Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

As Democratic Landslide Looms, Big Media Try to Peddle More 'Right-Wing Nation' B.S.

By Paul Waldman, Media Matters for America. Posted October 22, 2008.


When Democrats win we're told that they need to move to the center. What a joke.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


We usually have to wait until after the Democrats emerge victorious at the polls for the Beltway finger-waggers to begin warning them not to be too ambitious, not to do too much, not to actually follow through on the proposals they presented to the voters. But this year, it's starting early: Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, penned a 3,300-word cover story warning that, as the subtitle says, "America remains a center-right nation -- a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril." Because, God forbid, a progressive candidate who wins an election should actually keep the promises he made to the American people.



It's an interesting contrast to what happens when Republicans win. While Democratic victories are seen as signifying nothing about the electorate's fundamental beliefs, Republican victories are inevitably described as revealing profound sea changes in American ideology. When the GOP took over both houses of Congress in 1994, The New York Times wrote the next day, "[T]he country has unmistakably moved to the right." The Washington Post agreed, saying, "The huge Republican gains also marked a clear shift to the right in the country."



And after Election Day 2004, the Times intoned, "[I]t is impossible to read President Bush's re-election with larger Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as anything other than the clearest confirmation yet that this is a center-right country -- divided yes, but with an undisputed majority united behind his leadership." The article was headlined, "An Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values." The Los Angeles Times agreed that the election proved voters "don't believe that the Democrats share their values." Chris Matthews wondered, "Can the Democrats ever connect with the country's cultural majority?"



Yet we heard nothing of the sort from elite media outlets in 2006, when Democrats retook both houses of Congress -- no grand proclamations that the country had moved left, no ruminations on whether conservatism was an electorally bankrupt ideology. Instead, the news media focused on a few conservative Democratic candidates who won seats in Republican areas, despite the fact that they were far outnumbered by the new Democratic members who held traditionally progressive positions.



In other words, when Republicans win, we're told that Democrats need to move to the center, because the country is too conservative for them. When Democrats win, on the other hand, we're told that... Democrats need to move to the center. Their victory must have been some kind of accident -- it couldn't have been because the public actually agreed with what they want to do.



So what kind of evidence does Meacham offer for his oh-so-familiar thesis? First off, he says, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton didn't accomplish everything they wanted to. Interesting -- but last time I checked, liberal programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit remain pretty popular. And remind me how George Bush's 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security -- a longstanding conservative goal -- went.



Then Meacham gives us the oft-noted fact that when asked by pollsters, more people will call themselves "conservative" than "liberal." The problem with this is that people who know a lot about politics -- like journalists -- assume that ordinary people have the same interpretation of those terms as political junkies have. But the truth, as nearly a half-century of political science research has made clear, is that a significant portion of the public has little or no idea of what these terms mean in the political world. A third of the public can't even tell you which of the two major parties is the "conservative" one.



Meacham also argues that America is "center-right" because we're more conservative than most Western European countries, which is kind of like arguing that Kevin Garnett is a mediocre basketball player, because Kobe Bryant scores more points than he does. The American public is much more liberal than publics in almost every region of the world other than Western Europe. Does that tell us that we're fundamentally liberal, or does it tell us not much of anything?



Comparisons to our friends in Sweden aside, a look at the issue terrain at the moment shows a public firmly in the progressive camp. On foreign policy, on economic policy, on social policy, on just about everything, it's the progressive position that is more popular. The median voter in 2008 is pro-choice, supports civil unions for gay Americans (a position that seemed insanely radical only a decade ago), rejects the Bush foreign policy, supported the recent increase in the minimum wage, wants strong environmental protections, favors reasonable restrictions on gun sales, thinks the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, and wants the government to guarantee universal health coverage. Does that sound conservative to you? And younger generations are more progressive than their elders -- in fact, it is the pre-baby-boom generation that is the most conservative on most issues. And they will only be around for so long.



There is another reason the country is likely to become more progressive over time: The presidency of George W. Bush has discredited conservatism for years to come.



With the exception of a reduction in the size of government -- something Republicans always promise but never deliver (consider that no one since Roosevelt spent more as a percentage of GDP than Ronald Reagan) -- conservatives got pretty much everything they wanted from George W. Bush. They got tax breaks for the wealthy, huge increases in defense spending, a bellicose foreign policy, two Supreme Court justices ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, a mania for deregulation of business, a Justice Department devoted to advancing the electoral interests of the Republican Party, a consolidation of power in the executive branch, lackadaisical enforcement of environmental regulations, constant efforts to undermine labor unions, and the list goes on and on. This administration has been conservatism in action, and the country couldn't be more disgusted with the results.



Conservatives are increasingly sounding like they're stuck in the 1980s, as they warn against the creeping tide of socialism and denounce Obama's tax plan as "welfare." You almost expect to hear John McCain take the stage to a pulsing Richard Marx tune, then start reciting lines from "Red Dawn." It may have reached its apogee when, in her debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin quoted Reagan on the danger that if we're not careful, one day we'll be telling our children and grandchildren about a time when America was free. What was Reagan warning against in that quote? The passage of Medicare, one of the most successful and popular programs in U.S. history, brought to you courtesy of big-government liberals.



