BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts
24 September 2016
11 September 2014
(Vidéo) Indécis? Voici pourquoi vous devriez voter Oui et pourquoi tous les progressistes devrait soutenir l'indépendance de la lutte de l'Ecosse 10SEP & 24AUG14
Indécis? Voici pourquoi vous devriez voter Oui
Pourquoi tous les progressistes devraient soutenir l'indépendance de la lutte de l'Ecosse
Il a été difficile d'essayer d'expliquer que ce qui se passe en Ecosse est une histoire plus grande que beaucoup de progressistes dans ce pays ne peut imaginer.
Et ils devraient se réjouir à la dernière minute poussée du camp du OUI, parce qu'ils se battent pour notre genre de valeurs, et nous pouvons utiliser certaines des leçons de leur campagne pour vaincre le régime Harper à la prochaine élection.
Parce que dès que je mentionne le mot «référendum» certaines personnes commencent à marmonner de manière incohérente, et quand je mentionne le mot OUI ils pensent séparatistes du Québec. Et soit commencer à crier, ou gémissements, ou des trucs comme marmonnant:
Non Non, pas encore. Pas le NEVERENDUM! # @ !!!!
ce qui est dommage, parce que même si sa se passe dans un petit pays, il est vraiment une histoire énorme.
Cela n'a rien à voir avec le Québec.
Et c'est, comme le dit James Laxer, rien de moins que le premier vote du monde contre la menace croissante du politique et économique de l'inégalité.
Lorsque le vote Ecossais dans leur référendum sur l'indépendance historique jeudi, les Canadiens, surtout les Québécois prochaine , seront à regarder de près. Après avoir tenu deux référendums sur la souveraineté, les Québécois peuvent se sentir qu'ils sont les maîtres de ces entreprises, et que les Ecossais sont leurs apprentis.
En fait, les Ecossais sont pas reproduire les exercices antérieurs au Québec. Habillé en costume national, le peuple écossais votent en premier référendum du monde sur l'inégalité économique et politique.
C'est une révolte pacifique contre les politiques brutales de l'ordre du jour néo-libéral, la cruauté du régime de Con impitoyable de David Cameron, et le mépris d'établissement riche dans l'État de la ville de Londres.
effet, Londres est maintenant un État de la Cité, dont les habitants les plus riches ont souvent très peu à voir avec le reste de la Grande-Bretagne. Ils travaillent dans la ville, d'éduquer leurs enfants à Londres et les Home Counties, et jouer dans le sud de l'Angleterre ou à l'étranger. Lorsque j'ai passé un mois là-bas au printemps, les Londoniens à qui j'ai parlé a radié le référendum écossais avec un bâillement.
"La plupart de mes amis ne donnent pas un tirage au sort," me dit un homme qui travaille dans la ville. Les Ecossais doivent se considérer comme chanceux d'être lié à la grande machine économique de Londres, selon beaucoup de ceux qui habitent dans la métropole.
Les grands barons d'affaires qui, une fois licenciés du OUI, et sont maintenant en mode panique complète. Transporter notre propre Mark Carney pour avertir de la catastrophe économique.
Envoi dans les trois chefs de parti et ancien Premier ministre Gordon Brown à blitz Ecosse aujourd'hui ...
Essayer d'obtenir la Reine à intervenir et à défaut.
Et dans un autre geste désespéré essayant de hisser le drapeau écossais sur 10 Downing Street avec des résultats désastreux ...
Car, comme je l'ai dit sur Twitter, comme les gens le drapeau résisté.
Et comme je l'ai essayé d'expliquer après l'avoir vu de mes propres yeux en Ecosse cet été, la meilleure chose de tous est qu'il est vraiment un triomphe de l'espoir sur la peur.
Si l'Ecosse devient indépendante, il sera malgré les efforts de la quasi-totalité de la mise en place au Royaume-Uni. Ce sera parce que les médias sociaux ont vaincu les médias corporatifs. Ce sera une victoire pour les citoyens sur la machine de Westminster, pour les chaussures plus hélicoptères. Il montrera que une idée suffisamment inspirante peut couper à travers des pots de vin et de chantage, par des menaces et des propos alarmistes. Cet espoir, marginalisés au premier abord, peut se propager à travers un pays, défiant toutes les tentatives pour le supprimer.
Et cet espoir, avec leur génie de l'organisation et leur capacité à motiver les jeunes, est le meilleur cadeau qu'ils peuvent nous donner.
Pour Stephen Harper et son régime de Con horrible va utiliser la peur contre nous pour essayer d'intimider et de nous diviser.
Nous aussi, nous devons être fort et plein d'espoir pour le vaincre.
Et la meilleure façon que nous pouvons faire c'est de créer un mouvement et tourner la prochaine élection dans un référendum sur l'avenir du Canada ...
Mais en attendant, le camp du OUI en Ecosse se bat pour nous tous.
Marchant vers leur rendez-vous avec le destin qui est maintenant seulement huit jours loin.
Ils atteignent un rêve qui est aussi notre rêve.
Et tous les progressistes devraient les encourager ...
(Video) Undecided? Here's why you should vote Yes & Why All Progressives Should Support Scotland's Independence Struggle 10SEP&24AUG14
PROGRESSIVES around the world should be supporting Yes Scotland's campaign for independence from England. While the English seem to have resigned themselves to working to make rich people richer and being controlled by corporate England, the people of Scotland still believe in the possibilities their nation holds for them and generations to come. Progressives in the U.S. and Canada can learn from the YES SCOTLAND campaign, and the Progressive world is waiting to celebrate victory in the referendum on 18 SEP 14. Video from the Yes SCOTLAND campaign on the benefits of independence from the U.K. and Montreal Simon......
