but nobody will be around to care.

And yet, disappointed as I am, I am also realistic enough to know that if a Republican were in the White House—especially the GOP Version 2011—the outlook would be exponentially worse. Of course, one could reasonably argue that under a GOP president, the Republicans in Congress would simply have raised the debt ceiling, just as they have myriad times in the past. But we have a Democrat at 1600 Pennsy—and everything the GOP does, especially ensuring that the unemployment rate remains elevated, is in the service of destroying Barack Obama’s presidency. The owlish legislative master Mitch McConnell told us as much, in a rare moment of absolute candor.

Aside from destroying Obama, the far Right—backed by the likes of the Koch boys—hopes to dismantle our safety nets, expand the growing chasm between rich and poor, and whites and minorities, and take us back to the Gilded Age, when workers had no rights, Big Business ruled unchallenged, and Black folks were lucky to get jobs as maids and sleeping car porters. My father-in-law worked his ass off for 50 years as a salesman; he lives on a piddling pension and Social Security. Without that safety net, and especially without Medicare, he and his wife would either be dead or on the street today. And that’s where I’ll be when I’m his age, if the Teabagger fringe has anything to say about it.

Look at what the Republicans are doing on the state level, in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere. Assaulting union and women’s rights, and suppressing voter turnout in minority areas, among other outrages. They are out to remake America in their image—or, “take their country back” as they like to say.

But the Progressive backlash against the Walkers, Kasiches, Scotts and Snyders, should be inspiring. And instructive. Now is the time to vent. If you’re pissed off at Obama, go write a blog post. Tweet your ass off. Get it out of your system. Then mobilize in productive ways and fight for progressive change.

Criticize and push and prod the President, sure. But whatever you do, don’t attack him so hard, so viciously and for so long, that you help take him down. He still boasts more progressive achievements than any President since LBJ. And if there is one lesson to be learned from the debt debacle, and the attempted Right Wing takeover in the states, is that elections have consequences. To the extent that liberal and moderate Democrats’ apathy, or exasperation with Obama, led to the 2010 “shellacking,” perhaps the most disastrous election of my lifetime— not for liberals, but for the nation as a whole—those who stayed home, or registered “protest” votes bear some responsibility.

Next time will be even worse. Don’t fool yourself, throw up your hands and say “Meh, Obama, Schmobama, might as well let Romney win.” I remember how ticked off a lot of liberals were at Bill Clinton, how he was viewed as a Republican in Democratic clothing, how he triangulated and dissembled and moved rightward. If there’d been a blogosphere then, God only knows the level of vitriol he might have absorbed from his left. Then, thanks in part to the Ralph Nader candidacy (as well as outright thievery and the stacked Supreme Court), we got Bush-Cheney. And in the depths of that catastrophic administration, I would bet most liberals would have begged to have ol’ Bubba back, warts, stained dress, and all.

And so it will be if we help the Teabaggers take down Barack Obama. But far, far more frightening.


Read Full Post »

Okay, mainstream media, I’ve had it. You have frightening power to shape public opinion and, by extension, national politics. You are owned by a diminishing handful of corporations and serve their agendas and their shareholders above all else. And, to be sure, we’re seeing how well that’s working out via the Murdoch debacle. You can take us in and out of wars, recessions, scares, and all manner of crises, real and manufactured.

And most of us aren’t even half-listening. We hear you on the fly, going from room to room, channel-surfing, in-between work (provided we have jobs), school (provided we can afford it), family, sports, reality TV and just getting through the day. So much of your message is received uncritically, taken at face value. You know that—and you exploit it to create whatever “truth” you choose to market for that particular day.

And yet, despite the corrupting profit motive, there are many, many journalists in your employ who are attempting to do the right thing. And it is to those ink-stained wretches, et. al., that I make this plea.


Throughout the manufactured-by-the-Right debt ceiling crisis you are continuing to perpetuate the myth that “both sides are equally at fault” and that “the intransigent extremes on both ends of the spectrum” may sabotage any deal, the full faith and credit of blah, blah, blah etc, etc.  Just as with the issue of hate speech and any number of other issues, you fall back on the “everybody’s equally guilty” fantasy.

