August 12-13, 2008
Aug 12 14:35 How a Hoax Becomes Acceptable Policy Aug 12 17:06 EFCA Update Aug 12 18:41 In 'da Quarry With Priscilla Lord-Faris Aug 12 19:53 Looking Presidential vs. Being Presidential Aug 13 01:00 A Tactical Shift, Not Surrender Aug 13 16:59 Bearing True Witness & Allegiance to Madam Speaker Aug 13 20:18 Gang Of Ten Bill Tips Scales in Obama's Favor?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
How a Hoax Becomes Acceptable Policy
Throughout the energy debate, Democrats have called the Republicans' plan to Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less some derogatory names. Sen. Obama called it a scheme . Speaker Pelosi called it a hoax in this article . Here's how Speaker Pelosi tried justifying Democrats' refusal to allow a vote on drilling in ANWR and on the OCS:
That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.Proof that the Republicans' persistence is paying off came last night when Larry King interviewed Speaker Pelosi . Here's what she told Larry:
"They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas," Pelosi said. "We can do that. We can have a vote on that."Friends, that's what election year fear sounds like. The Democratic leadership has ridiculed drilling from the minute the debate began. The Democratic leadership has said drilling won't bring down prices until a decade down the road. The Democratic leadership has said that the Republicans' protest is proof that Republicans are owned by Big Oil. (Nevermind the fact that Democrats are owned by the Environutters .)
She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.
"But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them," Pelosi continued.
There's a bigger issue involved in this debate. Haven't Democrats, especially Pelosi's leadership, shown a greater loyalty to K Street lobbyists than to Main Street citizens? Isn't it fairly easy to make a pretty strong case that Democrats place a higher priority on pleasing K Street to keep the campaign contributions flowing than it is to help blue collar workers?
When Politico.com reported that Speaker Pelosi told vulnerables to do whatever they needed to get re-elected, Republican Leader Boehner jumped on the opportunity, challenging Democrats to prove their sincerity by signing a discharge petition mandating a vote on the American Energy Act.
We should be doing the same thing now. Republicans should challenge Democrats to sign the discharge petition for the AEA to prove that they put a higher priority on Main Street than on K Street. The message should be that there are no free lunches on this issue. If Democrats want credit for supporting drilling, it's gotta be more than talk. If Democrats want voters to believe that they support drilling, then Democrats must actually support drilling by voting for it.
Putting pressure on Democrats is changing the dynamics of this election. Sen. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, changed his position on drilling 3 times in one week. Now the Democrats' pit bull Nancy Pelosi is changing her tone.
If Ms. Pelosi wants to prove her sincerity about drilling, she should return to Washington and start laying the groundwork for voting on the AEA. We'll know that the Democratic leadership isn't serious if they keep doing what they've been doing, which is nothing.
Talk is cheap. Now it's time for Democrats to prove that they're sincere. If they refuse, then voters should remember that Democrats' allegiance is to Nancy Pelosi and their K Street friends, not to the people that make America great.
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM
No comments.
EFCA Update
It's time for another 'EFCA Update'. It's too important an issue to lose track of. This article lays things out pretty well.
We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by Congressional Democrats and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama becomes law.One thing that's obvious is that the union bosses are getting desperate. This legislation would legalize the stripping of the last protections workers would have to a secret ballot.
Before there were secret ballots, voters dared not express their true preferences if those who watched them vote could retaliate, whether by firing them, beating them up or in other ways. Anyone who is serious about people being free to express themselves with their votes wants a secret ballot.
When a union organizer approaches a worker and asks them if they'd like to sign, how likely is that worker to say no? Let's consider the unions' history of thuggishness before answering. Why would he/she subject themselves to potential harassment or intimidation? Just the possibility that they'd be subjects of intimidation would likely influence their decision.
Can anyone say that a worker facing that situation has the same protections as a worker voting in the privacy of the voting booth that's being monitored by NLRB monitors?
This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. "I will make it the law of the land when I'm President of the United States," Barack Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.Democrats all across the land are supporting EFCA. Whether it's the Democrats' presidential nominee or Ted Kennedy or Al Franken or Elwyn Tinklenberg, Democrats overwhelmingly support EFCA. As I've just explained, this proves that Democrats overwhelmingly support eliminating important worker protections.
Senator Obama has also said many times that he is against "special interests." But, like most politicians who say that, he means that he is against other politicians' special interests. His own special interests are never called special interests.
Republicans should vocally stand up for workers' rights. Let Democrats argue against the workers. That's a fight I'll take anytime.
