Secret Democratic/Bush Trade Deal - WTF?

[debbierlus]

Thursday, May 10th was a whirlwind day on the political frontlines in the War on the Middle Class, as a handful of senior congressional Democrats and the White House - cheered on by K Street lobbyists - joined forces today to announce a "deal" on a package of trade agreements that could impact millions of American workers and potentially calls into question the entire election mandate of 2006 (I say potentially because the full details are still being concealed by both Democrats and the White House). You'll notice the irony of the deal with just a glance at the front of the New York Times business section (screen captured above) - the deal was agreed to (though its details have still not been made public) on the very same day the U.S. government reported another widening of America's job-destroying trade deficit.....

Full article here:

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/timeline_the_secret_bushdemocr_1.html

[BlackHawk706867]

1. Yep, that' s good old Charlie Rangle for ya! eom

[debbierlus]

3. Pelosi's actions don't reflect very favorably on her...

And, not informing ALL the dems before the press conference is a Republican type move that I have no tolerance for....

I will await full judgement until further details are revealed, but if this bears out the way it looks, it reflects horribly on the dems involved.

[madfloridian]

2. I posted it last night and it dropped like a rock.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x865133

I guess it is of little concern here.

[debbierlus]

4. Keep it kicked, this is an IMPORTANT story

I like to think that one of the key differences between Republicans & Democratic voters is the willingness to confront our leaders on policy decisions we do not like. If we don't follow up on the actions of our leadership when they break faith with us, then we are no better then the Repukes.

[merh]

5. dayum

can the House have a recall on the speaker job?

Instead of impeachment calls, we need to demand her recall/resignation. I'm tired of her shit.

"RECALL PELOSI"

[debbierlus]

6. It concerns me that this story is getting no recommends

This is a big story. Where is the interest?

[drm604]

8. K&R

I just gave it the 5th recommend.

[merh]

10. I don't get it either

Pelosi is a fool if she doesn't see that compromise and "secret deals" are not what this nation needs - it needs leadership and if she isn't going to lead then she needs to get the hell out of the way and let someone lead.

We are on the verge of loosing all of our liberties, the admin has passed signed some very frightening executive orders and created policy that could be detrimental to our basic freedoms. She better wise up before it is too late for the nation.

[leftchick]

22. pretty much all of the democrats are compromised at this point

there are very few left that have our interests at heart. Kucinich and Feingold come to mind. I can't think of too many others that aren't corrupted by the DLC/AIPAC/Corporatist influence.

[merh]

24. it's disgusting

n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. ????

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

9. K&R. nt

[Upfront]

36. K&R

[williesgirl]

11. We need to let her and all our reps know what we think of this - recommended

[debbierlus]

32. I am going to be looking further into this & I will post my findings

We need to make some noise about this - definitely.

This is precisely the type of thing that makes me just want to completely leave the democratic party & work as a progressive independent.

[still_one]

62. I agree you should definitely let them know, but please don't leave the Demoratic party

at least until after 2008. The Supreme Court is REALLY AT STAKE, and if we lose that you can kiss civil liberties, jobs, and quite a number of things goodbye

[Jackpine Radical]

66. Like the bumper sticker says,

THINK GREEN
VOTE BLUE

[quiet.american]

12. Great work by Sirota. Disappointed by Rangel, but not in the least surprised. n/t

[Maven]

13. Whom are they representing?

Secret deal w/ Bush? WTF.

This is so disheartening. Oh, sure, we can convince Pelosi to impeach. :eyes:

K/R.

[Individualist]

34. They're representing DLC

It's blatantly obvious that they aren't representing the people of this nation.

[peacetalksforall]

14. This is a perfect fit for the phrase TRADING WITH THE ENEMY -

How could they - where did they get the nerve to do this? Who do we have to represent us?

[Elwood P Dowd]

15. Insanity is making the same mistake over and over again

expecting a different result. These bastards are destroying our country. K&R!