No. Seriously. This is wrong. There are many thoughtful, sincerely patriotic conservatives, yes. There is, indeed, an entire body of conservative political and economic theory, dating back centuries, practiced by men and women of good will (however wrongheaded). But at this moment in our history the GOP—perhaps the entire government, even the global economy—has been hijacked by lunatic, fanatical extremists—known loosely as the Tea Party caucus—dwelling in a reality of their own invention with the glassy-eyed zeal of cult members. They are more than willing to take the country down, either to serve their hysterical Ayn Randian ideology, a belief that the world is only 6,000 years old and that he moon landing was staged, or—and perhaps above all— simply because they figure that President Obama will go down in the wreckage and that we’ll have a white president in heaven.

I’m sorry, but Dennis Kucinich on his loopiest day can’t even approach this sort of fevered wingnuttery. They lie, they fantasize, they hate-monger—all with the endorsement of corporate powers like the Kochs, and hacks like Grover Norquist, the folks who sign their checks.

Or, they’re being enabled by the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, old-school pols who know better—who know damn well that if a Republican were in the White House, they’d simply rubber-stamp the debt ceiling increase just as they did all the gazillion times it was raised under previous administrations.

And yet, you sit there and act all judicious in the interest of being “fair and balanced.” You lend the Tea Party nihilists legitimacy. They are a fringe movement and have always deserved to be treated as such. They should be a sideshow. There is no one on the Left in national government who remotely compares.

I’m sorry. It’s got to stop. Sometimes one side is flat out, dangerously bathshit nuts—or just willfully dangerous, out of sheer political opportunism—and this time the wack jobs and the economic saboteurs are on the Right. Whether motivated by purist ideology or political cynicism, they are united in one goal: To tank the economy and inflate unemployment so that, ultimately, President Obama gets blamed—and goes down in flames.

Media—by which I mean non-Fox, legitimate media—it’s time you called them out.

Read Full Post »

An open letter to liberals—and liberals who call themselves progressives.

When the West Coast map lit up brilliantly, beautifully blue on Nov. 4, 2008, pushing Barack Obama over 270 electoral votes, millions of us experienced a wave of political euphoria the likes of which we never imagined we’d live to feel.

Especially giddy were those of us old enough to remember another, bleaker November night in 1980, when a Hollywood second-stringer named Ronald Reagan swept into the White House, ushering in decades of right-wing policies that carried us into wars; greased the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and working poor; empowered a Christian fundamentalist, social conservative revival that threatened to turn the entire country into Dayton, Tenn., circa 1925; and validated a Lee Atwater-Karl Rove politics of the Big Lie and personal destruction that transformed “liberal” into a synonym for weak and unpatriotic—even, paradoxically, to many who tightly embraced liberal programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Oh, we got  jazzed about Bill Clinton and Al Gore in ’92. But Clinton’s centrism—many feel he governed as a Republican—his genuine personal failings and the relentlessly witch-hunting Right would drain much of the promise from his presidency and leave many liberals disappointed.  With the Supreme Court’s election of George W. Bush in 2000, and the 9/11 attacks, liberal Democrats became more cowed than ever.

But with the Obama ascendancy—after eight endless, disastrous years of Bush-Cheney and three decades of Reaganism—it was our turn. A revival. The dawn of a new liberal/progressive era.

Or was it? Many liberals are driven to distraction by President Obama’s almost obsessive desire to rise above the fray, to be the adult in the room, to reach consensus. We’re pissed because he’s too cozy with Wall Street; we’re pissed about the Bush Tax Cut extension; we’re pissed about the lack of a public option in the Health care bill; we’re pissed about Afghanistan, and we’re pissed about Gitmo and Bradley Manning. We’re pissed that he didn’t do more to plug up the BP leak. We’re pissed that he hasn’t done more to back unions in the Midwest. And in the Mideast, we’re either pissed that Obama didn’t intervene quickly enough to help the Libyan opposition—or we’re pissed that he intervened at all.