Technroati: EFCA , Unions , Obama , Ted Kennedy , Al Franken , El Tinklenberg , Democrats , Workers Rights , Republicans , Election 2008
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:10 PM
No comments.
In 'da Quarry With Priscilla Lord-Faris
The St. Cloud Times' Larry Schumacher has posted his interview with Priscilla Lord-Faris . You'll want to check it out. She hits Mr. Franken pretty hard. Here are three examples:
Q: You didn't seek the party endorsement. Why run for the DFL nomination in a primary race?Disgusting is a pretty strong word. It's also entirely appropriate in this instance.
A: I waited for (Mike) Ciresi to get back in, but he didn't. I just think the party didn't know what it was getting into. All the information Franken failed to disclose that he had a duty to, the nonpayment of taxes, the workers compensation issue, the statements from his past, I'm not blaming him personally. But the comments he's made in his satirical repertoire have been hurtful to minorities, to women, to homosexuals, to Catholics, even. It's disgusting and I can't believe it didn't disqualify him from the start.
Q: What do you offer beyond Franken or the five other candidates on the DFL primary ballot?TRANSLATION: I'm not some rich celebrity running for an ego trip. I'm a serious politician with actual legislative skills.
A: I have quite a bit more experience in politics than he does. I was elected and served a four-year City Council term for the city of Sunfish Lake. I'm a lifetime DFLer and lifetime Minnesotan. I've taught third grade, taught special education. I'm a lawyer. I know the art of negotiation. I've represented victims of sexual abuse, victims of rape, victims of drunk driving. I lost a son to drunk driving. I've worked with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He's only back here in Minnesota for one reason. And he's never held elected office.
Q: You've been accused of helping Republicans tarnish the likely Democratic nominee. What's your response?Lori Sturdevant knows that Franken is a disaster. She went so far as ask why nobody had vetted Franken. Democrats are boxed into a corner, like Lord-Faris suggests. Chairman Melendez can't back away from Mr. Franken because, not only would it doom Franken, it'd hurt down-ticket races, too.
A: I contributed to his campaign at the start. I went to some of his fundraisers. I think some people in the party were duped, and they think it's too late to back out now. But what do you do, put your head in the sand and not call a spade a spade? If it was me running, and I had all of that garbage to deal with, I would've been asked to stop and step aside. These ads the Republicans have been running, the bowling ads, you know? That's just a preview of what's to come if we don't change course now.
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 12-Aug-08 11:07 PM
The Dems saw him as a celeb and did not pay attention to the fact that he was a waaaay far left whackjob. Did you see the article this week in which they held a round table discussion open to the public at a cafe and one person showed up. Embarassment doesn't seem like a strong enough word.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-08 11:47 PM
Chuck, Every American saw that article. It even made its way into the LA Times & onto Drudge.
Looking Presidential vs. Being Presidential
When fighting broke out last week, John McCain got on the phone to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to find out what was happening in the tiny democratic nation. Sen. McCain then said that the Russians were the aggressors and that their actions needed to stop. Three statements and a day later, presumptive Democratic nominee caught up with where McCain was from the start.
Proving yet again that he's the adult in the room, McCain has just said that he'd back Georgia's bid to join NATO if he's elected:
"I would move forward at the right time with the application for membership in NATO by Georgia," McCain told Fox News television. "As you know, through the NATO membership, that if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all," said the Arizona senator, alluding to Russia's military aggression on Georgia. "We don't have, I think, right now, the ability to intervene in any way except in a humanitarian, economic way, and do what we can to help the Georgians," he added.The thought of that happening frightens Russia because, like Sen. McCain says, an attack against one is an attack against all. In fact, admitting all of the former Soviet satellite nations into NATO, starting with Ukraine, would undoubtedly give Putin pause.
Meanwhile, here's how Sen. Obama responded today:
Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus."No matter how this conflict started"? Sen. Obama still can't quite get past that moral equivalency thing. Sen. McCain gave a lengthy, detailed speech on what's happening in Georgia today. Sen. Obama issued a brief statement, then got back to the sand & surf with his family.
"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country," said Obama, 47. "There is no possible justification for these attacks," he added.
Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun-Times has a great article about other instances where Sen. McCain's wisdom and experience have shown through. Here's one example that Mr. Bentley cites:
While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.Putting us on the fast track to energy independence has never been more important, both economically or in terms of national security. Building nuclear power plants while we're building oil rigs on the OCS will drop oil prices.
Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea, long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts...now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.
McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.
There's a hidden benefit to lower oil prices: It cuts Russia's, Iran's and Venezuela's revenues, which tightens up their economies. That, in turn, shrinks Russia's military budget while shrinking the money Iran and Chavez can funnel to terrorists.