[William769]

16. Well if we know about it, it's not a secret.

[EnviroBat]

17. I'm sorry, but I stoped trusting her from the whole "Impeachment's off the Table" crap.

I have a bad feeling about what's going on in this country, and I am really starting to believe they are ALL in bed together.

[Wiley50]

21. Yes They ARE All In Bed Together

We are so screwn

[leftchick]

23. bingo!

give that guy/gal a cigar.

[lfairban]

43. About there being little discernible difference between the Dems and Reps.

I knew this years ago.

Does this mean people are going to quit bitching at me for voting for Nader?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

45. There is a vast difference between the idiot & Al Gore but both parties are corporate controlled.

[earth mom]

54. Yup-Pelosi does NOT have the people she was elected to represent interests at heart.

That obvious violations of the Constitution have been taken off the table and ignored-now THAT is a crime in itself! :grr:

[RestoreGore]

18. No wonder impeachment is off the table

They are no better. Recommended.

[file83]

68. "Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated."

Full quote:

"What a bunch of garbage; liberal, democrat, conservative, republican. It's all there to control you! Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery, Incorporated!"

-- Alex Jones, from the movie Waking Life

[soulcore]

70. Alex Jones is a bit energetic but dead on.

We have two parties all right, the winners and the losers.

And the winners sure as hell don't represent the people.

[bbgrunt]

19. wtf--damned right. this is traitorous. I can hardly believe it, but

it's obvious that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the dems and reps--especially when it comes to "free trade" agreements. It is time for serious action.

[TahitiNut]

20. And ... despite DU's Dobbs-bashers ... Lou Dobbs has been consistent

... in his advocacy of trade deals that stop shipping jobs out of country. He's raised concerns repeatedly that labor is being sold down the river ... by corporatists in both parties.

[Elwood P Dowd]

26. Agreed TN.

Dobbs has been the only voice in the corporate-controlled press to even mention the subject. Did you catch Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes hinting that Dobbs needs to shut the fuck up about this?

[TahitiNut]

31. I didn't catch the 60 Minutes episode (read about it), but I can say ...

... that of the many, many people I worked with in "corporate America" over the decades, the best were much like Dobbs. Virtually everything I've heard him say is consistent with my views on socially responsible corporate business practices ... including fair employee compensation, a diverse workforce, high-integrity 'hands-on' management, and so on. Nobody was more on Enron's case than Dobbs - BEFORE the shit hit the fan. I'm aware of SPLC's criticisms ... and I don't believe they're well-grounded. He's much like an "Eisenhower Republican" ... and that's close to a Kucinich position these days. (I don't think most people really realize how far right we've gone, even those who give it some lip service.)

When I first went to work with Chevrolet/GM, the prevalent management attitude was that the corporation had a responsibility FIRST to the community (including customers), next to the employees, and third to the shareholders. Integrity was demanded. Times changed as the 'broker-oriented' management (i.e. out-sourcers and M&A/sell-off types) took over from the operations/engineering based people. Back in the days that "The Organization Man" was written, corporations were actually far more honest internally than they are nowadays. The Reagan/Bush era combined with the elitist MBA (no "work your way up") types really corrupted business ... as well as the high-tech game-players who thought they could cheat and get away with it. (When executives started chasing ISOs, corporations went into the sewer.)

Dobbs is "old school" (i.e. Baldridge and Drucker) and that's OK with me.

[bbgrunt]

25. it seems that even the liberal press is ignoring this story. Why

isn't it in the headlines on Raw Story????????

[gulfcoastliberal]

27. Is it revolution time yet? nt

[CGowen]

28. US and EU agree 'single market' ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm

The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership at a summit in Washington.

The pact is designed to boost trade and investment by harmonising regulatory standards, laying the basis for a US-EU single market.

The two sides also signed an Open Skies deal, designed to reduce fares and boost traffic on transatlantic flights.

But little of substance was agreed on climate change.

However, EU leaders were pleased that the US acknowledged human activity was a major cause.


...........

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. Well this is funny in a sad way

"The two sides also signed an Open Skies deal, designed to reduce fares and boost traffic on transatlantic flights.