Now we’re preparing to be pissed—with good reason, perhaps—that our “middle way” POTUS won’t stand up to the Right and its resolve to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other remnants of the New Deal—and transform the USA into Kochistan.

Personally I agree with some, though not all, of the above. I remain a strong supporter of the President; perhaps my innate realism/pessimism kept me from expecting—and fantasizing—too much. Maybe President Obama hasn’t been a liberal messiah. But he has been an enlightened leader who has accomplished more legislatively than any President since Lyndon Johnson. This while dealing with a dysfunctional Senate, a rightist-rigged Supreme Court and a conservative propaganda juggernaut that has a frightening percentage of the electorate convinced that he’s un-American—or not American, and therefore not legitimate, at all.

(For more on POTUS’ accomplishments , check out http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com.)

How many of us would trade Obama for the deepest, darkest days of Bush-Cheney. Or a return to Reagan? Or, even more terrifying, any of the rightist ideologues now driving the Republican Party, zealots against whom Reagan himself might well lose a GOP Primary.

Why are we saddled with these Koch-and-corporate backed Teabagging extremists? Why are wingnuts like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann given any legitimacy? Why do we see a GOP House trying to eviscerate women’s reproductive rights; why do we see right-wing governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder Paul LePage and John Kasich wage war on workers, teachers, firefighters and the middle class, while big business and the wealthy get fatter and fatter? Why do we hear about rolling back child labor laws? Why the talk bout “shared sacrifice”—that is for all but the richest Americans, the ones who can afford it? Why are we threatened with the destruction of social safety nets we foolishly took for granted—and for which many of us have paid for many years?

Well, one huge reason was the “enthusiasm gap” in the 2010 midterms. When millions of Democrats and other moderates-to-liberals said “Meh”  and stayed home, while fired up Teabaggers and righty extremists turned out in droves—along with independents who fell for the bullshit they heard on Fox News, and the lies in Koch-Chamber of Commerce-Rove-funded attack ads.

Whatever the level of one’s disappointment with Obama, the experience of 2010 should be traumatizing enough for millions of stay-at-homes not to make the same mistake again. Especially while the GOP is using the “voter fraud” myth to disenfranchise as many young and minority voters—Democratic leaning voters—as possible.

I still believe that in a second term, with a restored Congressional majority, Barack Obama can accomplish even more than he has in the past 26 months. And even if you remain disillusioned, even it depresses you to vote “against” the GOP instead of “for” Obama, as you did in ’08—get over it.

Think of the havoc a Pawlenty, Romney, a Rubio or whoever else can wreak. On social programs and women’s rights. On the middle class and workers. On the already corrupt Supreme Court. On international affairs.

If you think 2010 was bad….

Read Full Post »

Thus far, however fleetingly, the crisis in Egypt has inspired a rare moment of bipartisanship in Washington. From John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, to James Baker, to John McCain, even to Dick Cheney, experienced GOP leaders have either supported President Obama’s efforts to ease the situation, or at least refrained from blasting him.

Enter Sarah Palin, in all her aggressively arrogant ignorance. Having jumped the shark on the Tucson tragedy, with her jaw-droppingly narcissistic, “blood libel” video, followed by the equally insane and self-absorbed WTF interview with Sean Hannity, the reality star and former half-term governor now calls upon her vast archive of foreign policy expertise to expound on Egypt. Naturally, it is a knee-jerk salvo at President Obama.

In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, SarahPac suggests that Egypt was POTUS’ 3 A.M. Phone Call, recalling Hillary Clinton’s famous commercial during the 2008 presidential primary campaign, which suggested Obama was too green to handle national security crises.

Quoth the Sage of Wasilla:

“Nobody yet has explained to the American people what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I’m not real enthused about what it is that, that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt.

“And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just in Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House.”

