Do What McJoan Says

There's a progressive vote underway.  Do what McJoan says and call these members with an ask that they vote 'yes' on the McGovern amendment.

Jerry McNerney 202-225-1947
Shelly Berkley 202-225-4695
Howard Berman 202-225-4695
Vic Snyder 202-225-2506
Zack Space 202-225-6265
Ed Perlmutter 202-225-2645

This is a clean and fully funded withdrawal vote.

Update [2007-5-10 18:12:46 by Matt Stoller]: And it goes down by 255-171. Hoyer votes against, Pelosi for. That's a pretty good number of progressives, and a good showing. And now we have people on the record for or against the war.

Atrios has a list of freshmen Dems who voted against this.


Most of the new Dems backed the amendment, including every winner on the netroots page except McNerney (who is losing his base). On a note of pique, I'll add that Ciro Rodriguez was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign in 2006. I'm embarrassed to have supported him last year and I'm embarrassed for him now. Most of the others are Rahm-bots.

We have a lot of work to do, but the Democratic Party is for the most part a strong antiwar group.

There's more...

The 34 Habeas Obstacles, and the Democratic Squeeze

With today's fairly stunning (though not shocking) comments from AG Gonzales on habeas, it's worth running down the legislative strategy for restoring this basic tenet of the American legal system.  First of all, this is a core base issue.  Among others, Moveon went out today with an email on the Habeas restoration, and as the Times has noted, there are half a dozen bills on habeas floating around the House.  The key to successfully moving this through Congress is to show that there is a majority on habeas with a floor vote, and then use that show of strength to attach a habeas restoration to one of any number of 'must-pass' legislative vehicles.  

The DoD Authorization is one such vehicle, though there are many others, such as various Appropriations bills and Budget bills.  To see an example of how this works, consider the difference between passing a stand-alone withdrawal timeline versus attaching it to a funding bill.  If we wanted to put withdrawal timelines alone through Congress, they could be stopped by the House, the Senate, or Bush, easily.  But when these timelines are attached to a larger vehicle, money the troops need, lots of on-the-fence members voted for something they wouldn't were it a stand-alone bill.  This is actually a standard legislative tactic, and why crushing net neutrality was thrown into a large telecom reform bill last cycle which had some stuff we actually like (like cable competition).  At the end of the day, of course, the President has to sign these bills for them to become law, so there's always the veto threat.  This is why bills often tend to take more than one Congress to pass.  For instance, the Bankruptcy Bill was coming up regularly in the late 1990s, and only passed in 2005.  Habeas restoration could be on a similar track.  

In this cycle, though, what legislative strategy we chooses hinges on the need for a majority of members to vote for a restoration of habeas.  It's unclear that there is in fact a majority.  There are 34 Democrats who voted for the Military Commissions Act under intense GOP pressure, and presumably some of them can be moved to vote for a restoration of habeas with leadership arm-twisting on the other side.  We got 168 votes against the MCA, which means that we have to build 50 more votes to get to a majority of 218 votes.  We picked up 30 seats in the 2006 election, flipped from Harold Ford to Steve Cohen (and Sherrod Brown was replaced), and there are 7 Democrats who didn't vote.  So starting from the very peak of possibilities and assuming that all the newly elected Democrats are yes votes (a strong assumption), we are at 206 pro-habeas votes.  That's 12 short of a majority, though it's more like 20-25 short of a majority considering we'll probably lose a few Blue Dogs and some Republicans who were with us last time.

So that's where we are.  20-25 votes short of a pro-habeas majority.  Here's a list of the 34 Democrats who voted for the Military Commissions Act.  These are the members to work on, and you'll recognize a bunch of them from earlier, um, problematic positions.