But little of substance was agreed on climate change."

It would appear that the first subsentence thumbs it's nose at the second one.

[CGowen]

30. they plan for 40 areas

The two sides agreed to set up an "economic council" to push ahead with regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property, financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.

[OneBlueSky]

33. nothing is ever going to really change in this country until we stop allowing corporations . . .

to call the shots, make the policies, and write the regulations that govern their own industries . . . I'm still waiting for one of the Democratic presidential candidates to stand up and tell us that the mega-corps ARE the problem, and that if elected he/she will do something about it . . . that person will have my vote and my dollars . . .

[Cass]

46. Amen, I agree completely. nt

[MadHound]

50. Kucinich is doing just that

And that is part of the reason that he is getting ignored in the press and shunned by most of the rest of the party
<http://kucinich.us/issues/campaignfin.php>
<http://kucinich.us/issues/outsourcing.php>

He could use your money and help, since he is not taking corporate contributions.

[AnOhioan]

67. Try this candidate

The challenge before us today is whether we can maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether we will timidly accept the economic, social, and political consequences of a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

snip

We cannot stand by idly while powerful economic engines -- virtually unregulated corporations -- violate workers' rights, human rights, and the environment, sweeping aside antitrust laws, eliminating competition.

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.

More at http://kucinich.us/issues/corp_power.php

[soulcore]

71. Then you need to vote for Kucinich or, *gasp*, Ron Paul. n/t

[bonito]

35. Kick n/t

[Upfront]

37. K&R

[pberq]

38. Kick & Nominated

[pberq]

39. reminiscent of NAFTA

The end of Sirota's article reads:

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/timeline_the_secret_bushdemocr_1.html

. . .I want to reiterate, we have not yet seen the details of this deal. While the secrecy and this information aggregated in this dispatch certainly raises very serious concerns about what the White House and this handful of Democrats are trying to hide, we have to reserve final judgment on what the deal ultimately means until these players decide to disclose their deliberations to the American public.

Nonetheless, there are very real reasons to be concerned. During NAFTA and China PNTR, this same kind of secretive process unfolded, with the same politicians declaring that the deals were all about helping American workers and the same media outlets behaving as stenographers for such declarations - all while the details were concealed. The bottom line is clear: If this deal sells out the American middle class - as many longtime fair trade Democrats in Congress seem to fear - it will require a massive grassroots pressure campaign to demand Democrats respect the 2006 election's fair trade mandate and back off.

[Joanne98]

40. The Washington Consensus strikes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
Trade liberalization
In the early 1990s, U.S. President George H. W. Bush began to draw up a U.S.-Mexican-Canadian free-trade proposal that came to be known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA was later signed into law by Bush's successor, President Bill Clinton, and the three North American countries agreed to gradually phase out or sharply reduce tariffs on foreign goods, a policy perfectly in line with the ideals of the Consensus. Current President George W. Bush continues to support NAFTA, and his administration negotiated a similar agreement known as the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) with the Dominican Republic and Central America, which was approved by Congress in 2005.

Proponents of NAFTA and DR-CAFTA claim that they promote economic growth in the participating countries and are a boon to U.S. consumers, providing them with less-expensive foreign goods. Critics, who include figures coming both from a section of the political left (specifically including allies of the labor union movement and the anti-globalist left, such as Ralph Nader) and from part of the right (especially the nationalist/nativist tradition embodied by Patrick J. Buchanan), accuse the agreements of crippling the working class of the United States by promoting the relocation of production to cheaper labor markets in Mexico, and allege that such shifts have in addition resulted in the exploitation of Mexican laborers.

Empirical studies have found the quantitative impact of these trade agreements on the U.S. economy to be far smaller than predicted by either advocates or critics. <2>

While a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA and a Republican president, George W. Bush, signed CAFTA, the United States Congress's subsequent support of these agreements has been more partisan. Most Republicans favor the agreements and most Democrats oppose the agreements.