It's been hard trying to explain that what's going on in Scotland is a bigger story than many progressives in this country can imagine.
And that they should rejoice at the last minute surge of the YES side, because they are fighting for our kind of values, and we can use some of the lessons of their campaign to defeat the Harper regime in the next election.
Because as soon as I mention the word "referendum" some people start muttering incoherently, and when I mention the word YES they think Quebec separatists. And either start screaming, or moaning, or mumbling stuff like:
No. No. Not again. Not the NEVERENDUM !#@!!!!
Which is a pity, because even though its happening in a small country it really is a huge story.
It has nothing to do with Quebec.
And it is as James Laxer says, nothing less than the world's first vote against the growing threat of political and economic inequality.
When the Scots vote in their historic independence referendum next Thursday, Canadians, especially the Québécois, will be watching closely. Having held two sovereignty referenda, the Québécois may feel that they are the masters in such enterprises and that the Scots are their apprentices.
In fact, the Scots are not replicating the earlier exercises in Quebec. Dressed in national garb, the people of Scotland are voting in the world’s first referendum on economic and political inequality.
It is a peaceful revolt against the brutish policies of the neo-liberal agenda, the cruelty of David Cameron's callous Con regime, and the contempt of wealthy establishment in the City State of London.
Effectively, London is now a City State, whose wealthier residents often have very little to do with the rest of Britain. They work in the City, educate their children in London and the Home Counties, and play in the south of England or abroad. When I spent a month there in the spring, Londoners to whom I spoke wrote off the Scottish referendum with a yawn.
“Most of my friends don’t give a toss,” one man who works in the City told me. The Scots ought to consider themselves fortunate to be linked to the great economic engine of London, according to many who dwell in the metropolis.
The big business barons who once dismissed the YES side, and are now in full panic mode. Hauling out our own Mark Carney to warn of economic disaster.
Sending in the three party leaders and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to blitz Scotland today...
Trying to get the Queen to intervene and failing.
And in another desperate move trying to hoist the Scottish flag over 10 Downing Street with disastrous results...
For as I said on Twitter, like the people the flag resisted.
And as I've tried to explain after seeing it with my own eyes in Scotland this summer, the best thing of all is that it really is a triumph of hope over fear.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it.
And that hope, along with their organizational genius and their ability to motivate the young, is the best gift they can give us.
For Stephen Harper and his ghastly Con regime will use fear against us to try to intimidate and divide us.
We too will have to be strong and full of hope to defeat him.
And the best way we can do that is to create a movement and turn the next election into a referendum on the future of Canada...
But in the meantime the YES side in Scotland is fighting for all of us.
Marching towards their date with destiny which is now only eight days away.
They are reaching for a dream which is also our dream.
And all progressives should cheer them on...
Undecided? Here's why you should vote Yes
Why All Progressives Should Support Scotland's Independence Struggle
It's been hard trying to explain that what's going on in Scotland is a bigger story than many progressives in this country can imagine.
And that they should rejoice at the last minute surge of the YES side, because they are fighting for our kind of values, and we can use some of the lessons of their campaign to defeat the Harper regime in the next election.
Because as soon as I mention the word "referendum" some people start muttering incoherently, and when I mention the word YES they think Quebec separatists. And either start screaming, or moaning, or mumbling stuff like:
No. No. Not again. Not the NEVERENDUM !#@!!!!
Which is a pity, because even though its happening in a small country it really is a huge story.
It has nothing to do with Quebec.
And it is as James Laxer says, nothing less than the world's first vote against the growing threat of political and economic inequality.
When the Scots vote in their historic independence referendum next Thursday, Canadians, especially the Québécois, will be watching closely. Having held two sovereignty referenda, the Québécois may feel that they are the masters in such enterprises and that the Scots are their apprentices.
In fact, the Scots are not replicating the earlier exercises in Quebec. Dressed in national garb, the people of Scotland are voting in the world’s first referendum on economic and political inequality.
It is a peaceful revolt against the brutish policies of the neo-liberal agenda, the cruelty of David Cameron's callous Con regime, and the contempt of wealthy establishment in the City State of London.
Effectively, London is now a City State, whose wealthier residents often have very little to do with the rest of Britain. They work in the City, educate their children in London and the Home Counties, and play in the south of England or abroad. When I spent a month there in the spring, Londoners to whom I spoke wrote off the Scottish referendum with a yawn.
“Most of my friends don’t give a toss,” one man who works in the City told me. The Scots ought to consider themselves fortunate to be linked to the great economic engine of London, according to many who dwell in the metropolis.
The big business barons who once dismissed the YES side, and are now in full panic mode. Hauling out our own Mark Carney to warn of economic disaster.
Sending in the three party leaders and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to blitz Scotland today...
Trying to get the Queen to intervene and failing.
And in another desperate move trying to hoist the Scottish flag over 10 Downing Street with disastrous results...
For as I said on Twitter, like the people the flag resisted.
And as I've tried to explain after seeing it with my own eyes in Scotland this summer, the best thing of all is that it really is a triumph of hope over fear.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it.
And that hope, along with their organizational genius and their ability to motivate the young, is the best gift they can give us.