Robert Andrews, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Sanford Bishop, Dan Boren, Leonar d Boswell, Allen Boyd, Sherrod Brown, Ben Chandler, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Artur Davis, Lincoln Davis, Chet Edwards, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Bart Gordon, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Dennis Moore, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Mike Ross, John Salazar, David Scott, John Spratt, John Tanner, Gene Taylor

First of all, let's note that that's a lot of dudes.  My gender is laaaame.  Ok, second of all, it's pretty clear that voting for Habeas is not a flip-flop against the MCA, since they are different bills, and momentum from leadership can move some of these votes.  Third, Ike Skelton, who is a very conservative Democrat, is committed to the restoration of habeas corpus, which is helpful in terms of convincing a lot of these members that they aren't solely associating with liberals here.

Early next week, it's being reported that Tauscher and Skelton are going to 'drop a bill' restoring habeas.  It's not clear what this bill will say, and if it will be as strong as Nadler's bill.  What will happen is that this is going to go through both the Judiciary and Armed Services Committees before hitting the floor.  The timing for this to go to the floor is in June at the earliest, since floor time is tough to come by.  The move for a habeas restoration in the DoD Authorization was a quick attempt to stick the bill that looks like it failed, though it's still possible to bring the habeas restoration amendment to the floor during the DoD authorization debate.  It wasn't done openly, but you can read the code in the editorials in the NYT and the Washington Post. The insiders were in the know.

There are lots of strategic openings with habeas, and lobbyists and different player are trying different tactics.  Some of them are open and many of them are not.  There are different rumors flying around, some of which pan out and some don't.  What I heard on Tuesday from a well-placed source, while not inaccurate, was certainly out-of-date by the time she told me.  That's why I wrote at the time that it was an outside shot.

Long story short, here's the essential roadmap, along with our role.  It's never entirely clear how to move something through Congress.  There are 435 members and thousands of people involved.  We need to take advantage of every single opportunity to put pressure on our members.  There are times when legislative changes can be snuck into bills, and if members know that they have felt pressure on a related issue, they will be more likely to sneak our stuff in there or look out and object to bad stuff being put in there.

I have one other observation.  Sometimes we'll need to put pressure on Blue Dogs, but sometimes we'll need to put pressure on progressives.  Some progressives will just not vote for certain types of legislative vehicles, like the DoD Authorization, because they don't want to legimitize our use of the military.  The 37 members that voted 'no' in 2006 for the DoD Authorization bill are after the flip.  Most of these members understand and will vote for something like the DoD Authorization if it has a habeas restoration in, but we need to make sure that they do in fact do this.  This DoD Authorization bill has some good stuff in it, like Walter Reed changes, cuts in missile defense, and global warming initiatives, and it may get vetoed regardless.  But the squeeze between progressives and Blue Dogs is a tight one, and will have to be managed for most important bills going through Congress.

There's more...

Where's Your Core?

I remember having a conversation with a friend going off to join the Obama campaign awhile ago, and I brought up a bunch of generic criticisms.  He hasn't done anything in the Senate, he triangulates against the left, etc.  And she turned to me and said 'Matt, but don't you get it?  He's one of us.' It was an interesting comment, one that I think courses through a lot of the Obama supporting community.  He's asking for a different type of politics, therefore he's asking for my type of politics.  But is that really the case?  Here's a good example, an article on Obama's economic team.  Former Bush officials Greg Mankiw lavished praise on his crew as a group of technically excellent economists that are "left of the political center, as one would expect, but only slightly".

When someone like Mankiw praises an economic team, it means that the team fits into traditional economic orthodoxy, which is very much tilted to the right.  And the proof is plain to see.

Liebman, an expert on Social Security, isn't easily pigeon- holed either. He has supported partial privatization of the government-run retirement system, an idea that's anathema to many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for personal investment accounts that Bush promoted, then dropped in 2005.

``Liebman has been to open to private accounts and most people in town would say he's a moderate supporter of them,'' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a research organization in Washington that advocates free markets and often backs Republicans.

In a 2005 policy paper Liebman, along with Andrew Samwick of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Maya MacGuineas, a former aide to Senator John McCain, advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts to shore up the system, which will begin paying more in benefits than it takes in through taxes by 2017 under current actuarial estimates.

That's a rather stunning team player for Obama.  Perhaps Liebman is an outlier and doesn't represent Obama's thinking, but I find that unlikely.  The article continues.  