When conservatives take stands like these, so far from the American mainstream, the Beltway acolytes of the Church of Centrism never seem to mind. Will a GOP defeat be greeted with columns by Jon Meacham and his ilk instructing Republicans sternly that they need to abandon their ideology and move to the center, lest they permanently alienate themselves from the public?



Don't hold your breath.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: newsweek, jon meachem

Paul Waldman has authored or co-authored four books on media and politics, the latest of which is Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and is a Senior Fellow and Director of Special Projects at Media Matters Action Network. He is also a columnist for The American Prospect.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Poor editorialists, it's not their fault...
Posted by: veig on Oct 22, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... they've had their brains shut down since the Reagan era. Seriously, for the last 25 years, we've seen the L-word (of course I meant "Liberal", what were you thinking ?) treated with mockery, contempt or even hatred by the main stream media. Most of the journalists, pundits or editorialists you hear of, today, are byproducts of the Reagan-Bush era that sowed the seeds of neo-conservatism. Why do you want them to suddenly change their minds and think the other war round, when they've been taught so well to consider anything with a left-wing bias as "un-American" ?

It's not that Democrats have to move to the center. It's just that they have to fight an uphill battle against the pervasive neo-con ideology that is prevalent in all but a few of the main stream media outlets. They have to win the battle of ideas. They have to show that the people prejudiced against big government and socialized public services such as health care, energy, unemployment insurance, pensions, are deluded at best. They have to show that the neo-cons have favored big government and (as Stiglitz said lately on the Colbert Report) some kind of corporate socialism and crony welfare, picking taxes from the lower classes' pockets to fill up the bank accounts of the "haves and have-mores", W's real constituency.

We need more Rachel Maddows on main stream TV channels right now to fight that battle; and we also need these people in our universities, to open the minds of the journalists to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

conservatives got everything they wanted from George W. Bush
Posted by: Lauren on Oct 22, 2008 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They got tax breaks for the wealthy, huge increases in defense spending, a bellicose foreign policy, two Supreme Court justices ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, a mania for deregulation of business, a Justice Department devoted to advancing the electoral interests of the Republican Party, a consolidation of power in the executive branch, lackadaisical enforcement of environmental regulations, constant efforts to undermine labor unions, and the list goes on and on.
This administration has been conservatism in action, and the country couldn't be more disgusted with the results.


I wouldn't call it conservatism, but I can't argue with it being a religion. Their main focus seems to be anti. Anti environmentalism, anti humanism, pro industrialist. I thought it was Market Fundamentalism, we should ask Jon Meacham what his religion is and call it that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

B.S.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 22, 2008 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's true that the country did not shift to the right in 1994, 2004, or even 1980, because it was already there. Those newspapers and pundits may be wrong, but not in a good way.

Sorry to interrupt your victory parade, but we are still very much a right-wing nation. Those who are high on Obama's poll numbers forget that at their peril.

Obama is a smooth-talking, quick-thinking, very charismatic guy who chose a well-known, established senator for VP. McCain is a crazy, senile, rickety old man who chose some obscure bimbo for his VP. Yet the election is neither a landslide nor in the bag at this point. Switch those variables around, and it would have been over for the Democrats long before it started.

And what did Obama do once the general election race started? He shifted to the right, as most Democratic candidates have done. McCain also shifted to the right of his more moderate, independent image in order to serenade all the religious nuts, wing-nuts, and racists.

Every Democrat since LBJ has been obstructed and scandalized to death by the right. And, by my count, there have been only two Democratic presidents in office since 1968, for a total of 3 terms, compared with 4 and 7, respectively for the Republicans.

Medicare and Social Security are old folks programs. Old folks tend to be pro-war, anti-socialist, pro-religion and anti-gay, but darned if they'll give up a chance to spend other generations' tax money. The EIC is basically a subsidy for having kids, and we all know how much Middle Americans love tax breaks for having kids.

The fact that we're much less liberal than most modern western countries says a lot. I suppose you could compare us with all of the 3rd-world countries who are stuck in the Dark Ages, but what would that prove? Hell, even some of those countries have universal health care, a better respect for the environment, and start fewer wars.

GWB has screwed up everything he's touched. The war, the economy...The US is collapsing under the weight of the mess he's made, and yet there is still a chance of having a Republican president for the next four years. What does that say about our ideology?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You haven't been reading your Chomsky. Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Money and Corporate Power Posted by: oregoncharles
The greed is crying
Posted by: jreal on Oct 22, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see it as whining. It's their way of trying to hold on to their selfish politics. They all know what they're doing. They been doing it since the Nixon years. Rove was right their growing up ebracing all the mind-fuck ideas that came to be the embodiment of Republican politics.

They know how people think. We live in a supposed democratic society. So they cant force you into slavery. They can't force you into serfdom. So they have to come up with clever ideas. And they have succeeded in the past 40 years of really mind-fucking the public psyche.