For Stephen Harper and his ghastly Con regime will use fear against us to try to intimidate and divide us.
We too will have to be strong and full of hope to defeat him.
And the best way we can do that is to create a movement and turn the next election into a referendum on the future of Canada...
But in the meantime the YES side in Scotland is fighting for all of us.
Marching towards their date with destiny which is now only eight days away.
They are reaching for a dream which is also our dream.
And all progressives should cheer them on...
27 September 2013
Mission: Destroy Democracy - SumOfUs.org responds 22SEP13
I like SumOfUS.org , they are a small, bold progressive group that uses social media to challenge the greed of corporate America and promote social justice issues. They choose their campaigns wisely and provide the information and tools necessary for the progressive community to participate. Click the link above to go to their website and if you can make a donation, I did. Here is a bit about them....
Welcome to SumOfUs
SumOfUs.org is a new world-wide movement for a better global economy.
Here’s what we stand for:
- Governments that answer to citizens – not corporations
- Fair treatment of workers and the right of every human being to make a living, safely and ethically, for themselves and their family;
- The right of communities to manage and protect their own environment and natural resources;
- Business models that put people and the planet first instead of being driven by shortsighted greed.
Yeah, take that deep breath, close your eyes and imagine what kind of a world that could be – and then crash back to this one.
We’ve witnessed again and again what happens when powerful corporations get their way:
- Environmental and health catastrophes like Fukushima and the BP oil disaster;
- A global financial crisis that destroys entire economies;
- Rising food prices and starving children;
- Families from Kalamazoo to Timbuktu losing their houses and land;
- Poisons pouring into our air and water.
You name it, corporations are behind it. But rather than being held accountable – their CEOs are often walking away with bonuses. And these injustices are largely left to continue unabated.
But the world doesn’t have to be this way. And here’s the secret: We own the corporations that are causing all these problems. They rely on us to buy their products. They count on us to buy their stock. They need us to work for them. They need us to continue to elect governments that let them get away with murder.
We are SumOfUs.org, and we’re not going to take it anymore.
08 November 2012
Obama Beats Back the Right-Wing Tide 6NOV12
AN insightful analysis of the 2012 election results from David Corn of Mother Jones and includes links to their coverage of Sen Claire McCaskill's defeat of todd "legitimate rape" akin in Missouri, ELIZABETH WARREN'S DEFEAT of Sen scott brown in Massachusetts, Sen Sherrod Brown's victory in Ohio and Joe Donnelly's win against richard "ladyparts foe" mourdock in Indiana...
President
Barack Obama made history again, with a victory that defied a
decades-long trend: Incumbents don't triumph when the economy remains in
the doldrums and the public sentiment is one of unease. In an archly
ideological race that pitted a progressive case for government against a
conservative assault on government, the president, burdened by a slow
recovery but bolstered by a brilliant ground game based on hard-and-fast
demographic realities, beat back Mitt Romney, who embraced the
tea-partyization of the Republican Party and campaigned (often in an
ugly fashion) for the chance to be CEO of the United States.
The election, a close call for Obama, signaled that division is still rampant within the political culture. Yet in his victory speech before thousands in a Chicago convention hall, Obama spoke of the "difficult compromises needed to move this country forward." He insisted, "We are an American family, and we rise and fall together." Moments later, he strode across a confetti-drenched stage, as the PA played Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising." He had mounted something of a political resurrection.
This election was always going to be arduous for the president. Not since FDR had an incumbent commander in chief won reelection with unemployment so high. But after Obama's party took a drubbing in the 2010 congressional elections, the president concocted a strategy for retaining the White House. In the weeks after that election, he told his aides and advisers that they needed to turn the 2012 contest into a battle of values and visions—no matter whom the Republicans would nominate. The reelection fight, he and his aides believed, had to be transformed from a conventional referendum on the guy in office and his handling of the economy to a stark choice between Obama's aims and those of the GOP standard bearer.
So
as the president racked up legislative victories (a tax cut
compromise, ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy,
ratifying the New START arms control treaty) and then jousted with
tea-party-driven congressional Republicans over the budget, the deficit,
and the debt ceiling, Obama—displaying strategic patience—constantly
endeavored to tether the tussle of the moment to a values-based message
that emphasized the fundamental difference between him and the Rs: He
wanted to preserve and use government as a communal force to fund
investments in infrastructure, innovation, and education that would
bolster the nation's economic prospects, raise taxes on the well-to-do
to underwrite such efforts and ease the task of deficit reduction, and
protect (if modify) the social safety; the other side believed in
affording more power to the the markets, downsizing government, and
handing greater tax breaks to the wealthy to juice up the economy.
These were two conflicting approaches. And congressional Republicans assisted Obama's efforts by embracing Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget that included draconian cuts in domestic programs, the abolition of the Medicare guarantee, and tax cuts for high-income Americans that went far beyond the George W. Bush trickle-down tax reductions.
There was indeed a choice. And Romney, once he became the de facto GOP nominee, reinforced Obama's narrative. He repeatedly described the election as a face-off between two alternative paths—claiming that Obama was intent on leading the nation into the wasteland of a European socialist, secular, government-centric society, and insisting that he, a lover of freedom, would guide the country into an age of dynamism, self-reliance, and economic growth spurred by freedom-loving entrepreneurs operating within free markets in a business environment without burdensome taxes and annoying regulations. Ideologues of the right and the left often huff that there is little that separates the major political parties. But in this campaign, each candidate found it in their interest to tie his core arguments to ideological stakes.