Obama has called Social Security's problems ``real but manageable'' and has pledged to preserve what he's called the ``essential character'' of the pension program.

There are serious problems with Medicare, but Social Security is fine as long as the other financial shortfalls in the budget are dealt with.  One of the key drivers of the right-wing frame in fact is the idea that 'entitlements' in general are in trouble, and so privatization ought to happen.  Obama may or may not be looking for a new type of politics, and he may be engaging on a level that draws in new entrants into the process.  Still, when combined with a team including people such as Liebman, this is very worrisome rhetoric, and gives ammunition to Clinton and Edwards backers.

And this gives rise to a question - why would Obama adopt this rhetoric and this team?  It's an important question.  It's not like the base loves the idea of privatizing Social Security, but there are groups that do, groups that have their home on Wall Street and in elite think tanks and universities (the ones Chait thinks are dispassionate).  And I'm not a cynic who thinks that politicians just do whatever is politically palatable; I believe Obama believes what he said, that Social Security has real problems that need to be managed.  Just as Clinton supports a continuing force in Iraq while telling us that she will end the war as President, Obama's campaign is wink-wink nudging the progressive base that 'he is one of us', while hiring a Cato-infused nut to help run his economic policy.  Social Security is core.  Iraq is core.  It's strange that the two leading candidates in the Democratic Party don't consider them as such, and that the base is letting them get away with this nonsense.

We need better debates to bring this out, and more criticism.  

UPDATE: Read this blog post on Clinton. She is very very strong, and we will not beat her without a compelling case. The triangulating model will only let her blur the distinctions on very clear issues, which is enough of an emotional excuse to keep her voters in line for the primaries.

Update [2007-5-10 18:21:24 by Matt Stoller]:: The Obama camp sent me this.

Audacity of Hope, pg. 179:

Take the Administration’s attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate at least they are right; historically, the market outperforms Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustments. But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers—those who bought Microsoft early and those who bought Enron late. What would the Ownership Society do with the losers? Unless we’re willing to see seniors starve on the street, we’re going to have to cover their retirement expenses one way or another—and since we don’t know in advance which of us will be losers, it makes sense for all of us to chip in to a pool that gives us at least some guaranteed income in our golden years. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage individuals to pursue higher-risk, higher-return investment strategies. They should. It just means that they should do so with savings other than those put into Social Security.

I didn't mean to give the impression of saying that Obama wants to privatize Social Security. It's clear he's not sold on that option, and he opposed it in 2005. There are many ways to slice and dice this issue, though, and one of them is to raise payroll taxes a la 1983, which would essentially be another unnecessary regressive tax hike. For some reason that 1983 move is venerated as a wonderful example of cooperation instead of a horrible economic move. And I'm not saying Obama would do this, either, only that there are many ways above and beyond Bush idiocy to mess this up. Starting with the frame that Social Security needs 'a fix' is a great way to move to a place where damage can happen. Obama's support of Lieberman, for instance, suggests that he's temperamentally inclined to go for a 1983 style solution, and his rhetoric here and choice of advisors suggest he could substantively move in that direction. Then again, he could go the other way and suggest replacing payroll taxes with carbon taxes. The point is, who knows?

There's more...

Chait's Versailles


So today I was at the Heritage Foundation, which also makes it a good day to debut my appearance in the New Republic with a piece Chris and I wrote rebutting Jonathan Chait's analysis of the progressive blogosphere.  Naturally, Chait's original article was a hit piece on who we are and what we believe in, spinning off nice little sub-hit pieces from folks like Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times. And it's not just filtering into the right-wing bloodstream and the mass media.  I've already been contacted by very infuential thinkers who took Chait's piece as an axiomatic description of what we're doing.  Chait knew where his piece would go and he knew exactly how he wanted us to be framed. I guess for this reason it had to be rebutted, but it does feel like navel-gazing. If you want more, follow me to the flip side.

There's more...

Over to Heritage

I'm heading over to Heritage to do the 10am panel on the Open House Project.  The streaming video is here.