Strength and sound mind there in the White House. Obama, Clinton and the rest of their team are deep amid delicate diplomatic negotiations over the future of an ancient sovereign nation, one with intricate, complex problems and a society starkly different from our own. They are trying to walk a tightrope, as Hosni Mubarak—an indispensable ally, whose oppressive 30-year regime has fostered torture, rape and murder—inevitably relinquishes power. They are trying to maintain a precarious stability in a region that could easily explode into chaos, extremism, and anti-Western fanaticism.

And Sarah Palin—who probably can’t find Egypt on a map, much less see it from her house—believes the President should be sharing a little more. Two weeks into this dauntingly complicated crisis, she wants O to spill. She wants him to spell out exactly who’s going to take over for Mubarak, even though no one here or in Egypt can predict the outcome of a situation that seemingly changes from minute to minute.

Palin fears, as many of us do, the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood. But if you stand for democracy and the right of Egyptians to determine their own destiny—as we say we do—well, you have to live with the outcome.

Does Palin think we can impose our will on Egypt? Shall we invade this country of 80 million and turn the Pyramids into a Christian theme park. Sarahland?

Now imagine John McCain had won the 2008 election.
Imagine, if you dare, a Vice-President Sarah Palin. Imagine this woman—who in at least one speech has referred to a hypothetical, what-if, “Palin-McCain” administration —imagine this woman playing second banana. Do you think she’d be able to cork her verbal and ideological diarrhea? Of course not. She’d be going before the cameras or on social media constantly, upstaging her boss at every turn. Giving her own alternative State of the Union address, her own domestic and foreign policy commentary on a daily basis, making Joe Biden appear discreet and George W. Bush look like Disraeli.

Now, imagine Sarah Palin privy to inside information during a foreign policy crisis. We all want transparency in government, but there are times when negotiations are so sensitive, the margin for error so minuscule, times when one false move, one careless word by the U.S. can spark disaster—that posting the details as your Facebook status update just isn’t the brightest idea.

As they said during World War II, “loose lips sink ships.”

Imagine Palin Tweeting D-Day.

Or the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In other news, Palin’s attempt to trademark her name has been rejected, at least temporarily.

She forgot to sign the paperwork.

Strength and sound mind.

In the words of Keith Olbermann, “The woman is an idiot.”

Please, GOP, please nominate her for president in 2012.

Read Full Post »

I sympathize with my fellow progressives over the tax cut compromise. If Tom Harkin is ticked off at the Obama Administration—in part because it appears to have blindsided Democrats in Congress—that says something. Of course, it’s appalling that the rich are getting more tax cuts, and the estate tax bonanza.

But those on the left (chiefly pundits and activists) who are clamoring for the President to keep fighting and allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire—even those for the middle class and the bottom bracket, whose rates would rise 50 percent, from 10 to 15—are living in a dream world.

It pains me to say this, but if Obama lets middle tax cuts expire for even a month, he and the Democrats are toast.

Last night I saw one of my favorite commentators, Ed Schultz, insist that the American people would stand foursquare behind President Obama if he let the cuts expire. Ed argued that the middle class, and presumably those in the lowest income bracket, “want this fight” and would be happy to make a sacrifice—to see their paychecks shrink for a month, or two or three, for the sake of ending tax cuts for the top two percenters.

I think that’s entirely unrealistic. And if you hear most of the angry progressives in Congress, few are willing to take this beyond Dec. 31.

That’s because they know it’s political suicide.

Sure, polls may say that Americans overwhelmingly oppose cutting Donald Trump’s and Rush Limbaugh’s taxes, that they fear the effects on the deficit and debt, and they’re scared of China, etc., etc., etc.  But poll those same Americans around Feb. 1—if their tax cuts have expired. I suspect a dramatically different outcome.

One anecdote that crystallizes the situation is that during the recent election campaign, Wisconsin Democratic Senator—and Progressive hero—Russ Feingold reportedly urged the White House not to press the tax cut  issue. The reason? His constituents didn’t care if the rich got richer; they just didn’t want their taxes to go up. Feingold lost anyway, to a hard-right, anti-tax Republican.