Romney did not ignore the it's-a-referendum line of attack. He repeatedly asserted that Obama had failed to revive the economy sufficiently and claimed he could do better, inflating his job-creating cred as a past CEO of Bain Capital. Still, Obama got the vision-and-values face-off he wanted. When Romney selected Ryan as his campaign soulmate, it sealed the deal. At the GOP convention in Tampa, Ryan delivered one of the most ideological addresses given by a nominee in recent years. He contended that Obama had turned the nation into Ayn Rand's worst nightmare—"the best this administration offers [is] a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us"—and essentially called for a right-wing revolution.
Following the convention, Romney did pivot to the center. Actually, it was closer to a reckless U-turn on a crowded highway at 60 miles per hour. After the release of his 47 percent rant reinforced the criticism he was an out-of-touch plutocrat who cared little for those who cannot afford dressage horses or health care, Romney quickly moved to sand down the rough edges of the hard-right stances on immigration, abortion, and gay rights he had peddled vigorously to win the nomination during the wild and wacky GOP primary contest. (On Election Day, an Obama adviser told me that in the weeks after the video was released, focus group participants who were undecided raised Romney's 47 percent remark on their own: "That's what they wanted to talk about.") And during the debates, Romney refused to fess up to key proposals, including his call for gargantuan tax cuts and his support for severe cuts in government programs. This undermined Obama's effort to present the election as a choice between two conflicting courses. But for months—most of the campaign—the president had succeeded in crafting the contest as a choice election.
The president spent two years setting up this tough victory—turning the election into a stark ideological choice and crafting a brilliant ground game.
| Tue Nov. 6, 2012 11:24 PM PST
The election, a close call for Obama, signaled that division is still rampant within the political culture. Yet in his victory speech before thousands in a Chicago convention hall, Obama spoke of the "difficult compromises needed to move this country forward." He insisted, "We are an American family, and we rise and fall together." Moments later, he strode across a confetti-drenched stage, as the PA played Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising." He had mounted something of a political resurrection.
This election was always going to be arduous for the president. Not since FDR had an incumbent commander in chief won reelection with unemployment so high. But after Obama's party took a drubbing in the 2010 congressional elections, the president concocted a strategy for retaining the White House. In the weeks after that election, he told his aides and advisers that they needed to turn the 2012 contest into a battle of values and visions—no matter whom the Republicans would nominate. The reelection fight, he and his aides believed, had to be transformed from a conventional referendum on the guy in office and his handling of the economy to a stark choice between Obama's aims and those of the GOP standard bearer.
These were two conflicting approaches. And congressional Republicans assisted Obama's efforts by embracing Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget that included draconian cuts in domestic programs, the abolition of the Medicare guarantee, and tax cuts for high-income Americans that went far beyond the George W. Bush trickle-down tax reductions.
There was indeed a choice. And Romney, once he became the de facto GOP nominee, reinforced Obama's narrative. He repeatedly described the election as a face-off between two alternative paths—claiming that Obama was intent on leading the nation into the wasteland of a European socialist, secular, government-centric society, and insisting that he, a lover of freedom, would guide the country into an age of dynamism, self-reliance, and economic growth spurred by freedom-loving entrepreneurs operating within free markets in a business environment without burdensome taxes and annoying regulations. Ideologues of the right and the left often huff that there is little that separates the major political parties. But in this campaign, each candidate found it in their interest to tie his core arguments to ideological stakes.
Romney did not ignore the it's-a-referendum line of attack. He repeatedly asserted that Obama had failed to revive the economy sufficiently and claimed he could do better, inflating his job-creating cred as a past CEO of Bain Capital. Still, Obama got the vision-and-values face-off he wanted. When Romney selected Ryan as his campaign soulmate, it sealed the deal. At the GOP convention in Tampa, Ryan delivered one of the most ideological addresses given by a nominee in recent years. He contended that Obama had turned the nation into Ayn Rand's worst nightmare—"the best this administration offers [is] a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us"—and essentially called for a right-wing revolution.
Following the convention, Romney did pivot to the center. Actually, it was closer to a reckless U-turn on a crowded highway at 60 miles per hour. After the release of his 47 percent rant reinforced the criticism he was an out-of-touch plutocrat who cared little for those who cannot afford dressage horses or health care, Romney quickly moved to sand down the rough edges of the hard-right stances on immigration, abortion, and gay rights he had peddled vigorously to win the nomination during the wild and wacky GOP primary contest. (On Election Day, an Obama adviser told me that in the weeks after the video was released, focus group participants who were undecided raised Romney's 47 percent remark on their own: "That's what they wanted to talk about.") And during the debates, Romney refused to fess up to key proposals, including his call for gargantuan tax cuts and his support for severe cuts in government programs. This undermined Obama's effort to present the election as a choice between two conflicting courses. But for months—most of the campaign—the president had succeeded in crafting the contest as a choice election.
Obama had, of course, been blessed with
the good fortune of ending up with Romney as his foe. For much of the
race, the former Massachusetts governor was a Grade B campaigner. Once
a self-professed moderate, he had veered far to the right to win over
the tea party, and he was carrying a trunkful of blatant flip-flops
(some of which became flip-flop-flips). Obama's team had a tough time
deciding whether to pounce on Romney for his crass situational
politics or his newfound conservatism. But there was more: They were
able to target his days as a private-equity profiteer who sought to "harvest" companies to benefit investors and, on occasion, exploit outsourcing overseas, rather than build or revive American businesses in a manner that would create jobs for the long run.
