Hillary Clinton's appointment to the office of Secretary of State has received a lot of attention for two reasons. First, Obama' selection of Hillary supposedly evoked the "team of rivals" strategy that Lincoln took in assembling his cabinet (although Lincoln's machinations in this regard have been completely over-hyped, a subject we need not revisit here). Second, the appointment of the relatively hawkish Hillary has been cited as further evidence of Obama's screwing over of the lefties who helped get him elected.
Another aspect of the appointment that deserves comment is the prospective role of Dr. Susan Rice in implementing the new administration's foreign policy. The president-elect has designated Rice to serve as U.N. Ambassador and has elevated that position to cabinet-level rank.
I'm frankly surprised that Hillary went along with the move to elevate the U.N. Ambassador to cabinet-level rank. What that move essentially means is that, while Hillary will be the nation's chief diplomat, and thus the putative architect of U.S. foreign policy, she will not be in charge of our diplomatic mission to the U.N. Where's the logic in that beyond Obama's apparent desire to toss a face-saving bone to Dr. Rice?
From a management standpoint, the idea of having the U.N. Ambassador report directly to the POTUS rather than the Secretary of State seems badly misguided. The only mitigating factors I see are the fact that there is precedent for the move from as recently as the Clinton Administration and the fact that Secretary of State is considered the highest-ranking post in the cabinet (although this is only formally true for purposes of presidential succession and protocol). Perhaps Hillary figured her status as Secretary of State would speak for itself, notwithstanding Obama's efforts to placate Dr. Rice and her supporters.
It may be of little practical consequence, but something about this decision just doesn't sit well with me. It strikes me as the personnel equivalent of voting "present." If Obama wanted Hillary in charge of foreign policy, he should have given her the whole thing, and not carved out a piece of it for the person many people thought he should have picked instead of Hillary. Let's hope he's not being too clever for his own good.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
You've got to be kidding me
This sounds like parody, but isn't. It's a serious proposal to revive FDR's Federal Writers Project as a means of tossing an economic lifeline to print journalists who are unemployed or facing layoffs. You read that correctly. It's a bailout for journalists.
What makes this proposal especially galling is the acknowledgement by the writer, Mark Pinsky, that the problems facing the print media have more to do with technological innovation -- the rise of the internet -- than with general economic conditions. Indeed, he flatly states that "ink-on-paper periodicals are never coming back." If that's so (and I don't dispute it), then why shouldn't these former newspapermen and -women be looking for a new line of work as every other displaced worker is required to do?
For Mr. Pinsky, the answer to that question relates to the invaluable contribution an army of federally-subsidized writers could make in documenting the socioeconomic trends that have somehow escaped the notice of free-enterprise journalism. Apparently nostalgic for the left-wing output of the depression-era Federal Writers Project, he writes:
Reading between the lines, Mr. Pinsky seems to believe laid-off reporters should be able to earn a federal paycheck by writing stories that are too far left even for NPR. Terrific.
Unfortunately, the $700 billion TARP bailout and the proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers make it difficult to reject proposals like this out of hand. While I'm confident a bailout of journalists would never gain political traction, the current atmosphere in Washington practically invites troubled industries or groups to plead for federal funds, regardless of the implications for the taxpayer or for the economy as a whole.
What makes this proposal especially galling is the acknowledgement by the writer, Mark Pinsky, that the problems facing the print media have more to do with technological innovation -- the rise of the internet -- than with general economic conditions. Indeed, he flatly states that "ink-on-paper periodicals are never coming back." If that's so (and I don't dispute it), then why shouldn't these former newspapermen and -women be looking for a new line of work as every other displaced worker is required to do?
For Mr. Pinsky, the answer to that question relates to the invaluable contribution an army of federally-subsidized writers could make in documenting the socioeconomic trends that have somehow escaped the notice of free-enterprise journalism. Apparently nostalgic for the left-wing output of the depression-era Federal Writers Project, he writes:
This time, the FWP could begin by documenting the ground-level impact of
the Great Recession; chronicling the transition to a green economy; or capturing
the experiences of the thousands of immigrants who are changing the American
complexion. Like the original FWP, the new version would focus in particular on
those segments of society largely ignored by commercial and even public media.