McCain's steady hand has given US voters, as well as the world, a glimpse of what type of leadership we can expect from Sen. McCain. Undoubtedly, it's a welcome sight to our allies. Just as surely, it's the last thing Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad wanted to see.
Finally, it's worth noting the contrast between the pictures of Sen. Obama meeting with Sarkozy, Brown and Merkel, looking so presidential, and Sen. McCain, behind the microphone, being presidential, calm and in control of the facts.
Personally, I'll vote for the man that is presidential over the guy who looks presidential every time.
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:58 PM
No comments.
A Tactical Shift, Not Surrender
I never thought that Nancy Pelosi's admission that she'd allow a vote on drilling during last night's interview with Larry King was a genuine offer. Tonight, I'm proven right in my suspicion. According to this article , Pelosi and the Democrat majority plan on throwing one poison pill into the bill after another. Here's what the Hill is reporting:
A leadership aide said many of the energy proposals that were put forward by Democrats in July would wind up in the package. Many of them won majority House support but failed because of a parliamentary maneuver used to block GOP amendments.It's time we started playing hardball.
In the CNN interview, she indicated that drilling, which she's opposed for years, could be accompanied by "great things" like expansion of wind power, solar energy and biofuels. She hinted that the package could include the Democratic leadership's "use it or lose it" plan to force drillers to produce their existing federal leases, more regulation of greenhouse gases, and that the federal government should get more money for the oil.
Republicans must insist on doing the CR first. A CR is inevitable because Democrats haven't started working on the appropriations bills.
Republicans must insist that the CR be stripped of any language that keeps any of the moratoria intact. That's the critical first step because it says that Democrats are acting on a good faith basis. If they aren't willing to take that first step, then Republicans should start a nationwide advertising campaign asking why Democrats won't lift the drilling moratoria.
Next, Republicans must insist that the bill must include reforms that streamline the leasing process, thereby speeding up drilling in ANWR, the OCS and the Green River Formation's shale oil. The bill must also contain language that limits the litigation phase and imposes a hefty fine on environmental groups who bring frivolous lawsuits.
I'm betting that Democrats are planning on stopping the House drilling bill in the Senate. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that that's what they're trying to do. That's why insisting on the CR is vital. If Pelosi's and Reid's Democrats aren't willing to pass the CR first, I'd accuse Democrats as being insincere about drilling.
Further, I'd use high profile advertising to highlight every representative or senator who opposes dropping the moratoria. I'd say something along the lines of "Senator X voted against lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Can we afford to send Senator X back to Washington this November?"
Adding a windfall profits tax to the bill is a nonstarter, too, as is releasing oil from the SPR. With Russia potentially controlling the flow of oil from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, now isn't the time to be taking oil from the SPR.
According to this article , "BP has shut down indefinitely an oil pipeline running through Georgia as a precautionary measure following Russian bombing raids in the region."
Now is definitely not the time to be tinkering with the SPR.
It's also time to show the nation that Republicans are the leaders in this congress and that Democrats are simply the majority party. Let's admit two things right here:
1) Democrats have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point. They didn't make America's truck drivers' or farmers' best interests their highest priority. they put K Street ahead of Main Street.
2) Democrats are desperate right now. This isn't the time to lapse into 'blind dipartisan mode'. It's the time to put the pedal to the metal.
Isn't it time to realize that Democrats were forced by the Republicans and the public to come grudgingly, slowly to the bargaining table. As much as they'd like to punt this until after the election, Democrats know that that isn't possible. Democrats know that if they choose that strategy, they'd be in the fast lane to the minority.
Republicans should tell Democrats that they'll start working on the comprehensive energy bill the minute the CR is passed sans the moratoria and signed by President Bush. If Democrats sign onto that, then Republicans should sit down with Democrats and iron out the details on a comprehensive energy bill that includes provisions for nuclear power and tax incentives for developing viable energy alternatives and tax credits for people who purchase solar panels or energy-efficient appliances.
Following this blueprint is the best way for Republicans to win this debate while still winning this fall's elections. Following this blueprint will show America that Democrats talked a New Direction and that it took Republican leadership to deliver on that New Direction.
Posted Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:05 AM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 13-Aug-08 07:48 AM
"they put K Street ahead of Main Street."
ROFLMAO!!!
K Street is the direct result of The Contract On America, and honed to a razor's edge by Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (R=Corrupt), and you're trying to stick K Street on the Dems??!?