Romney lost the race to define himself—a strategic misstep that probably determined his fate. That was partly because there were so many different past and present Romneys for Romney to reconcile. His approval ratings always lagged. Polls routinely found that many Americans did not believe he truly cared about them and the challenges they face. No doubt, many voters were not satisfied with Obama's performance and yearned for another option. But they didn't like—or trust—Romney, even though polls often showed that many voters believed he could handle the economy better than Obama. Those pesky undecided voters appeared to confront a dilemma: Do I vote for the fellow I trust but who has disappointed me or the fellow I think might be able to do better but whom I don't trust? These voters may have wanted change and a candidate like Romney…but just not Romney himself. And Romney's often hapless campaign—which included insulting cookie makers and Olympics hosts—likely did not inspire confidence among undecideds (that is, if they were paying attention).
Obama's biggest obstacle—besides the sluggish economy—was of his own making. From the start of his presidency, he has not succeeded in a critical duty: selling his own accomplishments. After the 2010 shellacking, Obama and his crew readily admitted that they had failed miserably in persuading the general public that the stimulus, the health care overhaul, and Wall Street reform had been big winners. The refrain was: We were too busy enacting policies during a time of economic crisis (while managing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and neglected to engage in adequate promotion, but we'll do better. Then…they didn't.
After forcing the Republicans to accept a second stimulus—in return for assenting to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the well-heeled—Obama won no credit from his own supporters, or anyone else, for this progressive win. The fact that he lowered taxes for most taxpayers has gone unrecognized by a majority of Americans. And most voters went to the polls knowing little of the benefits of Obamacare. At the infamous first debate, the president failed to be his own best advocate and, worse, allowed Romney an unimpeded opportunity to present himself as a white knight who could rescue the economy.
Obama and his campaign have done a better job selling the choice than his own record. In Washington, he repeatedly lost the message war. On the campaign trail, he didn't talk a great deal about the successful stimulus or health care reform. Yet he did refer often to his rescue of the auto industry—a true defining difference with Romney—and that certainly won him the Midwest, which guaranteed his success. (He also mentioned the bin Laden raid.) And message wasn't everything. Obama's reelection crew, headed by Jim Messina, pulled together an impresive field operation that will be studied by politicos and political scientists for years to come. Many of the final state tallies were within a tenth of a point of the the campaign's razor-thin estimates. Midway through Election Day, several Obama aides told me they had had but one concern: that there would be a bump in GOP turnout that they had not foreseen. No such uptick occurred.
For Romney's part, he did a poor job of selling himself for most of the campaign—until he went into shape-shifting overdrive at that first debate. For months, he seemed pinned down by his own efforts to court the right. At the Tampa convention, a Romney adviser told me that Romney campaign has become "preconditioned" to placating conservatives. "They were in that mode for a year during the primaries and can't get out of it."
As part of the effort, Romney played footsie with the (often racialized) excesses of the Obama Hate Machine. He hugged Donald Trump, the nation's No. 1 birther. His chief surrogate, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, called Obama "lazy" and said he wished the president would "learn how to be an American." Romney hurled the false charge that the president had weakened welfare rules to help his base. (Get it?) He often declared that Obama did not understand the United States or its exceptional qualities—and that he apologized for it. The Republican candidate shied away from outright birtherism, but embraced otherism. He accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with terrorists and enemies of the United States after the attacks in Benghazi. He scoffed at traditions of transparency, refusing to release his taxes or identify his chief fundraisers (or release key details of his economic plan). And through it all, Romney waged a campaign predicated on fundamental lies, closing with brazenly false ads that were denounced by the chief executives of GM and Chrysler. (Wasn't Romney supposed to be business-friendly?)
Romney could have run a high-road, policy-oriented campaign that touted his past as a moderate governor who pragmatically tackled tough issues (read: Romneycare). Instead, he went with the muck. And the muck just wasn't enough—not when the demographics were turning against the GOP and not when its nominee could not escape the extremism of his own party or the corporate excesses of his own past. A GOP candidate with less baggage and a defter touch could have vanquished Obama. The Republicans blew their opportunity and can thank the tea party. (No doubt, in the coming civil war within the party's ranks, some Rs will argue the party didn't go far right enough.)
Obama's success did not mark an end to political wars of the United States. The pundit pooh-bahs will be quick to remind all that the country remains bitterly divided—as it heads toward the fiscal cliff. (Romney's concession speech included only a brief and tepid call to put aside "partisan bickering.") And extreme voices on the right will no doubt continue to question Obama's legitimacy. (It took Trump nanoseconds after the election was called to throw a tweet-tantrum: "This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!") The challenges of Obama's second term will be daunting, the opportunities for progress (and compromise) limited. But Obama, coolly sticking to his long-term plan and bare-knuckling when necessary—held back a nasty and reactionary tide. That in itself is a historic triumph.