The truth is, we are mostly liberal individuals. That's why our fore-fathers and our ancestors fought the Revolutionary War. It was more than taxes. It was about a Crown invading our privacy and controling our lives and not letting us have a voice. To fight against these atrocities is a liberal's war against the conservative Crown (to use the meaning of current political contexts).

These editors like Meachem are trying to turn this country back into "redcoats". Well maybe that's too much. He's trying to bring serfdom over to the US and he wants to be our lord.

But instead of using brut force, he uses psychological warefare. The same warefare that has been waged on America since the Nixon days and even before. This warfare has been emblazened since the right before the '94 shift. And now our economy is presently experience the effects of these ideologies creeping into our society through this mind-fuck warfare waged against us by the likes of Meachem, Hannity, Delay, Rove, Boehner, and all the rest of the "red coat" mosquitos out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kink Posted by: BlueTigress
Electronic Voting Machines are Hackable- have you forgotten?
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Oct 22, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cyber Security Expert: Hackers Planning To Steal Election For McCain

Spoonamore says electronic voting machines represent national security threat, Israel, China and Russia have capability to rig presidential outcome

Stephen Spoonamore warns in a new interview that electronic voting machines represent a national security threat and that hackers are already planning to steal the 2008 presidential election for John McCain.

Spoonamore is a GOP member and a lifelong Republican, having worked on election campaigns with Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. He also has 20 years worth of experience in encrypted and networked communications systems for banks, TV, telecommunications, EMS, Military and other uses.

In an ten part You Tube interview, Spoonamore warns that hackers are planning to steal the election on behalf of the McCain camp and even predicts the margin of victory, that McCain will make a “shocking recovery” and win 51.2 percent of the vote with three electoral votes over Obama.

“This is a national security threat,” said Spoonamore, “it is very possible for a foreign government to begin manipulating that transmission of code just as they attempt to do fairly often with our financial data….we deal with it every day on the commercial side,” he added, noting that China, and not the American people, has a greater chance of choosing the next U.S. president.
Watch his videos on www.911insidejob.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dismantle W’s PORPAGANDA Machine!
Posted by: Ottomatic on Oct 22, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Government Censors the News it's Against the Law!
And when
The Military Media Prison Industrial Complex
Controls 99.9% of the MEDIA
We’re all in deep
Do-Do!

How do you think we got into this mess?
We are being Conditioned and Lied to by the Corp-Pirates.
Shut it down.
Stop the Corruption!
Stop BUSH/CHENEY&McSAME’s
Lying, Spying, Treasonous, Treacherous, corporate Thievery.
These Corporate-Parasites are
Destroying our:
Constitution,
The Bill of Rights,
The Republic of the United States of America and her People.

Pull the Plug on the Bush/Cheney’s
Corporate: Conspiracy and Collusion.
Stop these,
Propagandist,
Rabid Reptilian,
Fossil Fuel Pushing,
Stink Tank,
Hate Mongering,
Duel Passport Carrying,
ZIO-FASCIST,
Ratschild,
Parrot Prostitute,
Disinformation Spewing
FAUX MEDIA MONSTERS

It’s un-American.
Shut it down!
Pull their License.
Caught Propagandizing out of control.
They’ve violated their Contract.
Bush/Cheney violated their oath.
Propaganda and Censoring the News is against the LAW.
Put them in JAIL!

Break up The Media Monopolies
One outlet in one market.
Free the media First!
Open The Airwaves up to
Local, Independent Broadcasters.
Join The Micro-Democracy Revolution!

Surge
Purge
Update and
REBOOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rightwing Republican hatred for liberals
Posted by: USAFVeteran1966 on Oct 22, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From my perspective as a lifelong registered Republican turned independent voter, GOP rightwingers (neocons) hijacked the party I once loved and turned it into a sanctuary the dregs of American society―rich bigots, racist rednecks, woman haters, gun nuts, homophobes, hypocrites, fascists, control freaks, Confederate flag wavers, evangelical Bible pounders—the Trent Lotts, Tom Delays, Pat Robertsons, Ralph Reeds, Bill Bennetts, Charlton Hestons, Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaughs, G. Gordon Liddys, Sean Hannities...the list goes on and on.

Those assorted groups and individuals have one thing in common. They hate liberals with a passion, which I don’t understand.

According to my dictionary, liberal means being a “free-man, not restricted,” someone who “favors political reform.” That describes perfectly our ancestors who fought the British Redcoats in 1776.

In my mind, modern iiberals are America's true patriots, not rightwing Republicans. Liberals cherish individual freedom and will defend it to their deaths, if necessary. I think that’s admirable.

Rightwing Republicans feel just the opposite. Listen to Talk Radio or watch Fox News, substitute “Jews” for “liberals” and you will get a taste of what Nazi Germany was like before WWII.

I wonder what Jon Meacham would have to say about that?

Vietnam vet/Obama supporter
Eight reasons for voting against John McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good morning USAFVeteran1966 Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Time to say it out loud Posted by: truthlover
What does that say about our ideology?
Posted by: Obijuan on Oct 22, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know. But I am pretty sure it says alot about how ill-informed the general populace is in America. If you think for even one second that the middle class and poor conservatives are in possession of the truth of their situation with regards to the GOP and where they fit in...you are sadly mistaken.