Just another example of why reasonable people no longer trust Republicans to tell the truth.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-08 08:34 AM
You're delusional Tommy. K Street was a thriving industry long before Newt.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-Aug-08 08:37 AM
Tommy,
I don't suppose you have a scintilla of evidence for your ridiculous assertion, do you?
Tell you what: if you can find such evidence, I will concede that you are not a Republican since, by your own admission, us "reasonable people" don't trust you to tell the truth.
Bearing True Witness & Allegiance to Madam Speaker
I witnessed something on live TV that got my attention and then some. This morning, CNN's Ali Velshi interviewed Michele Bachmann, my representative in Congress, and Frank Pallone, (D-NJ). I've chronicled this week and last how Democrats are being forced to pass a drilling bill. When Speaker Pelosi told Larry King that Republicans can have a vote on drilling, I knew that there'd be a ton of strings attached. I was proved right when the Hill Magazine talked about all the poison pills Democrats would insist on.
What caught my attention during Velshi's interview was that Rep. Pallone said "Democrats are trying to get people to stop using fossil fuels." He said this without hesitation or qualification. Twice.
He then lapsed back into the standard Democratic talking points about Speaker Pelosi saying that they could drill in NPR-A and that Republicans said no to that.
Rep. Bachmann's response was brilliant, saying that drilling in the NPR-A was fine but that drilling in ANWR would leave a much tinier footprint. Rep. bachmann pointed out that it's only 70+ miles from the start of the Alaskan pipeline to where they'd drill in ANWR.
I know from looking at maps of Alaska that a pipeline connecting NPR-A to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline is 250 miles minimum. I also know from those maps that some of the leases inside the NPR-A are tucked close to mountains.
Having traveled to Alaska, I'd bet the proverbial ranch that those mountains are scenic, pristine areas. Considering Democrats' main arguments against drilling in ANWR is that it's too scenic and pristine, drilling in the NPR-A is rather puzzling. Democrats want to drill near scenic mountains but they don't want to drill on a barren tundra? Where's the logic in that?
During the interview, Velshi played a clip shot from an airplane flying over ANWR. It's nothing but tundra. Calling ANWR's Coastal Plain nondescript is to demean truly nondescript tracts of land.
After watching Rep. Pallone say that Democrats are trying to get people to stop using fossil fuels, it's difficult to trust Democrats, the majority party in the House and Senate, to allow debate on drilling in ANWR, the OCS or elsewhere. The only way that happens is if the American public, assisted by the House GOP, keep pressuring Democrats to do the right thing.
Posted Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment 1 by Sirbeef at 14-Aug-08 05:54 AM
Not to offend your home state or anything (since I live in NY and can't complain,) but why does NJ have some of the sh*ttiest legislators in the country?
Why hasn't there been an enormous shift in party affiliation considering how screwed up everything is in that state??
They still can't blame everything bad on Christie Whitman.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-08 06:50 AM
Sirbeef, I'm from Minnesota. As for why NJ is so screwed up, God only knows. You're right, though, they ARE screwed up.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 15-Aug-08 05:24 PM
Gary:
I think it has something to do with all of those Liberal Democrats that fled New York and ruined the state. California liberals seem to killing most of the western states in the same way.
Um aren't those two high tax liberal states. Why will they want to leave their paradise?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-08 10:24 PM
Um aren't those two high tax liberal states. Why will they want to leave their paradise?
Walter, ever hear the saying "It's good for thee, just not for me"???
Gang Of Ten Bill Tips Scales in Obama's Favor?
According to this article , the compromise bill brought forth by the Gang of Ten has just given Sen. Obama the advantage in the energy debate. It's true that Senate Republicans have done something stupid in compromising with desperate Democrats. That doesn't mean that their bill tips this issue in Sen. Obama's favor. Far from it. Here's where the mask slips:
The $84 billion New Energy Reform Act would fund an effort, which its backers liken to the Apollo moon landing program, to transform the nation's cars and trucks, with a goal of having 85 percent of new vehicles on the road run on nonpetroleum-based fuels within 20 years.Consumers don't care about whether 85 percent of the vehicles will be using "nonpetroleum-based fuels within 20 years." They care about cheaper gas today. Something that Mr. Keating isn't factoring in are some of the provisions in the New ERA. If Sen. Obama wants to hitch his energy wagon to this bill, then he's itching for some trouble. Here's one of the provisions that won't be popular:
Responsible, Targeted Domestic Energy ProductionTRANSLATION: New ERA imposes a cap and trade tax increase provision.