Romney lost the race to define himself—a strategic misstep that probably determined his fate. That was partly because there were so many different past and present Romneys for Romney to reconcile. His approval ratings always lagged. Polls routinely found that many Americans did not believe he truly cared about them and the challenges they face. No doubt, many voters were not satisfied with Obama's performance and yearned for another option. But they didn't like—or trust—Romney, even though polls often showed that many voters believed he could handle the economy better than Obama. Those pesky undecided voters appeared to confront a dilemma: Do I vote for the fellow I trust but who has disappointed me or the fellow I think might be able to do better but whom I don't trust? These voters may have wanted change and a candidate like Romney…but just not Romney himself. And Romney's often hapless campaign—which included insulting cookie makers and Olympics hosts—likely did not inspire confidence among undecideds (that is, if they were paying attention).
Obama's biggest obstacle—besides the sluggish economy—was of his own making. From the start of his presidency, he has not succeeded in a critical duty: selling his own accomplishments. After the 2010 shellacking, Obama and his crew readily admitted that they had failed miserably in persuading the general public that the stimulus, the health care overhaul, and Wall Street reform had been big winners. The refrain was: We were too busy enacting policies during a time of economic crisis (while managing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and neglected to engage in adequate promotion, but we'll do better. Then…they didn't.
After forcing the Republicans to accept a second stimulus—in return for assenting to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the well-heeled—Obama won no credit from his own supporters, or anyone else, for this progressive win. The fact that he lowered taxes for most taxpayers has gone unrecognized by a majority of Americans. And most voters went to the polls knowing little of the benefits of Obamacare. At the infamous first debate, the president failed to be his own best advocate and, worse, allowed Romney an unimpeded opportunity to present himself as a white knight who could rescue the economy.
Obama and his campaign have done a better job selling the choice than his own record. In Washington, he repeatedly lost the message war. On the campaign trail, he didn't talk a great deal about the successful stimulus or health care reform. Yet he did refer often to his rescue of the auto industry—a true defining difference with Romney—and that certainly won him the Midwest, which guaranteed his success. (He also mentioned the bin Laden raid.) And message wasn't everything. Obama's reelection crew, headed by Jim Messina, pulled together an impresive field operation that will be studied by politicos and political scientists for years to come. Many of the final state tallies were within a tenth of a point of the the campaign's razor-thin estimates. Midway through Election Day, several Obama aides told me they had had but one concern: that there would be a bump in GOP turnout that they had not foreseen. No such uptick occurred.
For Romney's part, he did a poor job of selling himself for most of the campaign—until he went into shape-shifting overdrive at that first debate. For months, he seemed pinned down by his own efforts to court the right. At the Tampa convention, a Romney adviser told me that Romney campaign has become "preconditioned" to placating conservatives. "They were in that mode for a year during the primaries and can't get out of it."
As part of the effort, Romney played footsie with the (often racialized) excesses of the Obama Hate Machine. He hugged Donald Trump, the nation's No. 1 birther. His chief surrogate, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, called Obama "lazy" and said he wished the president would "learn how to be an American." Romney hurled the false charge that the president had weakened welfare rules to help his base. (Get it?) He often declared that Obama did not understand the United States or its exceptional qualities—and that he apologized for it. The Republican candidate shied away from outright birtherism, but embraced otherism. He accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with terrorists and enemies of the United States after the attacks in Benghazi. He scoffed at traditions of transparency, refusing to release his taxes or identify his chief fundraisers (or release key details of his economic plan). And through it all, Romney waged a campaign predicated on fundamental lies, closing with brazenly false ads that were denounced by the chief executives of GM and Chrysler. (Wasn't Romney supposed to be business-friendly?)
Romney could have run a high-road, policy-oriented campaign that touted his past as a moderate governor who pragmatically tackled tough issues (read: Romneycare). Instead, he went with the muck. And the muck just wasn't enough—not when the demographics were turning against the GOP and not when its nominee could not escape the extremism of his own party or the corporate excesses of his own past. A GOP candidate with less baggage and a defter touch could have vanquished Obama. The Republicans blew their opportunity and can thank the tea party. (No doubt, in the coming civil war within the party's ranks, some Rs will argue the party didn't go far right enough.)
Obama's success did not mark an end to political wars of the United States. The pundit pooh-bahs will be quick to remind all that the country remains bitterly divided—as it heads toward the fiscal cliff. (Romney's concession speech included only a brief and tepid call to put aside "partisan bickering.") And extreme voices on the right will no doubt continue to question Obama's legitimacy. (It took Trump nanoseconds after the election was called to throw a tweet-tantrum: "This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!") The challenges of Obama's second term will be daunting, the opportunities for progress (and compromise) limited. But Obama, coolly sticking to his long-term plan and bare-knuckling when necessary—held back a nasty and reactionary tide. That in itself is a historic triumph.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY INCREASES SEATS IN U.S. SENATE 7NOV12
33 U.S. SENATE races in 2012 and the Democratic Party won 23, Independents (who will caucus with the Democratic party) won 2 and the repiglican / tea-bagger cabal won 8, so the Democratic Party still controls the Senate 53-47. The koch brothers, karl rove, grover norquist and all the other plutocrats who spent billions in an attempt to buy this election have been defeated by the American people. Now on to the business of governing with the best interest of all the American people in mind.
| You’ve never let up. You refused to quit. And you just did the unthinkable — you not only saved the Senate from a Republican takeover, you increased the Democratic majority! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
04 February 2012
How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’ 25JAN12
STUDENTS of non-violent social, political and economic revolutions know the movements require designated, dedicated leadership, set goals and a commitment to non-violence for a chance to succeed. The Occupy movement across the U.S. started out well, but the inability and at times unwillingness to agree on a leader or even the need for one, and the inclusiveness of groups and organizations that distracted from the primary goals of the Occupy movement have diminished their chances of ever achieving their goals or of even influencing the 2012 elections. Maybe the Spring will bring a revival of Occupy, plans are already underway in cities across the country for camps to be re-established. Occupiers and their supporters need to seize the opportunities now to coordinate with the unemployed, unions, homeowners facing foreclosure and Progressive politicians to focus the American electorate on the main problem facing our nation; it is still the economy, stupid! Unemployment, home foreclosures and financial regulation, income inequality, tax inequality, corporate welfare, the social contract and decreased funding of the social safety net are all connected and how these issues are presented to American voters will determine if we continue our descent to Third World status or begin the restoration of the American Dream. This from Waging Nonviolence.......