Criticisms of the Washington Consensus policies

Anti-Globalization Movement
Many critics of trade liberalization, such as Noam Chomsky, Susan George, and Naomi Klein, see the Washington Consensus as a way to open the labor market of underdeveloped economies to exploitation by companies from more developed economies. The prescribed reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers allow the free movement of goods across borders according to market forces, but labor is not permitted to move freely due to tough visa laws. This creates an economic climate where goods are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped economies and then exported to rich First World economies for sale at what the critics argue are huge markups, with the balance of the markup said to accrue to large multinational corporations. The criticism is that workers in the Third World economy nevertheless remain poor, as any pay raises they may have received over what they made before trade liberalization are said to be offset by inflation, whereas workers in the First World country become unemployed, while the wealthy owners of the multinational grow even more wealthy.

Anti-globalization critics further argue that First World countries predatorily impose the consensus's neoliberal policies on economically vulnerable countries through organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and by political pressure and bribery. They argue that the Washington Consensus has not, in fact, led to any great economic boom in Latin America, but rather to severe economic crises and the accumulation of crippling external debts that render the target country beholden to the First World.

Many of the policy prescriptions (e.g., the privatization of state industries, tax reform, and deregulation) are criticized as mechanisms for ensuring the development of a small, wealthy, indigenous elite in the Third World who will rise to political power and also have a vested interest in maintaining the local status quo of labor exploitation.

Some specific factual premises of the critique as phrased above (especially on the macroeconomic side) are not accepted by defenders, or indeed all critics, of the Washington Consensus. To take a few examples,<3> inflation in many developing countries is now at its lowest levels for many decades (low single figures for very much of Latin America). Workers in factories created by foreign investment are found typically to receive higher wages and better working conditions than are standard in their own countries' domestically-owned workplaces. Economic growth in much of Latin America in the last few years has been at historically high rates, and debt levels, relative to the size of these economies, are on average significantly lower than they were several years ago. Despite these macroeconomic advances, though, poverty and inequality remain at high levels in Latin America. About one of every three people - 165 million in total- still live on less than $2 a day. Roughly a third of the population has no access to electricity or basic sanitation, and an estimated 10 million children suffer from malnutrition.

Some socialist political leaders in Latin America such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and Bolivian President Evo Morales, are vocal and well-known critics of the Washington Consensus. Cuba is a Communist planned economy and Venezuela implements Chávez's own brand of market socialism, powered by Venezuela's large oil reserves. In Argentina, too, the current Peronist party government of Nestor Kirchner has undertaken policy measures which represent a repudiation of some Consensus policies (see Continuing Controversy below).

Others on the Latin American left take a different approach. Governments led by the Socialist Party of Chile, by Alan Garcia in Peru, and by Lula in Brazil, have in practise maintained a high degree of continuity with the economic policies described under the Washington Consensus (macro-economic discipline, opening to trade and foreign investment, financial reforms, etc.). But governments of this type have simultaneously sought to supplement these policies by measures directly targeted at improving productivity and helping the poor, such as education reforms and subsidies to poor families conditioned on their children staying in school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

[AliceWonderland]

41. Kick. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. kick. nt

[BeHereNow]

44. YAY! Look, Knights in shining armor riding in to save us!!! Oh...wait a minute, what's THAT?

Knights wearing corporate provided armor?

Anyone STILL believe there is a "2-party" system in this country?
if so, you're a fool.

We are on our own people.

BHN

[Elwood P Dowd]

47. Another kick for the late-night crowd

:kick:

[sellitman]

48. Late night East Coast kick

Gnite all....this sucks!