Lots of fireworks in the House, so use this as a comment thread for either C-Span chatter or mockery of me for being at Heritage.

There's more...

Outside Shots and Partisanship

The restoration of habeas corpus crosses ideological lines.  The Chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene and former legal adviser to the Bush administration William H. Taft IV are both on board.  And so are some right-wing bloggers, like Right-Thinking from the Left Coast,

How fucking pathetic is it that the Democrats, the fucking DEMOCRATS, the party who I have seen wiping its ass with the Constitution for most of my lifetime, working to restore habeas corpus rights to Americans...I've often parodied Howard Dean by saying that I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for.  Well, if they have the balls to stand up to the fucking Bush Republicans and officially restore canonical law then I say "You go, girl!"

Though it's not an ideological issue, it is a partisan issue because of the authoritarian worship of Bush on the right.  He can do no wrong, and therefore the Military Commissions Act was a perfect law to pass.  Putting lawmakers on the spot is a great way to wedge conservatives.  Anyway, here's The Hill reporting on what's going on today with the DoD authorization bill.

The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee dealt a blow to the human-rights community by failing to include provisions to overhaul GOP legislation governing military tribunals in the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The chairman's move is attracting criticism from some who say Democrats' dedication to the issue is wavering.

Scores of human-rights lawyers and attorneys representing military detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have targeted Rep. Ike Skelton's (D-Mo.) defense authorization bill as a chance to restore the writ of habeas corpus -- detainees' right to challenge the legality of their detention in court.

Skelton said he has prepared separate legislation and is planning to work with Democratic leadership, the Judiciary Committee and members of the Armed Services panel to bring a stand-alone bill to the floor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is supporting Skelton's efforts to move forward with a stand-alone bill, according to a Pelosi aide.

Skelton doesn't want a showdown with Bush on the legislation, and he doesn't want the bill to pass along partisan lines.  The Hill also reports that Carl Levin doesn't have the votes to restore habeas corpus in the Senate for his version of the DoD authorization bill.  

I don't see how a separate bill solves any of these problems in terms of restoring habeas corpus.  I do see how it relieves pressure on Chairman Skelton and the House leadership to do anything meaningful about habeas corpus.  The only way this is moving is to get members on the record, and engage with some serious lobbying and grassroots pressure.  This fear of standing on principle is really out of control.

There's more...

Iraq Crunch Day Tomorrow

Sometimes everything happens at once.  Aside from an important hearing in Maine on net neutrality and the DoD authorization bill mark-up, there are going to be big votes tomorrow on Iraq in the House on a bill Bush has again threatened to veto.  Tomorrow's looking like a really strange day.

Does anyone else feel like history was put on fast forward a few years ago?

UPDATE: Aravosis writes about something I also heard today.

It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves...

Please call your member of Congress and raise unholy hell. Tell them that they'd better vote against giving Bush a blank check when the Iraq supplemental comes up for a vote tomorrow. You can call now and leave a message on their machines. You can find your rep via the House Web site, use the zip code box in the upper left hand corner to find your rep.

I know this is a lot of phone-calling, and I wish I could say it's going to stop, but we have a lot to clean up and a brittle political system. And hey, at least there's speed-dial.

There's more...

More Habeas Politics

I'll have more on what's going on with habeas in the morning after talking to a few sources.  The caucus is a bit chaotic, with important votes on Iraq coming through shortly.  The issue with the Department of Defense Authorization bill is fairly interesting.  Basically, a stand-alone habeas restoration bill has a low probability of passing, because the Military Commissions Act had only 170 no votes.  Like a withdrawal timeline, the only way to get habeas restored is to attach it to a larger legislative vehicle like the DoD Authorization bill.