Ed Schultz invoked the Greatest Generation, and Rosie the Riveter, and suggested that Americans have a history of taking one for the team in the interests of a greater good.Don’t bet on it in America, Version 2011—especially during the Great Recession.

Should the Administration and Congressional Democrats allow all tax cuts to expire, the GOP hit squad would frame the narrative thusly: Obama raised your taxes to please his liberal/left wing/socialist/terrorist/illegal alien/sodomite base.

And a lot of our low-information electorate would believe it. Remember the recent Pew Poll: more than half of the country wasn’t even sure the Republicans won the House. And I’ll bet a similar number don’t even know what the House does.

Ultimately, the GOP in Congress would force a deal. And it might be far worse than the one on the table now.

Of course many mistakes have been made, by the Administration and by Democrats in Congress too timid to force the tax cut issue before the Midterms. This fight should have been won months ago. And the greater good of the country, ideally, should not be sacrificed to polls and short-term electoral calculus.

But given present realities, economic and political, allowing the tax cuts to expire seems a recipe for disaster for Democrats and the President.

Read Full Post »

I normally don’t just reprint stuff here. But in the liberal and punditocratic frenzy over the Bush tax cut extension, and amid the anger over Obama’s supposed capitulation, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein presents a thoughtful analysis  that suggests the agreement hammered out today between the Administration and the GOP could have been a lot worse, and that there’s a lot more stimulus in the bill than most expected. This may be another case of the POTUS getting an okay deal, but coming out like gutless appeaser because

1) He played it too cool, didn’t take the lead and set the narrative

2) He looked like he was caving completely, and once that narrative was set by the Beltway media, the blogosphere—and a lot of Liberals—it just settled.

This is not to say it’s a great deal—or even a good one. And Paul Krugman may mock it to smithereens. But if you agree with Ezra, well, its maybe a C-Plus, instead of a D, or a C-Minus, instead of an F. And it just might help the economy. And two years from now, it might look pretty good to some of those Independents and Moderates who have defected from Obama. Especially if the GOP continues to obstruct and embrace extremism.

Our instantaneous, gun-jumping media culture, which demands news and conflict on an hourly, or minute-to-minute basis, 24/7—and in which repeated opinion hardens into accepted fact—sometimes leaves subtlety and detail behind. Especially in something as complex as economics, this can be a dangerous thing. Again, Krugman, Robert Reich, MSNBC’s hosts and Frank Rich may hate this. And maybe they’d be right. But as with everything it’s in the details.

Here’s most of the astute Mr. Klein’s piece:

“1) The Bush tax cuts get extended for two years — with one ugly surprise: For the next two years, estates up to $5,000,000 will be protected from the estate tax, and the tax rate for the few estates that are taxed will be 35 percent. That’s worse than the 2009 estate tax ($3.5 million exemption, 45 percent rate), though better than this year’s “no estate tax at all.” The difference in expected revenue between the 2009 levels and the compromise levels is $10 billion or so.

2) The refundable tax credits are extended: The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.

3) Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months: Most observers — myself included — thought the federal boost to unemployment insurance (which allowed jobless workers in states with high levels of unemployment to collect insurance for up to 99 weeks) would lapse. At best, there’d be another two- or three-month extension. In perhaps the most important part of the deal, there’s going to be a 13-month extension at a cost of $56 billion.

4) A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees: This is perhaps the most unexpected part of the compromise. Rather than extending the administration’s Making Work Pay tax credit for two years, which would’ve been worth about $60 billion a year, they’ve agreed to a one-year cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees, which’ll raise $120 billion in 2011. That’s a much stronger boost over the next year, and of course these tax cuts have a tendency to get extended …

5) Business expensing: Remember back in September, when the White House announced a proposal to give businesses two years in which they could deduct 100 percent of the cost of new investments? That’s in the deal, too. The cost of this is a bit complicated — it’s $30 billion over 10 years, but it works by offering huge tax cuts in the next two years and then paying that back over the next eight. So we’re basically trying to shift business investment forward to 2011 and 2012. Over those two years, the tax breaks should be around $200 billion, though because it’s a shift rather than a cut, it will have less than $200 billion in impact.