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. Hoffa: “We Will Fight Like Hell To Oppose This Shortsighted Agreement”

Hoffa: “We Will Fight Like Hell To Oppose This Shortsighted Agreement”

This statement just came out from Teamsters president James Hoffa:

“To my great disappointment, Democratic leaders in Congress joined with the Bush administration yesterday to announce a trade ‘deal’ that sells out American workers. I am baffled as to why there is such eagerness to give this president - who is unwilling to enforce current labor and trade laws — a victory by continuing to pass more NAFTA/CAFTA-like trade models that send good-paying jobs overseas. The deal, which is wrongly dubbed ‘A New Trade Policy For America,’ does nothing to protect American jobs or help create more jobs at home. The race to the bottom will only continue. Therefore, this ‘deal’ is NO DEAL for the Teamsters or American workers, and we will fight like hell to oppose this shortsighted agreement. There are many members of Congress who know the reality of having their communities destroyed and broken as a result of bad trade and globalization policies. So I question why there was so much urgency to have a “deal,” especially without the support and backing of all of organized labor and the workers we represent.”

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted 5/11/2007 by David Sirota @ 5:37 pm | Permalink
Sherrod Brown: “I Have Significant Concerns” About Secret Democratic-Bush Trade Deal

This press release just came out from the office of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), one of the leading fair traders in Congress and the author of the book “The Myths of Free Trade”:

“Yesterday’s announcement by Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin, Chairman Baucus and Ambassador Schwab is the result of millions of voters speaking out in November against a fundamentally-flawed trade policy. It is the result of the largest ever bipartisan coalition formed against the NAFTA-model trade pact. It is the result of tireless efforts by fair trade advocates in the U.S. and across the globe fighting every day for a new direction in trade. The proposed changes recognize the inherent flaws in the current approach to trade and signal some willingness to address long- held concerns over labor and environmental standards. However, I have significant concerns about the enforceability of the changes. Given the administration’s failure to act against on known violations in Jordan and China, among other nations, those concerns are well founded. Time will tell whether yesterday is the beginning of efforts toward a better trade model or just a brief tactical retreat on the part of the administration. I look forward to reviewing the changes in these agreements in their entirety, and working with my colleagues on a trade policy that is acceptable to the millions of voters who sent us to Congress.”

Still no word on the full details of the trade deal.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted by David Sirota @ 5:34 pm | Permalink

[Rex]

51. Sounds like a one party idea.

A very bad idea.

[WatchWhatISay]

52. I read through every post here hoping that someone would tell us why this wasnt as bad as it looked.

You know. Like maybe we were just being knee-jerk and not seeing some subtle strategy here.

Unfortunately, I do not find such a post.

[still_one]

53. Here's a post

No I am not going to say we are not be knee-jerked, but what I do believe is that no matter how disgusting it is, the Democrats MUST regain control of Congress and the Executive branch in 2008.

As bad as things are, what THIS administration, AND the republicans have done to our country, IS WORSE than what will happen if the current policies continue:

1. Civil liberties will be permanently destroyed if the republicans win in 2008
2. A woman's right to choose will be lost if the republicans win in 2008
3. Medicare and social security will be destroyed if the republicans win in 2008
4. The Iraq war, and expansion into other areas will only get worse if the republicans win in 2008
5. Healthcare for everyone has at least has a chance with Democrats, if the repulicans win, nothing will happen

Yes, we should let our representatives know our displeasure, but we have to win in 2008, THEN really give them hell if they continue with this B.S.

[Progressive_In_NC]

59. Current policies will ontinue regardless of who wins

The corps determine who gets to play in Washington now. Rangel should have been above this, he isn't. The money goes right to your head, and K Street will get what they want.


Sure there are a few idealouges out there in the Dem side, but most of them will sell out in the end. I'm sorry I feel that way, but it just seems to keep happening over and over.

[still_one]

61. No, if the republicans win, you can bet the Supreme Court will tilt full right

Nader said the same thing in 2000, but there is no doubt in MY mind that Gore would have been much different

I am not saying nothing should be done, but if people believe that it doesn't matter who is in the white house and Congress in 2008, then the last six years will be childs play for what is to come.

After 2008, and the Supreme Court is safe, I will stand right with you, but the stakes are much too high right now

[Progressive_In_NC]

74. Now I'm not saying I won't work like heck to get the correct result

But I had such high hopes for Clinton, and he signed NAFTA which started the destruction of my Industry (IT). Bush has been an abomination and I just don't know who else can change our course.