While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.
Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”
Neither country is a utopia, as readers of the crime novels by Stieg Larsson, Henning Mankell and Jo Nesbø will know. Critical left-wing authors such as these try to push Sweden and Norway to continue on the path toward more fully just societies. However, as an American activist who first encountered Norway as a student in 1959 and learned some of its language and culture, the achievements I found amazed me. I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing. Sometimes resisting the evidence of my eyes, I made up stories that “accounted for” the differences I saw: “small country,” “homogeneous,” “a value consensus.” I finally gave up imposing my frameworks on these countries and learned the real reason: their own histories.
Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral “democracy” was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.
In both countries, the troops were called out to defend the 1 percent; people died. Award-winning Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg told the Swedish story vividly in Ådalen 31, which depicts the strikers killed in 1931 and the sparking of a nationwide general strike. (You can read more about this case in an entry by Max Rennebohm in the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)
The Norwegians had a harder time organizing a cohesive people’s movement because Norway’s small population—about three million—was spread out over a territory the size of Britain. People were divided by mountains and fjords, and they spoke regional dialects in isolated valleys. In the nineteenth century, Norway was ruled by Denmark and then by Sweden; in the context of Europe Norwegians were the “country rubes,” of little consequence. Not until 1905 did Norway finally become independent.
When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn’t stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.
In the 1920s strikes increased in intensity. The town of Hammerfest formed a commune in 1921, led by workers councils; the army intervened to crush it. The workers’ response verged toward a national general strike. The employers, backed by the state, beat back that strike, but workers erupted again in the ironworkers’ strike of 1923–24.
The Norwegian 1 percent decided not to rely simply on the army; in 1926 they formed a social movement called the Patriotic League, recruiting mainly from the middle class. By the 1930s, the League included as many as 100,000 people for armed protection of strike breakers—this in a country of only 3 million!
The Labor Party, in the meantime, opened its membership to anyone, whether or not in a unionized workplace. Middle-class Marxists and some reformers joined the party. Many rural farm workers joined the Labor Party, as well as some small landholders. Labor leadership understood that in a protracted struggle, constant outreach and organizing was needed to a nonviolent campaign. In the midst of the growing polarization, Norway’s workers launched another wave of strikes and boycotts in 1928.
The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn’t pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers’ federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.
Many people then found that their mortgages were in jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) The Depression continued, and farmers were unable to keep up payment on their debts. As turbulence hit the rural sector, crowds gathered nonviolently to prevent the eviction of families from their farms. The Agrarian Party, which included larger farmers and had previously been allied with the Conservative Party, began to distance itself from the 1 percent; some could see that the ability of the few to rule the many was in doubt.
By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.
This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor’s success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)
The 1 percent thereby lost its historic power to dominate the economy and society. Not until three decades later could the Conservatives return to a governing coalition, having by then accepted the new rules of the game, including a high degree of public ownership of the means of production, extremely progressive taxation, strong business regulation for the public good and the virtual abolition of poverty. When Conservatives eventually tried a fling with neoliberal policies, the economy generated a bubble and headed for disaster. (Sound familiar?)
Labor stepped in, seized the three largest banks, fired the top management, left the stockholders without a dime and refused to bail out any of the smaller banks. The well-purged Norwegian financial sector was not one of those countries that lurched into crisis in 2008; carefully regulated and much of it publicly owned, the sector was solid.
Although Norwegians may not tell you about this the first time you meet them, the fact remains that their society’s high level of freedom and broadly-shared prosperity began when workers and farmers, along with middle class allies, waged a nonviolent struggle that empowered the people to govern for the common good.
Correction: In an earlier version, Henning Mankell was mistakenly referred to by the name of Kurt Wallender, the protagonist in several of his books.
A march in Ådalen, Sweden, in 1931.
Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”
Neither country is a utopia, as readers of the crime novels by Stieg Larsson, Henning Mankell and Jo Nesbø will know. Critical left-wing authors such as these try to push Sweden and Norway to continue on the path toward more fully just societies. However, as an American activist who first encountered Norway as a student in 1959 and learned some of its language and culture, the achievements I found amazed me. I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing. Sometimes resisting the evidence of my eyes, I made up stories that “accounted for” the differences I saw: “small country,” “homogeneous,” “a value consensus.” I finally gave up imposing my frameworks on these countries and learned the real reason: their own histories.
Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral “democracy” was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.