Chairman Ike Skelton and some combination of Majority Leader Hoyer and Speaker Pelosi decided not to attach the habeas restoration in the bill coming before the Armed Services Committee.  It could still be put into the bill as an amendment in committee, or as an amendment on the floor.  Both of these scenarios are very unlikely, and lobbyists and insiders in the civil liberties community are not particularly happy.  Marty Meehan apparently wanted to bring up a habeas amendment in committee, but Skelton blocked him by having Conyers not waive Judiciary's jurisdiction.  I've heard conflicting reason's for Skelton's choice.  There's perceived worry for freshmen who have to take a tough vote on habeas, but there's also a feeling that some Blue Dogs and some progressives would bolt on the DoD bill if it had habeas in it, which would mean the bill would lose.  Neither of these explanations quite makes sense, for reasons I'll explain.

It's important to realize that Pelosi has promised to get behind a separate bill from the Judiciary Committee restoring habeas, the Nadler bill.  Again, this is a stand-alone bill, which makes it harder to move than a legislative vehicle that has to pass to keep the DoD running.  If Pelosi is keeping her word, then the idea that keeping habeas out of the authorization bill so freshmen wouldn't have to take a tough vote doesn't make sense.  They'll have to take a tough vote, just on a stand-alone bill instead of this bigger bill.  And if they are going to do a stand-alone bill, why not just do an amendment on the floor restoring habeas attached to the DoD authorization?  This would make it much more likely to be passed by the Senate.  No, clearly Pelosi and leadership are just not putting a high priority on moving a restoration of habeas at this moment.

In working through this habeas fight, I'm struck by the disconnect between the insiders and the organizing.  Typically, messaging has to be consistent on both the outside and the inside to be effective, since it's good for representatives to hear the same message from lobbyists, constituents, and donors.  But that's clearly not happening here.  For instance, this ACLU site is the stupidest action center I've ever seen.  It's literally about a cartoon character named 'Habeas' who went missing last year.  Can YOU find him?  This kind of messaging is patronizing and idiotic, treating supporters of civil rights as if we are children.  I doubt very much that this is the messaging being used internally in lobbying members.

There's a lot of talent lobbying and pushing for a restoration of habeas, it's literally the founding tenet of a variety of progressive groups.  It's important to recognize that this is the first of what will be many salvos over the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.  Bush will obviously veto whatever he doesn't like, and that probably includes habeas corpus.  The key is to push at times they don't expect, and let both the insiders who are lobbying know that they have a large body of citizens behind them, and the Democratic leaders know that they have a job to do and they better do it.  

Keep calling. I'm going to do more research tomorrow.  There will be a habeas bill coming through the House this cycle, and it's important they know that we expect it to come sooner rather than later.  Here's the roll call for the Military Commissions Act vote. If any amateur vote-counters want to speculate in the comments how many votes they think we have, count away.

UPDATE: SteveM has an interesting thought in the comments: "I want a stand-alone bill. History and the Constitution are on the line here. I want people to have to go on record with habeas and only habeas being the issue. If there aren't enough votes to restore this basic right, then so be it. Let's at least find out where the Republic stands."

There's more...

Will Labor Support Union-busting Penn?

Ari Berman kicked off the conversation about Mark Penn with a great article on his career as executive in a company with a union-busting division.  Ezra Klein is calling labor leaders to see what they think about Hillary Clinton's chief strategist having this kind of history, and I'm curious how they respond.  Typically union leaders hate criticizing Democratic officials, and do not want to be forced to potentially get into a spat over something like this.  

Mark Schmitt also points out that Penn isn't particularly ethical in his polling practices.

And that fact proves Ari Berman's conclusion that Penn's choice of categories has little to do with the actual data and everything to do with his presumptions going in -- populism doesn't work, don't criticize corporations -- which in turn have a delightfully precise correspondence with the interests of the clients of the firm of which Penn is Worldwide President and CEO.  And that's why neither Senator Clinton, the people with good sense in her campaign, labor leaders or other Democrats should accept lobbyist Howard Paster's explanation to Berman that Penn's corporate and anti-union clientele is "part of a whole 'nother life we lead."

This is a dilemma for labor leaders.  For my part, I hope they put pressure on Clinton to distance herself from Penn.  He's a seriously bad Democrat, and they would be letting their members down if they handled this problem any other way.

There's more...