The recent history of American conservative thought can be summed up very simply with three sentences:

1. Disinformation to produce and reinforce prejudice and ignorance is the primary American conservative policy toward the voting populace, with the goal of producing citizen zombies.

2. Liberalism and progressivism are both equivalent concepts to the synonyms 'communism' and 'socialism'...all four of which are simply anti-American in conservative American zombies.

With these two concepts born in mind, the practical strategy is simple: Middle class and poor voters are divided from each other intentionally on non-issues (disinformation courtesy a controlled media) like abortion, 'socialism', 'terrorism', and religion to prevent them from having the curiosity to ask questions relevent to reality.

The solution is clear and also American: United we stand--divided we fall.

They have almost succeeded in making this a permanent state in the American populace. I thank goodness I am living outside the US because it's far less painful to watch a collective populace destroy itself from afar, rather than from within. At least I probably won't be killed by a racist Christian extremist.

obi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lilly
Posted by: Lilly on Oct 22, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been reading this nonsense for years now on conservative websites, basically that "conservative" means "normal" and "liberal" means "aberrant". This ends now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lilly Posted by: VZEQICVA
It’s the congress stupid
Posted by: solrev on Oct 22, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is absolutely no reason Obama can not have his jobs, healthcare, education programs, provide for the common defense, and still balance the budget. Unfortunately when Obama tries to bake a new pie, the nest of fork tongue democratic vipers in congress our going to dig their hands in and throw chunks of pie to their masters. The democrats will again deserve the label tax and spend idiots. Polosi and Reid are two of the most dimwitted people in congress, how can they be leaders? Until we have a congress that earmarks taxes and not spending, all we will ever have is a bunch of pigs feeding at the public trough. When the grandkids of the first time voters of today are the first time voters, together they will create the government and country that we can not. Obama is just a dream, we are trapped on the bridge to no where because the people in congress are politicians first and representatives last. The really sad thing is that they honestly believe that is what government is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, What Else Isn't New?
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 22, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years we've seen how treacherous the corporate media is, so now that they're proving it again, should anyone be surprised? If the people want to hold a new administration to its promises they will have to do it themselves. Democracy is as democracy does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Big Reptilian Propaganda Mud-Slide is about to Happen?
Posted by: Ottomatic on Oct 22, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black Box Voting
Caging
Purge Lists
Rabid Reptilian, Hate Spewing
Propagandists
Brutality and Intimidation!
Been there and Done that!
What's next?
More of the same and much worst.
Cheney carries a False Flag into the Heartland and
The South Turns Red.
The Crypt Keeper turns the spit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What progressive promises?
Posted by: GretnaBlast on Oct 22, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More troops in the middle east, corporate bailouts, privatized health care, is this "liberal" going to have a hard time keeping these promises and policies?

Change? Chump change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Successor Puppets for the Plutocracy: McBush and Palin
Posted by: Midway54 on Oct 22, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain has drawn a bright line between his Navy career and the sleaze merchant he has become. He has completely humiliated himself, with no sign of self-respect. The worst thing he has done is to name as his running mate the grossly unqualified Shreiking Sarah Palin, a clueless loudmouth who is an embarassment to the Nation with the World watching in amazement.

It is hard to predict just how low the plutocrats will go in the next two weeks of shrill propaganda and deceit to get another puppet in the White House. Palin need not worry after the Democratic landslide. There is a good chance that she will show up as either a regular or a frequent guest at Fox, joining that great guest team of Rove, Ingraham, Gingrich, Coulter, and Morris.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Exactly Are Conservatives Conserving, Anyway?
Posted by: petey0571 on Oct 22, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're not conserving the Federal budget. They call Democrats "tax & spend" yet they "borrow & spend" like there's no tomorrow.

They're not conserving the environment.

They're not conserving the size of the Federal Government. The last 8 years have seen the biggest expansion of the Federal Government in history.

They're not conserving our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The "patriot" act gutted much of the Bill of Rights.

So?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is too easy
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 22, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way out of Waldman's conundrum is to realize that the function of the D's under the Monopoly Politics of the two party system is not to represent the people and their interests, but to co-opt them, absorb and thus thwart their power, and defuse and thus prevent any tendency towards what might be described as a populist uprising from the left.

For example, the people voted a Democratic congress in in 2006, ostensibly in opposition to the war in Iraq, with the full expectation that congress would then execute their expressed desires and end the war. But congress didn't do a thing to end the war - it escalated it! In other words, that raging liberal Pelosi turns out to be to the right of some 65-70% of the electorate.

It is in this way that Democrats function to keep the world safe for Republicans. The D's will never deliver on their promises beyond a few token crumbs designed to give people "hope".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We ARE the center!
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Oct 22, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a reminder.;)

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

capitalists control the media
Posted by: hilaryuk on Oct 22, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most capitalists masters of the universe (albeit a currently imploding universe) aren't interested in political principles per se, only in creating an environment that optimises their opportunities to amass more wealth. Once the media was controlled by identifiable individuals who often had a real love of newspapers etc. OK, they might sometimes have been mad, meglomaniacal, pararoid and obsessed, but at least their bottom line was human. Now big business controls the flow of information, so it is hardly surprising if that information is partial and biased.