Reading between the lines, Mr. Pinsky seems to believe laid-off reporters should be able to earn a federal paycheck by writing stories that are too far left even for NPR. Terrific.
Unfortunately, the $700 billion TARP bailout and the proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers make it difficult to reject proposals like this out of hand. While I'm confident a bailout of journalists would never gain political traction, the current atmosphere in Washington practically invites troubled industries or groups to plead for federal funds, regardless of the implications for the taxpayer or for the economy as a whole.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The era of hyper-partisanship
American politics has been gripped by hyper-partisanship for about the last 14 years. I would trace the beginning of this trend to 1994, when Newt Gingrich led a GOP takeover of the House of Representatives and promptly sought to wrest control of the ship of state from the actual chief executive, Bill Clinton. Had Gingrich merely fallen short in trying to set himself up as a rival to Clinton, things might have been different. Unfortunately, the conflict escalated in a way that neither man likely intended at the time. Clinton saw Gingrich and the conservatives as a useful foil he could use to maintain his popularity with both liberals and moderates without having to engage in the kind of heavy lifting one normally associates with presidential greatness. Clinton didn't need to fight a war overseas to secure his legacy; he was fighting -- and winning -- a war at home. It was Clinton versus the conservatives.
Oddly, the conflict had very little to do with ideology. Indeed, that was the beauty of it. While Clinton was portraying himself as defending America against the dark forces of conservatism, nobody seemed to notice that he was governing the country somewhat conservatively himself. Following the defeat of HillaryCare, he abandoned any effort toward wholesale liberal reform. In fact, his signature legislative accomplishment proved to be welfare reform. Even his small-ball initiatives often had a conservative bent, such as the program to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
In the end, Clinton did at least four things that helped create a perfect storm for hyper-partisanship over the ensuing decade: First, he engaged in a trumped up war against conservatives in order to elevate his standing with liberals and moderates. Second, other than waging war against the right, he starved liberals of any meaningful accomplishments on their behalf. Third, he handed conservatives a bludgeon by engaging in a reckless relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Finally, he survived the Republicans' bludgeon attack.
The net result of all this was to render the left deeply embittered against both Clinton and conservatives. After Al Gore's electoral defeat -- itself a source a hard feelings on all sides -- they demanded and secured a liberal takeover of the Democratic Party.
On the conservative side, the Clinton years left the right feeling frustrated over their inability to undermine Clinton's popularity and the fact that policy debates -- which the GOP should have dominated -- had been overshadowed by personality.
While the Clinton years spawned the ugly rancor between the left and the right, the rise of the internet has only fueled the trend. The problem isn't that the internet allows those of all political stripes to express their own opinions. The problem is that it allows everyone to have their own facts. People increasingly rely on the internet for their information, but most of the political news they receive comes from (or through the filter of) highly partisan sources. These outlets --bloggers, mostly -- steadfastly refuse to "cover" stories that don't advance their own political agenda. Take the "torture" issue, for example. To a reader of liberal blogs, it is a given that the Bush supports the use of torture in the War on Terror and that this policy renders the Administration the legal and moral equivalent of an international criminal enterprise. To find a conservative rebuttal of that point of view is not impossible, but it takes a certain amount of effort. The reason? Right-wing bloggers simply haven't given the issue nearly the same amount of attention. The proverbial "other side of the story," once a required element of a standard piece of objective journalism, barely gets through at all. If you take a look at Memeorandum on a regular basis you see this pattern repeat itself day in and day out. Stories that one side finds utterly fascinating are virtually ignored by the other side. One can only conclude that those who frequent liberal sites are getting a decidedly different version of the "news" from those on the right.
"Cocooning" has made it possible to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Bush lied about Iraq, there are plenty of sites that will confirm that belief. If you want to believe Obama is a practicing Muslim, you can find that too. What's increasingly hard to find is any news source that is trusted by both sides to cover issues like these in a fair and balanced fashion.
The absence of such outlets don't exist makes it difficult to feel optimistic about the prospects for improving the tone of the political debate.
Oddly, the conflict had very little to do with ideology. Indeed, that was the beauty of it. While Clinton was portraying himself as defending America against the dark forces of conservatism, nobody seemed to notice that he was governing the country somewhat conservatively himself. Following the defeat of HillaryCare, he abandoned any effort toward wholesale liberal reform. In fact, his signature legislative accomplishment proved to be welfare reform. Even his small-ball initiatives often had a conservative bent, such as the program to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
In the end, Clinton did at least four things that helped create a perfect storm for hyper-partisanship over the ensuing decade: First, he engaged in a trumped up war against conservatives in order to elevate his standing with liberals and moderates. Second, other than waging war against the right, he starved liberals of any meaningful accomplishments on their behalf. Third, he handed conservatives a bludgeon by engaging in a reckless relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Finally, he survived the Republicans' bludgeon attack.
The net result of all this was to render the left deeply embittered against both Clinton and conservatives. After Al Gore's electoral defeat -- itself a source a hard feelings on all sides -- they demanded and secured a liberal takeover of the Democratic Party.
On the conservative side, the Clinton years left the right feeling frustrated over their inability to undermine Clinton's popularity and the fact that policy debates -- which the GOP should have dominated -- had been overshadowed by personality.
While the Clinton years spawned the ugly rancor between the left and the right, the rise of the internet has only fueled the trend. The problem isn't that the internet allows those of all political stripes to express their own opinions. The problem is that it allows everyone to have their own facts. People increasingly rely on the internet for their information, but most of the political news they receive comes from (or through the filter of) highly partisan sources. These outlets --bloggers, mostly -- steadfastly refuse to "cover" stories that don't advance their own political agenda. Take the "torture" issue, for example. To a reader of liberal blogs, it is a given that the Bush supports the use of torture in the War on Terror and that this policy renders the Administration the legal and moral equivalent of an international criminal enterprise. To find a conservative rebuttal of that point of view is not impossible, but it takes a certain amount of effort. The reason? Right-wing bloggers simply haven't given the issue nearly the same amount of attention. The proverbial "other side of the story," once a required element of a standard piece of objective journalism, barely gets through at all. If you take a look at Memeorandum on a regular basis you see this pattern repeat itself day in and day out. Stories that one side finds utterly fascinating are virtually ignored by the other side. One can only conclude that those who frequent liberal sites are getting a decidedly different version of the "news" from those on the right.
"Cocooning" has made it possible to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Bush lied about Iraq, there are plenty of sites that will confirm that belief. If you want to believe Obama is a practicing Muslim, you can find that too. What's increasingly hard to find is any news source that is trusted by both sides to cover issues like these in a fair and balanced fashion.
The absence of such outlets don't exist makes it difficult to feel optimistic about the prospects for improving the tone of the political debate.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bush should resign???
The New York Times' Gail Collins wrote a column this past weekend arguing that President Bush should resign immediately in order to allow Barack Obama to deal with the financial crisis immediately rather than wait until January 20. Specifically, her proposal calls for both Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign, which would make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi president until January 20. Collins assumes that Pelosi would serve basically as a puppet for Barack Obama between now and Inauguration Day.
I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.
Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.
Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.
Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.
One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.
Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.
In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.
I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.
Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.
Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.
Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.
One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.
Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.
In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Is picking Hillary a hedge strategy?
It looks like Hillary is definitely coming on board as Obama's Secretary of State. I think it's a dumb move on his part, although I'm not personally disappointed because I regard Hillary as somewhat hawkish at least in comparison to other Democrats.
It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.
It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Gay marriage moving at the speed of light
Mort Kondracke: "In recent years, Republicans have let right-wing talk show hosts whip the GOP base into frenzies -- over immigration, brain-damage victim Terry Schiavo and same-sex marriage -- that have branded the party as troglodyte."
This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?
This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?
The politics of bailouts
The proposed bailout of the (formerly-)Big Three appears to be in trouble. The simple reason for that is that nobody can keep a straight face while saying the words, "This money will make Detroit competitive again." At most, the bailout would stave off a collapse for several months while not addressing the structural problems that are causing Ford, GM, and Chrysler to lose money on every car they sell.
From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.
Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.
Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!
Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.
From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.
Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.
Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!
Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