Money and resources are being moved out of this country for a reason, and I feel like something big is going to happen soon economically.

They've killed the American Worker's position. They're raising gas prices and lowering wages to keep us immobile. The dollar is being devalued day by day. I hope the next person is a good Dem who can stem that tide.

But this was RANGAL who did this. One of the most outspoken critics of republicans out there. He's not supposed to do subversive things like this. But here we go.

[ToeBot]

73. I'm sure that you will see plenty of that, should the issue get forced into the radar

The Democrats may not be as practiced as the Republicans, but when they get warmed up, they can spin with the best of them. But since DU Outrage doesn't always translate into real world outrage, I don't expect this issue to get allot of play on the big stage. At best, it will be an issue used to beat up the participants at some future date - kinda like the various bankruptcy bills. In the end it will be glossed over, because our traitorous scumbags are always better than their loyal scumbags.

[bklyncowgirl]

55. Trusting Bush--not a good idea. Just wait for the signing statement, Nancy & Charlie

All those nice labor and environmental protections you thought you got him to put in there will be toast and you will be left standing there like John McCain at the torture bill signing with a sick smile on your faces.

Get it through your heads, Democrats, you can't trust Bush.

[MadHound]

56. This isn't suprising. It is more in the tradition of Clinton/DLC Dems

Pro corporate all the way and screw the people who voted for them. And people keep wondering why more and more people are dropping out of the political process or going Green. Can you say two party/same corporate master system of government? I thought you could.

Sadly we can expect even more of this, especially if Hillary gets into office.

[sadiesworld]

57. The dems pretend to care about the export of jobs in much

the same way as the repugs pretend to care about the importation of cheap labor. It really is a monstrous joke.

Did you all catch the part where congress is prepared to reauthorize Bush's fast track authority? Yep, one big f*ing joke.

[Matsubara]

58. It does my heart good seeing so many RECs for this thread.

DUers are starting to get it, and hopefully mainstream democrats and Americans will finally understand that what these SCUMBAGS are calling "free trade" is nothing of the sort. It is the willful destruction of the manufaturing and jobs base of the United States.


I have said in the past that I think dems and repugs who voted for the IWR are as culpable in the mass murder of Iraqis and our troops as POS Bush himself,

but these trade pacts strike me as an even greater betrayal of the people of the United States. At least the illegal Iraqi invasion could be construed as being in the interest of the United States,

but these trade pacts work SOLELY in the favor of multinational coporations, and are designed to impoverish and unemploy many, many, many more Americans than they will enrich.

These people should be lined up and (CENSORED).


Why is our country being run by the scum of the earth?

[merh]

60. kick

:kick:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

63. kick. n/t

[Lost4words]

64. I rest my case, there is NO opposition party for us.

8643

[Deep13]

65. If this is such a good idea, why the secrecy?

The fact that Bush is on board should be regarded as a litmus test that this is the wrong thing to do.

[FredStembottom]

69. It's "Thom Hartmann" time folks!

It's just as he says (over and over) no one inside the Democratic party will emerge to save America.

WE must BECOME the Democratic Party.

Unhook the Cable TV. Unsubscribe from the Captive Media. Stop seeing the dis-information.

What we have to do will not be televised.

They won't put Kucinich on? Let's start EXPECTING that. Let's push him (and others like him) to the forefront anyway.

He doesn't LOOK like what they say we should nominate? Let's EXPECT that!

How handsome was Al Smith? How tall was Fiorello La Guardia? How confidently could Franklin Roosevelt stride to the podium?

How handsome / tall / monied / nicely coiffed / perfectly pressed are YOU (or me)?

Our true Progressive choice is going to be DIFFERENT from what the Captive Media recommends IN SO MANY WAYS!

Our Real True Progressive candidate will look as different as he/she will sound.

Let's start pushing people truly like US!

[soulcore]

72. K&R

For the illusion of a two-party system.

[Lasher]

75. Senior Democrats are handing out K Street press releases??

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

You know, right now I really don't care much what's in this agreement. Keeping it secret like this is an act of betrayal.

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us.