In theory, the Web should provide an antidote, but it is easy for the establishment to rubbish it because the internet also allows easy access for every weirdo and obsessive who has a PC. But democracy only works if the electorate is informed at least to the level of political and economic basic literacy; so what the hell are we supposed to do.

It is up to each individual to fulfil their part of the democratic bargain by making sure they actively seek out a varied mix of information, particularly looking at overseas sources. It is also up to each individual to do the boring long term work to give the US a legitimate election system. Why do you put up with bannana republic style polling?

Democracy sometimes need the big gesture, inspiring sea change and transforming leader. But none of that really works unless enough people have engaged in the sometimes tedious daily slog involved in the battle to build and protect democracy. Demos = the people; surely there's a clue their? Decent leaders aren't enough - ordinary people must play their part.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to be LIBERAL and PROUD of it!!!
Posted by: Gretchen on Oct 22, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time we broadcast our liberal values versus the radical rightwing extremist views being pushed on us all the time. Center right is a code word now for the wingnut fringe.

I am LIBERAL and proud of choosing:

Equal pay for Equal work while the radical rightwing McCain Palin would prefer to eliminate the minimum wage altogether and that women go back to being second class citizens to white males.

Protections for jobs and BUY America rather than the radical rightwing McCain Palin preference for outsourcing and cheap imports from China.

Protections for the environment and conservation of energy through use of alternative fuels, eliminating dependence on fossil fuels versus the drill baby drill mindless gas guzzing and polluting the radical rightwing McCain Palins prefer.

Providing safety nets and reasonable terms for Main Street in the form of renogotiated mortgages, opprotunities to rent back at fair market value, etc. rather than taking from the poor and middle class and giving all our tax dollars with almost no restrictions or accountability to the banks, corporations and wealthy investors like the radical rightwing McCain Palins prefer.

I could go on and on and on, but quite frankly virtually all thinking people have values that are more liberal and progressive than the neocon radical rightwing extremist views the McCain Palins are foisting upon us, wrapped in the flag but with hate and venom and pure racism at the core.

Why do you think the McCain Palin's base are the white supremicists, KKK, and other hate groups passing around all this violence inciting garbage about dems being terrorists, etc. The GOP should just rename the McCain Palin party to the KKK 08 platform. At least it would be more honest than to pretend they are in any way part of the mainstream, much less "conservative".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who ya gonna vote for? Posted by: oregoncharles
» I believe in the Great Pumpkin too Posted by: Bliss Doubt
the same system of not honouring the electoral verdict by the public has been imported into India .
Posted by: avatar_singh on Oct 22, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when the P govt of neaolieralism type was sounbdly defeated in 200 the media immediately started saying that economic policy must remain the same-though it wasclear that e Indian public had given verdict aghasint so called glaoblization. but the media propaganda made sure that n UNELCTAED PERSON WHO ENTERED PARLAIMENT THROUGH BACK DOOR IS SELECTED AS PRIME MINSITER. THAT MAN MOHAN SINGH HAS BEEN AN AMERICAN AGENT DID HELP A LOT.

NOW WE KNOW HOW THE AGENDA OF THIS TRAITOR MANMOHAN SINGH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER THOUGH HE IS NOT A LEADER OF PARTY OR COUNTRY AOR OF MEN.

THE SME WAY WGHILE THE CONGRESS HAD BEEN DEFEATED IN AN ELELCTION 10 YEARS AGO-THE BJP WHICH CAME ON PLATFORM OF ANTI GLAOBALIZATION HAD TO CHANGE TACK WITHIN 5 DAYS.
THE MEDIA SAID THAT FICANNCE MISNTER SHOUDL BE THE SAME PRO WEST PRO GLAOBALIZATION MAN,
THE iNDIA N PUBLIC HAS BEEN BOOTING OUT THWE GOVT AFTER TERM EXPIRES BECAUSE INDIA N PUBLIC DOE SNOT WANT SO CALLED LIBERALIZATION AND PRIATE CAPITALIST SSUYTEM BUT THE POLITICANS INT EH PAY PACKET OF BUSIENSS MEN AND MEDIA BEING PIMPS OF CAPITAL HAVE BEEN NULLYIFYING TH EELCTAION RESUTL FOR LAST 15 YEARS.
THIS SYSTEM WAS BROUTH TO iNDIA BY THE AMERICAN AGENT MANOHANS SINGH WHO BRIBED THE MPS TO KEEP THE NEAO LIBERAL AGENDA OF HIS UNCLELCTABLE GOVT. IN 1993 and 2008.
such people swear a lot by democracy aswell.!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Problem?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 22, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So big money controls the mass media: this is news?

The real problem is that it also controls the Democratic Party. That's why we have to work hard, as Alternet's been doing lately, to find the differences between Democratic and Republican positions (and even harder to find real differences in their actions, notably in Congress).