To help meet our energy needs until our economy transitions to advanced alternative fuel vehicles, the New Era bill increases domestic energy production in environmentally responsible ways. The legislation:
Provides a CO2 sequestration credit for use in enhanced oil recovery to increase production from existing oil wells while reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
Let's remember that the cap and trade bill couldn't make it on its own. In fact, it collapsed because the American people hated the idea of a job-killing tax increase. Democrats refuse to let that die so they insisted that Cap and Trade be included in this 'compromise bill.' The 5 Republicans in the Gang of Ten should be ashamed of themselves for agreeing to this provision.
Here's another provision that's sure to make people angry:
Opens additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico for leasing (in consultation with the Defense Department to ensure that drilling is done in a manner consistent with national security) and allows Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia to opt in to leasing off their shores. Retains an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles offshore where new oil production will not be allowed. Requires all new production to be used domestically. Creates a commission to make recommendations to Congress on future areas that should be considered for leasing. Provides for appropriate revenue sharing for states that allow leasing off their shores;With all due respect, screw that. there's no reason not to open up the entire OCS. That eliminates the need for a commission. Appointing a commission is a waste of time and money. It's a way for politicians to avoid making difficult decisions. It's time they developed a spine and started making decisions based on what their constituents want, not what the environmental lobbyists convince them of.
This bill doesn't represent the will of the American people. This bill represents the will of the environmental lobbyists and Democrats everywhere. That's why it's DOA the minute the American people catch wind of its short-sighted provisions, longterm goals and job-killing tax increases.
It's time Washington started listening ot what the American people want. If they don't, they'll find that we're an extremely cranky bunch. They'll find that we don't care about living in a carbon-free world. Anyone getting in the way of opening up the OCS will be political roadkill this November. Democrats attempting to pass legislation with cap and trade provisions in it will also be political roadkill this November.
Republicans must step away from the Gang of Ten bill. Let's correct that. Senate Republicans should run from that bill as fast as their feet can take them. It's a capitulation to the Democrats at a time when Democrats are desperate. It's signing onto a disastrous bill.
Sen. Graham, Sen. Chambliss, Sen. Isaskson, Sen. Thune and Sen. Corker, it's time you pulled your collective heads out of your backsides. Bipartisanship doesn't mean signing onto bad legislation that will kill jobs while raising taxes. Bipartisanship means hammering out a bill that actually benefits the American people.
Bipartisanship means acting on your constituents' biggest concerns. I won't believe that raising taxes on carbon-based energy sources is in the top 100 of your constituents' biggest concerns.
Sen. Graham, Sen. Chambliss, Sen. Isaskson, Sen. Thune and Sen. Corker, it's time you threw your support behind the House Republicans's American Energy Act. Tell Senate Democrats that that's the starting point for negotiations on a comprehensive energy bill. If that's unacceptable to Sen. Lincoln, Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Pryor, Sen. Conrad and Sen. Nelson, then they'll have to defend their inaction to their constituents. I suspect that Sen. Landrieu isn't anxious to do that. I'll bet that there's dozens of other things that she'd rather do.
Here's where Mr. Keating is wrong:
But McCain's ground game was working in the pre; Gang of 10 environment, and he was looking forward to keeping Obama uncomfortable on drilling. Because he has supported tax breaks for oil companies, and has opposed repealing them to pay for investments in clean energy, McCain now faces an uncomfortable choice. He can oppose the Gang of 10 plan, which will force him to defend his past votes and to explain how his stance fits into the "all of the above" approach on energy that he says he advocates. Or he can change his position and support the plan's tax increases and limits on drilling.None of that is necessary. All he has to do is stick to his guns. Almost 75 percent of Americans support lifting restrictions on drilling. I'll bet that blue collar workers, like the people who are currently unemployed by Detroit's layoffs, support lifting the ban so they can get back to work on building cars. Anyone care to bet that the UAW will be thrilled with a cap and trade tax increase?
I'll bet an equal amount of money that blue collar workers in Pennsylvania and Ohio will side with Sen. McCain on drilling on the OCS. I'll further bet that these folks won't like the cap and trade tax increases.
That's why, when you take the time to analyze this situation, Democrats are rightfully nervous about getting their heads handed to them this November. That's why Gang of Ten Democrat were so anxious to put a bill together.
It's shameful that the Gang of Ten Republicans didn't exact more concessions from their Democratic cohorts.
That's why I urge people in Georgia, South Dakota, South Carolina and Tennesee to call their temporarily wayward senators and register your disapproval of this legislation.
If we speak passionately, if we speak loud enough and long enough, our leaders will follow our instructions. That's the only way we'll get the results we want.
Posted Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:20 PM
No comments.