Habeas Update

I've been calling around to find out what's going on with habeas corpus and the Armed Services Committee tomorrow. The New York Times editorialized on it today (so did the Washington Post, h/t Digby):

There are a half-dozen bills in the House and the Senate that would restore habeas corpus. But the Democratic leadership has not found a way to bring the issue to a vote. The first vehicle is the Defense Department's budget authorization bill. But Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, chose not to include habeas corpus in his baseline version of the measure, known as the chairman's mark, which will be taken up by the committee today.

We hope habeas will be added to the bill by the committee, or that other sponsors of measures to restore the ancient right, including Representatives John Conyers Jr. of Michigan and Jerrold Nadler of New York, and Senators Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, will find ways to bring their bills to a vote.

The mark-up continues through tomorrow, so we'll see what happens. There are reporters snooping around to figure out the contours of the internal debate. Interestingly, it seems to be an entirely political problem; the votes are there for the restoration of habeas, but leadership is worried about taking heat from Republicans. So if there's a vote, we'll probably win. We can have a vote in committee or on the floor, in an amendment or in the bill itself. The ideal scenario is to have the Chairman, Ike Skelton, include habeas in his version of the bill, but he didn't do that. That said, if we lose this fight, there are other legislative vehicles coming down the pike we can use for the restoration of habeas, so our effort will not be wasted either way.

If we can't move habeas in the DoD Authorization bill, Ellen Tauscher's press secretary is saying that Ike Skelton will be introducing a bill early next week. It's not clear to me why they are playing these games unless they don't want this bill attached to something that has to pass. So keep calling. And if you donated to any of the officials on the committee, call them.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (202) 225-4965
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (202) 225-4131

Armed Services Committee Democrats
Ike Skelton, Missouri, Chairman, 202-225-2876
John Spratt, South Carolina, 202-225-5501
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas, (202) 225-7742
Gene Taylor, Mississippi, 202 225-5772
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, (202) 225-2726
Marty Meehan, Massachusetts, (202) 225-3411
Silvestre Reyes, Texas, (202) 225-4831
Vic Snyder, Arkansas, 202-225-2506
Adam Smith, Washington, (202) 225-8901
Loretta Sanchez, California, 202-225-5859
Mike McIntyre, North Carolina,  (202) 225-2731
Ellen O. Tauscher, California,  (202) 225-1880
Robert A. Brady, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-4731
Robert Andrews, New Jersey, 202-225-6501
Susan A. Davis, California, (202) 225-2040
Rick Larsen, Washington, (202) 225-2605
Jim Cooper, Tennessee, 202-225-4311
Jim Marshall, Georgia, 202-225-4311
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam, (202) 225-1188
Mark Udall, Colorado, (202) 225-2161
Dan Boren, Oklahoma, (202) 225-2701
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, (202) 225-4636
Nancy Boyda, Kansas, (202) 225-6601
Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-4276
Hank Johnson, Georgia, (202) 225-1605
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire,(202) 225-5456
Joe Courtney, Connecticut, (202) 225-2076
David Loebsack, Iowa, 202.225.6576
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, (202) 225-5614
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-2011
Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, (202) 225-2542
Elijah Cummings, Maryland, (202) 225-4741
Kendrick Meek, Florida, 202-225-4506
Kathy Castor, Florida, (202)225-3376

So far, the following blogs have blogged about this and/or encouraged people to call in. More groups are going to jump on soon, and with these blogs plus the Times and the Post, a few million people are aware of this immediate fight. The Democrats are going to have to move on this, and if they don't do it now they will have to get it done later.

Glenn Greenwald
Andrew Sullivan
Down with Tyranny
Prospect Park Project
Iowa Independent
Valerie Sanford sent it to her list.
Taylor Marsh
Capitol Defense Weekly
Partnership for a Secure America
The Tail of One, Squirrel
The Impolitic
Working For Change
Obsidian Wings
Republic of Dogs
A Spork in the Drawer
Boulder County Dems
A Socialable Loner
Right-thinking from the Left Coast
My Left Nutmeg
American Torture
West Virginia Blue


Advertise Blogads