In both countries, the troops were called out to defend the 1 percent; people died. Award-winning Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg told the Swedish story vividly in Ådalen 31, which depicts the strikers killed in 1931 and the sparking of a nationwide general strike. (You can read more about this case in an entry by Max Rennebohm in the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)
The Norwegians had a harder time organizing a cohesive people’s movement because Norway’s small population—about three million—was spread out over a territory the size of Britain. People were divided by mountains and fjords, and they spoke regional dialects in isolated valleys. In the nineteenth century, Norway was ruled by Denmark and then by Sweden; in the context of Europe Norwegians were the “country rubes,” of little consequence. Not until 1905 did Norway finally become independent.
When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn’t stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.
In the 1920s strikes increased in intensity. The town of Hammerfest formed a commune in 1921, led by workers councils; the army intervened to crush it. The workers’ response verged toward a national general strike. The employers, backed by the state, beat back that strike, but workers erupted again in the ironworkers’ strike of 1923–24.
The Norwegian 1 percent decided not to rely simply on the army; in 1926 they formed a social movement called the Patriotic League, recruiting mainly from the middle class. By the 1930s, the League included as many as 100,000 people for armed protection of strike breakers—this in a country of only 3 million!
The Labor Party, in the meantime, opened its membership to anyone, whether or not in a unionized workplace. Middle-class Marxists and some reformers joined the party. Many rural farm workers joined the Labor Party, as well as some small landholders. Labor leadership understood that in a protracted struggle, constant outreach and organizing was needed to a nonviolent campaign. In the midst of the growing polarization, Norway’s workers launched another wave of strikes and boycotts in 1928.
The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn’t pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers’ federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.
Many people then found that their mortgages were in jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) The Depression continued, and farmers were unable to keep up payment on their debts. As turbulence hit the rural sector, crowds gathered nonviolently to prevent the eviction of families from their farms. The Agrarian Party, which included larger farmers and had previously been allied with the Conservative Party, began to distance itself from the 1 percent; some could see that the ability of the few to rule the many was in doubt.
By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.
This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor’s success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)
The 1 percent thereby lost its historic power to dominate the economy and society. Not until three decades later could the Conservatives return to a governing coalition, having by then accepted the new rules of the game, including a high degree of public ownership of the means of production, extremely progressive taxation, strong business regulation for the public good and the virtual abolition of poverty. When Conservatives eventually tried a fling with neoliberal policies, the economy generated a bubble and headed for disaster. (Sound familiar?)
Labor stepped in, seized the three largest banks, fired the top management, left the stockholders without a dime and refused to bail out any of the smaller banks. The well-purged Norwegian financial sector was not one of those countries that lurched into crisis in 2008; carefully regulated and much of it publicly owned, the sector was solid.
Although Norwegians may not tell you about this the first time you meet them, the fact remains that their society’s high level of freedom and broadly-shared prosperity began when workers and farmers, along with middle class allies, waged a nonviolent struggle that empowered the people to govern for the common good.
Correction: In an earlier version, Henning Mankell was mistakenly referred to by the name of Kurt Wallender, the protagonist in several of his books.
15 December 2011
Romney in 2002: I'm "Moderate," "Progressive," and "Not a Partisan Republican" [VIDEO] 13DEZ11
THEY CALL HIM FLIPPER, FLIPPER, TONGUE FASTER THAN LIGHTNING, HE'S FRIGHTENING TO SEE, AND LIES TO YOU AND YOU AND ME....THEY CALL HIM FLIPPER, FLIPPER, GREED IS WHAT DRIVES HIM, THE DIVINE DOESN'T GUIDE HIM, AND HE WANTS TO BE THE GOP / TEA-BAGGER NOMINEE!!!! (to be sung to the tune of the old 'Flipper' TV show theme......)
Mitt Romney says he's a die-hard conservative. He says he's not a flip-flopper. Yet…plenty of Republican voters don't seem to believe him. They have plenty of reasons not to. As Romney has moved from Massachusetts politics to GOP presidential politics, he has famously reversed course on abortion rights, gun control, gay rights, and health care reform. And it's all on video. Still, Romney keeps on denying any somersaults, but not convincingly. (See: Bret Baier.)
Now there's new video out showing that Romnney has indeed pulled a 180 on his entire political persona. And it's in Romney's own words. In 2002, when he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he issued a strong declaration of his basic principles while campaigning in Worcester:
A moderate, progressive, and nonpartisan Republican—that's how Romney described himself just five years before first running for the Republican presidential nomination as a fierce conservative.
In his 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney huffed, "progressives…rejected the notion of universal truths, objective judgments, and, ironically, progress itself, embracing neutrality among competing belief sets and rejecting the primacy of Western civilization, the great thinkers of the ages, and the principles espoused by the Founding Parents of the nation." Yet Romney once proudly declared himself a fellow of progressive views. Maybe he should apologize.
Now there's new video out showing that Romnney has indeed pulled a 180 on his entire political persona. And it's in Romney's own words. In 2002, when he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he issued a strong declaration of his basic principles while campaigning in Worcester:
I think the old standby definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign. I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican—that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.Here's the worth-more-than-a-1,000-words clip:
A moderate, progressive, and nonpartisan Republican—that's how Romney described himself just five years before first running for the Republican presidential nomination as a fierce conservative.
In his 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney huffed, "progressives…rejected the notion of universal truths, objective judgments, and, ironically, progress itself, embracing neutrality among competing belief sets and rejecting the primacy of Western civilization, the great thinkers of the ages, and the principles espoused by the Founding Parents of the nation." Yet Romney once proudly declared himself a fellow of progressive views. Maybe he should apologize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)