The final straw was the Bailout: the Democrats in Congress adopted a Bush Administration program that amounted to outright, open graft, elaborated it and made it their own, then forced it on the resisting Republicans (I'm not saying the Repubs had GOOD reasons for resisting, just that they in fact did). When they failed the first time, partly because there are still some progressive Dems in Congress, they loaded it up with pork and tax breaks and pushed it through - still against the majority of Republicans.

Talk about a role reversal! I haven't seen such a bizarre spectacle in more than 40 adult years - and I've seen a lot of them.

Think it has anything to do with the $22 million Wall St. "individuals" have given to Obama? That's $3 million MORE than McCain. Maybe they know which side their bread is buttered on.

Part of the problem is a trick definition of the "center": politicians and pundits mean by that the line between the major parties, when they can find it. But Waldman gives us the REAL center:

"The median voter in 2008 is pro-choice, supports civil unions for gay Americans (a position that seemed insanely radical only a decade ago), rejects the Bush foreign policy, supported the recent increase in the minimum wage, wants strong environmental protections, favors reasonable restrictions on gun sales, thinks the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, and wants the government to guarantee universal health coverage." And a link. We've been seeing this data for years: solid PROGRESSIVE majorities, just waiting for someone to represent them.

So why don't the Democrats represent us? Because they represent the money, which is very "conservative." As in the bailout, which wasn't "conservative" in any normal sense. It was mostly just crooked, which is pretty much where we are now.

So what happens when you vote for right-wing, money-driven Democrats? You reinforce the behavior, driving the party yet further to the right in its mad pursuit of money. And with it goes the political "center", the gray area between the parties. That's what's been happening for 40 or more years now, and we've wound up in a disastrous place where people are talking seriously about the possibility of Depression &/or revolution.

That's a pretty heavy moral burden for calling yourself a "Progressive Democrat." But that's where voting for the lesser evil has gotten us.

Still look like a clever strategy to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Democrats and Vietnam Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Another Long Memory Posted by: oregoncharles
Newspeak
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Oct 22, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a bunch of useless labels the Republicans have created! It's like 1984 NewSpeak has arrived 20 odd years late. "Healthy forests" means more clear cutting. "Clean skies" means more pollution. "Liberal" means "tax and spend" or "antiAmerican" or "hates liberty" depending on the context. "Socialism" means "punishing hardworking Americans."

The list goes on and on.

In fact, "liberal" means "tolerant, broadminded, generous, unprejudiced, magnanimous" and even (gasp!) "honorable." This is according to that old leftwing entity Microsoft Word.

On the other hand, "conservative" means "cautious, conventional, inflexible, stable, obstinate." It most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with change or radicalism.

Twisting words to mean what they do not really mean is a very old, very ugly tactic used by those who can't win any other way. I recently heard an ignorant old gentleman refer to Obama as a "Communist." Now there is nothing remotely Communistic about Obama, but this man obviously did not have a clue. His subsequent statements revealed that he thinks "Communist" and "unpatriotic" are synonyms. And he also obviously has a very narrow notion of what constitutes a lack of patriotism.

A lot of people don't understand what is meant by "conservative." They see themselves as conservative because they believe in hard work, honesty, family values, and other admirable qualities, and they believe these are somehow attached to being conservative.

The McCain campaign appeals mainly to the uninformed, to those who, even if they have access to the Internet, don't understand which issues are real and which ones are just the rightwing noise machine making stuff up.

The results of surveys would be quite different if people were asked the right questions, like, "do you believe a person who works full time should be able to live on what he or she makes?" Or how about, "Do you believe the government should be using the taxes of working people to subsidize oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, huge agribusinesses, and other corporations?" Or maybe, "If you realized that Bush's 2004 tax cuts resulted in an increase in the Walton family's fortune to the tune of $91,500 PER HOUR, would you think this was fair to you?"

I'd wager that many people (not the trolls on this site, of course) would come out on the decidedly left/progressive side. Asking people if they are conservative or liberal has no appreciable value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive
Posted by: jebpgh on Oct 22, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Media has tried and tried and tried to narrow this election down to two individuals. That is the space they love because it lends itself to the politics of personality. To play in that space requires no serious thought about what motivates people to join organizations, build coalitions and establish an agenda. Their inability to understand the power of organized groups with a shared view of the world around them is why they always gave up so much ground to the social right of the GOP. This group was able, by managing their base constituencies, make it appear that America was a religiously conservative - some would say reactionary - place with deeply held view that aligned with Bush.

Of course, what we now know, beginning in the days following the election of 2004, was that it was the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that was able to build a cohesive coalition many times larger and more sophisticated than the Right could even imagine.

We believed, and proved in 2006 and are about to prove again, that there is a progressive core to the American people. That across generations and ethnic and gender and class lines, there is a set of beliefs in the importance of fairness, democratic ideals, the protection of the weak and the role of government in safeguarding freedoms and liberties. It's not a perfect, uniform coalition by any means (but then again neither was the Right - linked together by neo-cons, social radicals and religious fundamentalists). But it is authentically American.

Saul Alinsky saw this in Chicago in the 1930's as neighborhoods began to rise up against the tyranny of political machines and corporate elites. It is no accident that the head of this movement is an Alinsky school trained community organizer and a Constitutional lawyer.