So is this a good deal? It’s a lot better than I would’ve told you the White House was going to get if you’d asked me a week ago. There’s some new stimulus in the form of the payroll-tax cut and the expensing proposals. The older stimulus programs that are getting extended — notably the unemployment insurance and the tax credits — probably would’ve expired outside of this deal. The tax cuts for income over $250,000 are a bad way to spend $100 billion or so, and the estate tax deal is really noxious.

And it represents a correct prioritization of stimulating the economy over reducing the deficit. It’s not the most effective stimulus you could imagine: The deal amounts to the White House throwing some bad money after good. But the end result is between $200 and $300 billion more in tax breaks, tax credits and unemployment insurance than there would’ve been if not for this deal (I say $200-$300 billion because of the uncertainty over what would’ve been extended in the absence of this package).

Is that enough? Of course not. It’s not even close, in fact. Most of the money just keeps programs that are currently in effect from expiring, so in some ways, it would be more accurate to say that this money is anti-contractionary rather than stimulative. The difference is a bit talmudic, but it’s important that the White House doesn’t repeat the mistake it made in the original stimulus and overpromise how much this will do for the economy. What you can say about this policy is that, for the moment, it doesn’t make things much worse, and it probably makes them a bit better. The cost of that is a bit more than a hundred billion on the deficit that doesn’t need to be there.

It also, importantly, holds the worst of the deal to the next two years. The tax cuts for income over $250,000 and the new estate tax rates will expire in 2012. The White House thinks that this’ll be a good election issue for them, as it combines a popular, populist stance on taxes with a deficit-reduction message. Whether they’re right remains to be seen. But on a policy level, two-year extensions of bad tax cuts are much preferable to 10-year extensions of bad tax cuts.

And finally, it’s a hopeful sign: The White House sat in a room with Republicans and Democrats and managed to negotiate an actual compromise. The final deal includes some things that Democrats will like and some things they won’t like, and it includes some things Republicans will like and some things they won’t like. But it’s a deal, and a better one than many — myself included — thought they’d reach. These tax cuts were a bit of a special legislative case, as their scheduled expiration forced action, but if you want to be optimistic, this process suggests that the next two years might be a bit more productive than some of us have been predicting.”

Read Full Post »

A brief holiday post.

The big news today—apparently even bigger than the escalating tensions in Korea, or Black Friday madness—was the split lip, requiring a dozen stitches, President Obama suffered in a pickup basketball game.

The offending elbow belonged to Rey Decerega, director of programs for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, who issued this statement:

“I learned today the president is both a tough competitor and a good sport. I enjoyed playing basketball with him this morning. I’m sure he’ll be back out on the court again soon.”

Watch for the GOP to seize on this as some kind of iconic, symbolic moment, on a par with Dukakis’s tank ride, Jimmy Carter‘s battle with the bunny and George H.W. Bush‘s ralphing on the Japanese prime minister.

You can almost write it yourself, “Obama Gets Another Shellacking,” “Finally, Somebody Buttons Bam’s Lip.” There’ll even be some kind of wimp meme attached to it. Certainly, the symbolism of this majestic orator getting his mouth stitched will be too much for the Right to resist. And so will the connection to the Hispanic caucus

I’m sure the President will dismiss the incident with some wry humor. But let’s not allow the Righties to run with this one.

I mean, at least POTUS didn’t shoot a buddy in the face and never apologize.

At least he didn’t lie us into a war.

And at least he knows North Korea from South Korea.

At least he DID save the automobile industry, prevent a second Great Depression, make Health Care available to millions, and give the middle class a tax cut.

Oh, yeah. and he’s not going to the Big House with Dancing With the Stars reject Tom DeLay.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »