Politics

846 posts

Sorry Mr. President, I’m in But My Money Isn’t

Fearing that the Republicans would stop looking for excuses to attack him, and desperately in need of the attention, the President jumped into the 2012 campaign on Monday. With a paltry 19 months to go until the election, Barack Obama released a short video on his website announcing that he and Vice President Biden will seek reelection against ”Koch Brother’s Puppet Candidate TBA.”

In addition to announcing his re-election bid to the world, the Obama campaign machine has already swung into full fundraising mode. Appropriating a version of an old Democratic strategy, it seems like Obama and Co. are asking donors to “give early and give often.”

Given that some estimate that the campaign will need close to $1B (yes, that’s a ‘B’, as in ‘billion’), it is a sensible move. If I want to pay cash for a medium ticket item next year, I’m smarter to put $20 a week away starting now. There’s not exactly a credit card for big media buys that I’m aware of.

So, it was little surprise to me when the package asking for money for the campaign landed in our mailbox this week. After all, Organizing for America (the outfit that the 2008 Obama campaign morphed into) scarcely goes a week without emailing me, hat in hand, for cause ‘x’.

What may surprise Obama/Biden 2012 is this: My wallet is closed to them for the foreseeable future.

images — Maybe Albert can slip you a few clams for this round

Why? Simply put, he campaigned as a progressive Santa Claus, and gave me a Blue Dog for Christmas the last two years. Sadly, I’m just not excited about a watered down health care bill or milquetoast finance reform, which were two big issues for me in 2008. Add in zero movement on gay marriage and the disinterest in paring back a bloated military, and I question what side the guy is even on sometimes. The Great Tax Cut Capitulation of 2010 made me want to strip the “Yes We Can” sticker off the bumper of my neighbor’s Prius.

Before someone throws the “What the f*ck has Obama done so far” website in the comments: I get it, he’s gotten further on some important issues than Clinton ever did. He also folds like a Walmart tent the face of even token GOP opposition. That’s not the guy I thought I was voting for, or donating to, in 2008.

He’ll undoubtedly get my vote, and that of my spouse. We live in a battle ground state that went all crazy red in 2010, and I’m not dumb enough to risk throwing double-digit electoral votes to Mittchelle Huckawlenty (the GOP-zombie creation who appeals to creepy Evangelicals and big-business) in service of my progressive pouting.

Rather, I’m voicing my displeasure in the same way I do when my favorite sports teams make a series of moves I dislike. Taking money out of their pockets, or rather, refusing to ever put it in there in the first place. It is the only other way I know of to get a politicians’ attention. Watch the way the 2012 campaigns (or any recent campaigns, for that matter) court the big money, and you’ll get evidence of this in abundance.

Do I expect that the loss of whatever relatively paltry sum my family would donate will have much effect on the Obama campaign? Am I suddenly going to get an audience with the big guy to air my grievances? No, of course not.

Yet, between a still-sagging economy and a general malaise among progressives, I sincerely doubt that we’re the only small money donors from 2008 whose checkbook stays on the sidelines in 2012.

Besides, if there’s a GOP victory in 2012, I’ll need to save every cent I can to pay for my privatized Medicare.

A #Crasstalk (Political) Science Experiment

Last week, one of our faithful overlords gave us an article about a simplistic method for Canadians to figure out their true political leanings.

Once we got into the comments, however, someone piped up that a tool for evaluating the same in America would be nice to have. Dogs, ever the helpful one, gave us that link, and we had some fun with it in that thread.

We learned that Ethnology Nerd is almost definitely a red, and that at least a few of us think some (probably small number of) folks really do deserve to go to jail for the eternity of their time on this planet.

0126-State-of-the-Union-GOP-Reaction_full_600 — Not all political views are created equal

In the end, I thought it might be fun for a bunch of us to take the test, (linked above) and see where we fall as a group. The test only takes about 10 minutes, and if everyone posts their results here in the comments, I can round them up in a few days and do a little analysis, and then we can get to work on taking over the world from a more pragmatic perspective. I’m sure certain tendencies will reveal themselves, but I expect to see some interesting results.

If you already did this in the previous post, and have a second to repost your results here, it’ll make life easier for me from a collection standpoint.

Mike Huckabee Would Like Us All at Gunpoint

Mike Huckabee is the former Governor of Arkansas, currently hosts a political commentary show on Fox, and is quite likely our next Republican candidate for president. He has the political chops — he has held elected positions dating back to high school. He’s educated and well-spoken. He’s no stranger to the way the political machine works. He’s also a proud member of the extreme Christian right and believes that you should be, too.

He recently spoke at a Rediscover God in America conference held in Iowa. This series features several speakers expected to run for the nomination; Michele “I *heart* McCarthy” Bachmann, Newt “I just call my current wife by her number” Gingrich, and Haley “The KKK was just a social club” Barbour.

Then there is David Barton, a minister who makes up quotes* and attributes them to the Founding Fathers to support his claim that the US was intended to be a Christian nation. He believes that America should be a Theocracy and that all Americans should be Christians. I don’t think I have to explain why this is a bad thing.

Mike Huckabee is a fan.

After being introduced by Barton, Huckabee’s opening remarks included the statement, “I wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced –forced! – at gunpoint no less, to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it would happen.”

I wish I could believe that this is simply McCain-esque pandering to the Christianists, but Huckabee is the real deal. The tagline on Mike Huckabee’s website is “Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness.” He would be happy to add “Except Where Prohibited by ~~Law~~ The Bible”.

*Barton keeps track of his “unconfirmed” quotes for us.

Canadians Can Now Be Told by the Internet How they Feel about Politics

1 comment

The CBC has released a new online tool that allows Canadians (or anyone) to answer some multiple choice questions and be told what party they should belong to. The Vote Compass tool asks how the user feels or how they would change 30 hot button issues. The answers are tabulated and the tool assigns the user to a likely political party and shows their leanings on a graph of social and economic conservatism or liberalism.

As you can see the questions are not exactly nuanced in all cases and lean toward the blunt since they need to suss out a person’s political views in short order. The tool is written in Adobe Flash so don’t bother using your elitist iPad to try to access it.

Once you’ve filled out all the questions in your choice of English or Français you’re told which party you need to start politely telling your friends about.

You can then tell the world where you stand with one click of the Facebook share button.

Update:

Thanks to Deadlist Sin (an actual Canadian, unlike me) we now learn that the liberal bias in the media is a real thing. Even people who consider themselves conservative are being labeled as liberals by the CBC.

Source: El Reg.

What I Learned From a Video Game About Congressional Redistricting

I confess, the reason why I wanted to do this post was because I thought the idea of a game about congressional redistricting is pretty funny and because it felt like such an odd subject to make a game out of. But, on further thought, I realized that for the layperson, it is an opportunity to get reacquainted with how districts are drawn in the good ol’ US of A. Ok, for me. It was a good chance for me to get reacquainted with it because I totally hated government in high school and tried to spend most of the class asleep. In fact, I really don’t even remember taking it. So, I thought I’d share my findings with you in case you find it useful, what with the census results coming out, 2012 coming up and the Republicans finally starting to get their act together and finding some people who are willing to run.

Anyways, why don’t we start with looking at what redistricting is again. It is the practice where a state government can divide up areas into legislative districts to reflect the density of population and determine how many of the 435 representatives it sends to Congress. Districts are usually redrawn every 10 years after the census is taken, which is why people get really uptight over whether or not you fill a damn form out with something other than the name “Mickey Mouse”.

However, redistricting can also be known by its evil twin name, gerrymandering. That is when districts are divided up in favor of a particular incumbent or political party and can be drawn along voting lines or racial groupings. For example, one way to do this is if you have an area that has a lot of Republicans surrounded by a lot of Democratic voters, the area could be redrawn so that it splits the Republican voters and restricts them to a minority in the two districts. This is legal until someone gets pissed off and brings a lawsuit against it as in the case of Tom Delay and his money-funneling-mid-census-term redistricting spree. Interesting side note: The term was coined when in 1812 the governor of Massachusetts, Eldbridge Gerry, had signed a bill that redistricted it to benefit his party (confusingly named the Democratic-Republic party). One of the districts was said to look like a salamander because of how it was drawn. Someone made a hybrid of the two names resulting in the term gerrymander. For more on redistricting, it is worth taking a listen to this episode of the Diane Rehm show that first sparked my interest.

But, it is pretty common to gerrymander and seems to help shape the country into being even more partisan. So, a game was born. Is it possible to redistrict the US along non-partisan lines? Some people think so. Professor Nathaniel Persily, a guest on the show, has got his students at Columbia Law School trying their hand at it. So, I thought I would too. After clicking past the opening screen, I was presented with quite a few options. I chose the basic fundamental level which is where I’m at anyways.

After the game loaded, I had to choose my party. Now, for someone who is a little anti-party, I bristled a bit but whatever. It’s all in the name of science. The head of my party is Libby Raul. Well, hello there, Libby! Nice Hillary hair and Nancy Pelosi suit.

Next I got my mission. I needed to look at my district representatives to find out their concerns. The first time I went through this, I blindly didn’t care and just went to the redrawing, which is what I’m good at – drawing. I thought I’d try an early period Baroque-esque theme. Apparently all of the reps in my districts are Democrats which is probably because of the basic level.

When redrawing the districts, I had to balance out the populations to be 650K-ish each. But this is the first time around when I did not know I had to look at my representatives’ concerns nor did I realize that all those dots were Republicans or Democrats. I was concentrating more on balancing out the populations, kinda like on Sim City.

Then I had to submit my masterpiece for approval.

Luckily everyone enjoyed my conceptual sense of space and balance and approved my plan. Ultimately there were no court challenges to my artistic awesomeness.

So that’s the game! Besides the artistic factor, I found it a fun and an engaging way to visualize and learn about a subject which has always escaped me up until now.

What could be result of all of this? It could spur more public interest in redistricting law reform to restrict the practice of gerrymandering. And if we are able to redraw lines to reflect a population change rather than favor a particular side, according to Matthew Frankel at the Brookings Institution, it might go a way in encouraging Congress to work across the aisle. At the very least it can help create a better-informed public about our political process and that is always extremely valuable.

Is Your State For Sale?

It’s no secret that state budgets across the United States are ‘in crisis’. The tumbling tax revenues resulting from a combination of high unemployment rates and tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals, coupled with the expiration of federal stimulus funds, has left states in the unenviable position of closing significant budget gaps.

In fits of ~~ignorance~~ rage, voters in several states have tasked Republicans with the arduous task of filling their budget holes. Across the country, right-wing governors and GOP-led legislatures are looking for private sector solutions to public sector problems, and looking to operate the government in a more business-like fashion.

Like any good business, the answer? Fire sale, motherfucker! Eliminate those long term revenue streams in exchange for a lump sum payment up front, increased cost of services to your citizens, and a likelihood of decreased wages for the workers providing those services. In the case of selling an asset, like Ohio governor John Kasich plans to do with its prisons or Scott Walker’s plan to pay back Koch Industries with no-bid power plant sales, that asset is GONE. Off the balance sheet. No longer an asset to the state.

The money up front, of course, is nice. Lump sums help close holes in 1 and 2-year budgets. However, two years from now, when a new budget is due to the state, and these governors are still in charge (barring a recall, which, sadly, in Ohio, doesn’t exist), similar gaps will need filled again. What to sell then? Roads? Parks? The Lottery?

Well, in Ohio, those things are slated to be leased out to private companies. The parks for natural gas drilling, the turnpike to get the maintenance costs off the state’s back, and the lottery? Well, there’s just a lot of money to be made that could be much better utilized by someone who’s already rich than the schools it was originally intended to support. If you’re already leasing out a car, you can’t exactly turn around and sell it to someone else. So, close that door.

Nope, you’ll either have to raise taxes on folks who can afford it (HA!), or cut more services. Schools in the Midwest don’t need heat, do they? If we cram 60 kids into a classroom meant for 30, the body heat alone should be enough, right? I’m not a scientist, but that sounds right.

Admittedly, I haven’t seen some of the numbers associated with these efforts yet. Like any good used car salesman, the politicians associated with these actions like to wait until the last minute to disclose the details of the sale.

However, I’m having trouble with the math on some of these things. In the case of the turnpike, it’s likely that the company that leases it from the state will lay-off and reduce the wages of toll and maintenance workers, raise tolls (see Indiana), and possibly scrimp on certain aspects of maintenance/safety. Wait, that never happens, right?

So, what you likely have: Reductions in tax revenue from workers, a further erosion of the middle class way of life, an increase in real costs to the citizens and businesses that use those resources, and a share of revenue that could go directly to state coffers redirected as profit to a private firm (whose taxes your state probably just cut, helping to exacerbate said budget deficit).

But, those are only leases right? If they don’t work out, the state can always just take back control and operation of the asset.

Sure, except, your state has now disbanded the departments, cut those costs from the budget, and would have to re-create the infrastructure needed to resume operation of the asset in question. That costs money. Real money. Who’s going to pay for that?

Not guys like Kasich, Walker, or their friends and supporters. Believe that.

How Libya Is (And Is Not) Another Iraq

For the second time in less than a decade, the United States is engaged in military actions against a Middle Eastern country. Since the passage of Resolution 1973 and the subsequent military actions, reported yesterday by Ken, a number of people have expressed uneasiness at the idea that Libya could “turn into another Iraq.” That’s understandable. I don’t think anyone, except possibly Tony Blair, wants another Iraq. But, this is a serious concern. So, in a two part series, I’m going to consider how the situation in Libya is similar and different from the Iraq invasion and, finally, whether, notwithstanding current distinctions, Libya could become another Iraq. Part I of the series will deal with how the situation in Libya is similar to Iraq.

How Libya Is Another Iraq

: Libyan rebel waves the Libyan flag atop a destroyed government tank.

The Region- The most obvious similarity between Libya and Iraq is one of geography and religion- both countries are in the Middle East and have majority Arab Muslim populations. It’s easy to dismiss this as glossing over a number of important differences, but I would caution against such an approach. The fact is that it does matter to many people that the US and our Western allies seem selectively focused on the Middle East while ignoring human rights abuses and humanitarian crises in other parts of the world (Burma, for example).

This criticism is similar to that levied against the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s selective prosecutions of only African conflicts. Skepticism on this issue can undermine how the world, and more importantly Arab populations, view the legitimacy of the UN and US actions and potentially re-raise a number of the neo-colonialism charges that so damaged America’s reputation from the handling of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.

No Fly Zone Again– The US and her allies established and enforced two separate NFZs over Iraq from 1992 until the “conclusion” of the Iraq invasion in 2003 (once the US officially occupied Iraq under our “rebuilding” rationale, the NFZ was quickly lifted). Like the Libyan NFZ, the Iraq NFZs were premised on humanitarian grounds, specifically to protect civilians, the Kurdish populations in the North and the Shiite Muslims in the South.

The Usual Suspects Advocating Military Force in the Middle East- Just as with Security Council Resolution 1441 (declaring Iraq to be in material breach of WMD disarmament and the pre-text for the US/UK unilateral invasion), Resolution 1973 was co-sponsored and heavily supported by the UK and US. The Iraq NFZs were also jointly operated by the US and UK (with Turkish participation). There are non-nefarious explanations for this, mainly the reality of which countries have the military resources to actually enforce anything the UN authorizes and whose support is therefore critical.

The recent history of the US and UK in Iraq is also the reason you may be hearing people refer to fears of “mission creep”- the steady expansion of a military mission beyond its original mandate and purpose. Resolution 1973 is limited in its scope and mission and expressly bars any ground occupation. But, Resolution 1441 expressly did not authorize invading Iraq, yet that didn’t prevent the US and UK from dishonestly using it for that purpose. The UN, like any organization, is only as effective, disciplined and honest as the nation states that make up its membership. For this reason, many view any US/UK advocacy for military involvement in the Middle East with a great deal of alarm and question the “real” motivations of these two countries’ constant warmongering positions.

Middle Eastern Countries’ Participation- The Arab League’s endorsement of the Libyan NFZ has been hailed as a remarkable step and a move that inoculates Western powers from neo-colonialism claims in attacking Libya.

The Arab League never endorsed, as a group, the Iraq NFZs or the Iraq invasion, but these events did have Middle Eastern nations’ participation. Turkey officially participated in the Iraq NFZ enforcement, twice passing legislation extending Turkey’s military involvement. And, while technically no Middle Eastern country was included in the “Coalition of the Willing,” Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar all allowed the US and UK military to launch the Iraq invasion from their countries and provided air and ground access into Iraq. While Arab League members’ involvement in the NFZ is substantially greater (Qatar and UAE jets are involved in enforcement actions over Libya), their involvement, in itself, does not particularly distinguish Libya from Iraq.

Western Accountability Lacking Again– Saddam Hussein was prosecuted for crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Provisional government. However, his conviction and death sentence was based solely on the murder of 148 Shiites following a failed assassination attempt in 1982. Left out of the trials was any evidence related to crimes against humanity that were carried out with American provided weaponry and, in some cases, with US knowledge that the arms and weaponry would be used against civilian populations. Documents declassified by the National Security Archive spell out US involvement in installing and arming Hussein and, as reported by the Washington Post, “Americans drafted many of the statutes under which Hussein and his associates [were] tried.”

The US and UK, like with Iraq, have provided Gaddafi with many of the arms his military is using in committing potential crimes against humanity. Resolution 1970 gives the ICC jurisdiction to investigate these crimes, but is limited, some would say specifically to avoid US and UK accountability, to actions after February 15, 2011.

For the reasons listed above and many others, many people watching the situation in Libya feel a creeping sense of déjà vu as these similarities revive unpleasant memories and serve as a powerful reminder that the noblest intentions (I’m being charitable here!) can lead to great, potentially irreparable harm. With that in mind, the second and final installment in this series will focus on why the situation in Libya is not like Iraq, but also acknowledge how it could become, in the future, the next Iraq.

Read More

For an excellent interactive feature on the Iraq NFZs, see here.

For an overview of the Iraq NFZs enforcement, questionable legality and a list of US/UK military strikes in Iraq based on NFZ breaches, see here.

Utah does something crazy… for once

I know what you’re thinking. It’s Utah. What craziness could ever happen there? It’s totally not an insane mix of hillbilly death cult and fly-by-night Xango pyramid scheme zombies.

Well apparently they took a break from telling their third sister-wife to “STFU MARGENE OR YOU’RE GOING BACK TO THE “BAD” COMPOUND” and finally got around to some important state business:

(CNN) — Until this week, Utah had 24 state symbols, from tree (the blue spruce) to insect (the honeybee) to even cooking pot (the Dutch oven).

Now it’s added an official state firearm — the John M. Browning-designed M1911 pistol, becoming the first state in the nation to have one, according to the state legislator who sponsored the law.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the new symbol into law this week.

Look out, Arizona. Utah just made you its BITCH. Apparently this initiative was the ~~brainchild~~ child of something called a “State Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican who was a police officer and SWAT team commander.”

“There was more controversy than I anticipated, but it really passed with bipartisan support,” Wimmer said. “One of the biggest comments from the critics was that we should not honor an implement of death. And my response to that has always been that this firearm does not represent an implement of death. It represents an implement of freedom.”

YEAH. Guns aren’t deadly weapons. They’re all about giving freedom. Such the freedom to defend America from your fourth sister-wife WHO JUST FUCKING CANNOT LEARN HOW TO WASH THE DISHES RIGHT AFTER DINNER.

Where’s my gun at?

(Hat Tip: Mr.Anansi)

Tea Party Rock

Nothing says Rock and Roll like conservative America. Just ask The National Review. While you may not think of the county Republican meeting as a swaggering display of animal sexuality, it is that pro-freedom passion that makes conservatives rock. Just ask the Ted Nugent.

So here is a collection of the best Rawk the Tea Party has to offer. Feel free to bookmark these videos so you will have something to watch when you hang out at you aunt’s house in Arizona next Christmas.

This chick has sort of a Laura Branigan thing going on. Unfortunately, no one told her that the use of the word accountability in a song sucks most of the rock right out. However, she does get points for dramatic lighting.

Here is a classic from the health care debate. Try to resist dancing in front of your computer.

This guy is really trying to rock in a sort of Mr. Mister sort of way. However, he really needs to rethink the Naziesque gray shirt combo, especially while bitching about the British. Don’t live the stereotype, dude!

Here is a low-fi treatment. This guy wants freedom like Lou Reed wanted junk. This is what happens when you bundle Garage Band and IMovie on new Macs.

OK, I can’t leave this without at least one country song. This is epic and contains stars and stripes burqas. Warning: The viewing of this video will make you afraid to ever visit The National Mall.

Your Thoughts Wanted: Sen. Evan Bayh, Glenn Beck and FOX News

Yesterday it was announced that former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) was joining Fox News as a “political commentator and analyst.” My initial reaction to this news was to frown and shake my head. I am, to say the least, not a fan of Fox News. For the record, I am also not a fan of MSNBC. But, I’ll get to that in a moment. I don’t watch Fox News, so this isn’t a criticism of their news coverage or political commentary. My objection to Fox can really be summed up in two words: Glenn Beck. My problems with this hatemonger are manifold, but I’ll just mention one. As a Jew, and, ahem, specifically a Reform Jew, I strongly object to Mr. Beck being given a national, mainstream platform to spew his barely cloaked Elders of Zion Jewish world control conspiracy theories.

Because “ratings matters,” I would prefer that my fellow Americans choose to express their disapproval of Mr. Beck by not watching Fox News so long as he is on the network. By joining Fox, Sen. Bayh, a centrist well-spoken and intelligent man, is not helping in this cause. This is particularly disappointing to me given the Senator’s involvement in No Labels, an organization founded by a bipartisan group of current and former elected officials, including Independent Mayor Bloomberg, former Republican Congressman Scarborough and former Sen. Bayh, who are “frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics” and believe “hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.” Hmmm.

In thinking about this yesterday, I tried to understand how sharing a network with Mr. Beck furthers the goals of No Labels. When the Bayh news broke, my Facebook page exploded with comments- many echoing this sentiment. However, there were opposing views. Here is a comment from a friend and political activist: “But even No Labels has to have a conduit for promoting its message. Mass media is media for the masses, and influencing those masses is how we change the system.”

Ok. This is a valid point and it got me thinking. Now, let me move at this point, to why I dislike MSNBC, because it’s relevant here. First, I find MSNBC and Fox much too partisan and slanted in their reporting to be a news source for my tastes. I hate surprises. I’d prefer to have all the facts, mitigating and otherwise, on an issue before I start forwarding around while jumping on my high horse about it. But, the bigger issue I have with MSNBC is their role in mainstreaming and rehabilitating the noxious racist, Pat Buchanan.

For those used to seeing Pat joshing around with our favorite liberal lesbian, Rachel Maddow, here’s just a sampling of Mr. Buchanan’s less adorable beliefs in his own words:

After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was “putting on an act” by associating the Confederacy with slavery: “The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance.”

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.

But, as I thought about my friend’s comment, it occurred to me that Mr. Buchanan does not say these things on MSNBC and doesn’t seem to say them much anymore at all. Hmmm again. So, now I’m asking myself: should Mr. Buchanan be shunned for his past horrid behavior or is it better that because of his appearances on MSNBC he seems to actually have moderated his statements, if not his beliefs? Is it better that, even if he secretly still believes them, he doesn’t say them anymore?

All of which brings me back to Senator Bayh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. So, now I’m conflicted and not sure where I stand. Is it possible that, simply by having individuals of Mr. Bayh’s caliber, Fox News may move away from commentators like Glenn Beck? Is it possible that Sen. Bayh’s participation may temper Mr. Beck’s more unacceptable statements, at least on his Fox News show? Is it better to take a principled stand against Beck and Fox News or to engage to try to change them?

Hmmm for a third time. What do you think?

Read More:

Evan Bayh joining Fox News

Glenn Beck’s “monstrous” Soros accusations rile Holocaust survivors, Jewish groups

Southern Poverty Law Center Report, The Second Wave: Return of the Militias, documenting Fox News and Glenn Beck’s race-based conspiracy theories

No Labels

Pat Buchanan in his own words

Senator Bayh on the issues