Starting with Howard Dean and the decision to attack the GOP in all 50 states, the strategy was defined and executed. To win by addition, not by subtraction. To build the broadest and most diverse coalition possible and to do it at the ground level.

McCain was doomed. He succeeded a failed president who doomed us to endless wars, economic inequality and social radicalism. This election is not about "moving to the center" any more than it is about a single charismatic leader. 100,000 people were in the park in St. Louis because there is a movement that organized them and put them there. We learned how to mobilize through the anti-war movement against the Iraq invasion - shocking even ourselves at how easy it was to turn out thousands. But even more importantly, the progressives stuck together and worked - community by community.

In the end, if it all comes to pass on November 4th, then the next American Progressive Revolution will have begun and we will all be there - with much work ahead.

Joe Bute

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive Illusions Posted by: oregoncharles
And what if they steal it?
Posted by: chorton on Oct 22, 2008 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we rally people for the final election push and to block an election theft, we need also to be thinking about how to respond to a stolen election - or worse - should it occur.

This is an extraordinarily dangerous moment in our history. The economic crisis raises the stakes considerably, and those capitalists who have staked their fortunes on the financial markets or the Empire are starting to panic. An Obama win could mean prosecution and prison for many in the Bush Administration.

And it is becoming clear that they're losing. Barring some kind of dramatic event, McCain won't even be close enough to Obama to make his win seem plausible. That however may not stop them from stealing the election anyway - or worse. All the evidence indicates that the Bush family and their cohorts have been thinking and talking about these things and making preparations; and it's their move. It may very well be that they are sufficiently held in check now that they can't take their move, but we have no way of knowing if this is so.

We can hope that Obama would give us the leadership we would need in such a crisis, but Gore rolled over, and Kerry rolled over, and we would be fools to count on Obama.

It is however foreseeable that the people will be different this time!

If Obama asks the people to just go home and stay calm and trust the system, perhaps people would do what he says, but what would we, the progressives, do when he says "go home" and the people don't?

In fact that probably wouldn't work this time. There are too many people too charged up and primed to react; there will be no sitting at home in stunned silence this time! So who then could take up the leadership of the people in challenging the usurpers and defending our Constitution? Without a well-known and trusted national figure - supported by a broad coalition of organizations - taking the leadership of the protests, articulating their goals and coordinating them, the resulting chaos would feed right into Bush's trap. We would need to be ready to support Obama's leadership if he gives it, but someone would need to be ready to take it up if he didn't. There would either be a disciplined response - or mayhem. And Bush is ready for mayhem, probably even counting on it!

One name that comes to mind is Jesse Jackson. He has the moral authority, the courage, the connections and the experience to take this on - but I doubt he would feel he could buck Obama now. McKinney doesn't have the name recognition or the strategic wisdom needed. Ralph Nader has the name recognition and the courage, but he's too discredited with Obama's base to be a unifying figure. Perhaps Dennis Kucinich? Michael Moore? John Conyers?

Whomever it is would want to keep calling on Obama to come back to the fray and be the leader that we elected him to be!

And unfortunately we have to also consider that we might lose Obama, which would confront us with a situation that is undefined in the Constitution and ripe for Bush/McCain to exploit. My ear to the ground suggests that all Hell could break loose in the neighborhoods if that happens. What would we do? Who could step forward quickly, command the peoples' attention, both Black and white, articulate our feelings and unite us around goals and a commitment to disciplined and responsible action? In this instance, probably Jackson or some leader from within the Democratic establishment would step forward, and we would need to unify the people behind them while pushing them to stay in front of the people.

These are things we need to be thinking and talking about, now, if we haven't already. People who are close to national figures need to be discussing these things with them, nudging them to reach out to each other quickly and come to a consensus.

Meanwhile we must deal McCain a crushing defeat at the polls!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 22, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The country hasn't moved right as much as it has been dumbed down, period! Reagan framed the so-called "culture wars" after a period in this nation of: OPEC shutdowns, high gas prices, inflation, hostage crisis, etc!

Over the last 30 years, this nation has become so polarized by the politics of fear/other/culture wars, that no one has been paying enough attention to the politicians that have been dis-mantling and twisting the government of the people to become the government of the rich and corporate! The country hasn't moved to the right, the issues have been mis-framed by corporate news, pundits, celebrity journalists, and lobby-ists turned celebrity hounds, that are pursuing an oligarchy instead of a government for all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and BBC is doing propaganda for McCain
Posted by: avatar_singh on Oct 22, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the north american corrsposdent of BBVC one bastard justine weber is telling the americans that do the americans really need to elelct a democrat when they are already assured of democratic majority in senate and congress?
In other words he is putting in the american minds not to vote for obama.

In fact in the 1988 American election B.B.C. had invited the chief drug dealer of BAT(who of course is an englishman) and there was another American there. During discussion of Ducassis' candidature the B.B.C. anchor man suggested to the American that the opponent of bush was hardly an American as he looked to dark and was Greek, the country of geek being too much near Africa. It really happened. This shows a few things. According to B.B.C. not only Blacks were not American but also all those who the english agents have labelled ethnic Americans. In fact B.B.C. openly said (in that program-usually B.B.C. does not reveal its evil intention so easily) that the American means actually anglo-saxons. Don't confuse that it includes Germans either. The same English agents (in America) who created a monstrous film like ``birth of nation`` are the same people who crated prohibition only because many German immigrants were drinking bear and they did not like it. It is the same england sympathiser crowd who went on killing blacks, Irish,
etc -
British propaganda against Europeans races-- The same crowd who pushed U.S.A. Into both World Wars because otherwise England would have lost. It is the same crowd who asked for tough immigration measures against foreigners but have given free reign to English people to come to u.s.a. and work theatre without visa requirement. Those restricted against (from other foreign countries) are not only much more highly qualified specialists in their field but also they have much better standard of living than the English people who come to States. Those foreigners are mostly from elite school and are educated up to Ph.D. level while these english people are all non- PhDs. and almost all school failed. Very few of these english people are university educated. In fact England is a nation of plumbers and fitters. It is a progression from piracy and shop keeping. It shows in their accent that almost all of english immigrants to states are from plumber and fitter class. But they pose otherwise. they have created an accent only to show to Americans that they can sometimes Talk posh but it is a put on. actually they become posh only after they have milked America and taken jobs which would otherwise have gone to Americans. Besides their so called posh themselves have graduated from Pirates-turned _so called gentleman class. The upper class of England always have been pirate cum shopkeeper class. England never had aristocracy in the same the word aristocrat means. Aristocracy is in Italy, in Spain, In Germany, in France and other European nations. But the one country -england which never had true aristocracy talks a lot about that to impress Americans. Example-in all European countries There is a word to describe a lower member( let us say a starting point) of aristocracy-A Man who is mounted on a horse. Chevalier in French and Caballero in Spanish means exactly that. A man on horse. So is it in all European languages. but not in english. The equivalent word knight is not derived from horse

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A one sentence "word" of advice
Posted by: JohnJlws on Oct 22, 2008 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were in a position to advise President Obama here's what I would tell him:

"Mr. President always do what you think is right for Americans and America in the context of this world."

All this other stuff is so much horse manure. Do what in your view is right and you can't be wrong. Try to please everyone and see where you end up. Nice thing about your presidency is you're following the absolute, bar none, worst president in the history of our country, so the bar is set rather low.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System
Posted by: chlamor on Oct 22, 2008 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.

LINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Troops now stationed in the U.S.
Posted by: Maxemum on Oct 23, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just glanced at the new AP poll and it shows McSame and Obama in a tie. Could it be possible that the troops now stationed in America are here to stop a back lash of violence if McSame suddenly wins the election as we've twice in the recent past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Trouble Possible.
Posted by: Nodarse on Oct 23, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a very real possibility of mass civil unrest next month.

The cause may be a landslide Obama victory, followed by his immediate disqualification. Our man Obama, may not be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. There is also an allegation that he travelled with an Indonesian Passport. If true, the case may be strong enough to not only disqualify “O” as President, but also as a Senator of Illinois.

This is very serious. Has anyone considered this a possible scenario to keep the current regime in power?

Let me know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Trouble Possible. Posted by: centure7
The left & right parties are done for.
Posted by: centure7 on Oct 23, 2008 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans are fed up with not just the right but also the left. I think the direction we need to move now is *up*, which means away from both parties. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have the best interest of America in mind, nor do they actually listen to what we want.

The Democrats big "accomplishment" I hear of is Clinton's budget surpluses. Really, well what that means is that Democrats big accomplishment is that during the greatest economic boom of all time in the history of the world, the best the Democrats could do was to leave us with 1 TRILLION more in DEBT. And I need not mention Republican figures as we all know what those look like.

Its far beyond my comprehension how anyone could vote for the Republicans or Democrats given just how dreadfully terrible their performance has proven.

Democrats = Dreadful performance.
Republicans = Dreadful performance.

To switch a vote from one disgusting party to another is ridiculous. I'm sorry but Republicans and Democrats are done. They had a good run and they took turns destroying us. Its time for both parties to leave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RP
Posted by: rav933 on Oct 24, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the failed economy of today is the direct result of the economic policies of the democratic Clinton regime and Alan Greenspan, what happened in the late 90’s as far as the US economic policies is the main reason for the downrurn seen a decade later. Ecomnomies are not driven by changes made a year or two ago but a result of changes with repurecussions a decade later. Which is why, we are in this dire strait, due to the democratic socialist policies of Clinton which were put into play by one Alan greenspan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Did You Just Say???? Is this a Fact.....?
Posted by: One American Lady on Nov 11, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dick Cheney a Republican,
& Barack Obama, a Democrat...
yet....They are Blood Relatives ??
(See the Website of: joe payne.org)
It's the writing of: Obama's Caucasian Heritage
Writing on the Wall.
Obama's Grandmother, listed as:
Madelynn Lee PAYNE, with connections to:
Robert E. Lee / & to Dick Cheney.
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement