Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

kelticwizard wrote:

nimh wrote:
Oh dear...

Not just does Lamont appear to be toast by now....

I agree with you that it does not seem likely that Lamont will win, judging by the polls.

However, I am not willing to throw in the towel just yet. There are some things which support at least the possibility of a Lamont victory.

A) State races are notoriously volatile. I remember when Reagan ran against Carter, Michigan flipped 10 points in the space of one weekend. When Christy Todd Whitman ran against James Florio for the New Jersey Governor's race, she ran 10 points or more behind for the whole race, and the last day several polls had her 10 points back. Only one had her even. Whitman won the election. State races can go one way or the other with breathtaking speed.

B) Lieberman's victory depends on Republicans almost completely abandoning their candidate and voting for him. Republicans have voted against Lieberman three times for the Senate. Yes, national Republican leaders have strongly hinted that they don't mind if you vote for Lieberman. Yes, Connecticut Republicans are telling pollsters, in large numbers, that they in fact are going to vote for Lieberman.

But next Tuesday, Republicans will be asked to go into the privacy of the voting booth, and pull the lever for the guy they have voted against for 18 years. They will be asked to ignore the fellow from their own party who is fighting an incredible uphill battle not only against an incumbent Senator, but apparently against a party leadership determined to abandon him after he won the nomination. For a Republican, to pull the lever for Schlessinger is not only to vote your heart-it is a vote for the underdog.

Saying that you are going to give up party loyalties for strategic purposes and actually doing it on Election Day are two different things. Maybe it will happen-that Republicans will vote for Lieberman. But I'm not giving up until I see it happen.

C) The mood of the country at the time of Election Day is important, and right now it looks pretty bleak for the GOP. Iraq is getting worse day by day, and the economy is going down. I'm getting the same feeling I got in 1992 when Clinton came back. Early in the campaign, the Reagan-Bush administration had become so entrenched it seemed that nobody was going to challenge it. Toward the end, with bleak news coming in for months, it turned around for Clinton. I remember just before the election, Bush senior got rejected by the Congress on some cable TV bill. It became a symbol that the President was not getting respect on Capitol Hill. Right now, Bush junior is getting defections from his Iraq policy all over the place. it is the same kind of feeling.

I'm not expecting a Lamont victory on Election Day. But I think he's still got an honest shot. Polls for statewide races have been shockingly off before, and Lieberman's large lead is resting on uncharted electoral ground.

Argument "A" works well in making a case for the Republican's holding onto the House. So does "B" to the extent there is a belief that Conservatives will punish Republicans by voting for Democrats (admittedly a fairly idiotic belief but one one hears continuously spouted in the media). "Feelings," as depicted in "C," tend to reflect desires.

If Lamont wins in CT, anything is possible.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

A) State races are notoriously volatile. I remember when Reagan ran against Carter, Michigan flipped 10 points in the space of one weekend. When Christy Todd Whitman ran against James Florio for the New Jersey Governor's race, she ran 10 points or more behind for the whole race, and the last day several polls had her 10 points back. Only one had her even. Whitman won the election. State races can go one way or the other with breathtaking speed.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Argument "A" works well in making a case for the Republican's holding onto the House.

To a limited extent. I think it mostly shows that the smaller the population, the more volatile the race. Both Michigan and New Jersey have many more people than Connecticut, yet even they showed amazing volatility in their statewide elections.

That is why national polls tend to be so much more accurate. With such a larger population, the volatility in individual states evens out and we get a much smoother picture. Right now, the Democrats have a big polling lead nationally.

But yes, if control of the House comes down to just two states, (the difference between the Democrats winning 14 seats or 16), and the polling shows those two states leaning Democratic, then Argument A does indeed indicate a very good possibility that the Republicans will hold onto the House.

0 Replies

So, Lieberman won, we know that now.

On another thread, the question arose who voted for whom. What percentage of Dems, Reps and Indies voted for Lieberman? What percentage of Lieberman's voters consisted of Dems, Reps and Indies?

My post probably should be crossposted (or archived, rather) here:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JPB wrote:

What did the exit polls show as his main support base?

One-third of the Democrats voted for Lieberman.

Over half of the Independents voted for Lieberman.

Over two-thirds of the Republicans voted for Lieberman.

See if this picture will paste in:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/data/states/CT/S/01/pie.0.1012.gif

(From CNN)

So what does that say about what Lieberman's main support base was?

One might jump to this assumption: he had the largest share of support among Republicans, so that means his main support base was Republicans. But that would ignore the fact that Republicans make up only a quarter of the voters in CT.

Ie, the 70% of the CT Republicans who voted for Lieberman still only makes for 18,2% of the CT voters. And since Lieberman got exactly half the vote, it's easy to calculate that Republicans thus made up only 36% of Lieberman's voters.

Independents, meanwhile, made up 39% of Lieberman's voters.

To get the clear image on this, we basically have to recalculate the exit poll numbers by partisan identity, in order to list them by candidate instead.

And, eh, make similar pie charts to go with it. ;-)

Here we go: Razz

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2597/ctvotebreakdownob0.gif

0 Replies

Lamont made his mistakes, for sure. But in the end, he probably did pretty good, considering.

He ousted a three term Senate incumbent from the Democratic nomination. He would have beaten Lieberman as well, if the Republicans hadn't abandoned their own candidate and gotten behind Lieberman.

Being a newcomer and fighting a third of your own party who follow the maverick, plus 70% of the supposedly opposing party supporting your party's maverick, is a situation very few could win.

As far as Independents go, Lieberman already had them. His last election he won two thirds of the vote-you can't do that without getting virtually all the independents.

0 Replies

Here is anotherthing you might find interesting. For a long time we have been hearing from Newt Gingrich and some A2K members as the Republicans as the Dominant Party.

With this election, a strong case can be made for Republicans as Second Party.

And in Connecticut, we saw something I never saw before: one of the two major parties acting as a third party!

That's right. Only third parties do what the Republicans did here-throw their support behind one of the other party's candidates to defeat the candidate they find less tolerable. Only rinky-dink third parties do that-until now.

The mighty GOP-sliding toward third party status?

Now the erstwhile Dominant Party does that. Unbelievable.

0 Replies

Lamont, in short, lost because of three different reasons.

If Lamont had managed to reverse any one of these three things, he would have won the elections.

Lamont couldn't persuade the 1/3rd of Democrats who remained loyal to Lieberman.

Even if he had persuaded just half of those people, he would have gotten 6% of the vote extra, Lieberman would have gotten 6% less, and Lamont would have won the election.
Lamont couldn't persuade the independent voters.

They remained, in majority, behind Lieberman - Lamont got just a third of them.

Even if Lamont had managed to win half of the Independents, he would have gotten 5,4% more, Lieberman would have gotten roughly the same less, and Lamont would have won the election.
The Republicans swung behind Lieberman.

This is the reason that has gotten the most attention, but it is only one of the three trends that mattered. In fact, it is arguably the least important one.

Now, Lieberman got more than two-thirds of the Republicans. Even if his share among Republicans had been slashed by half and he'd gotten just one-third, with more than half the Republicans siding with their own candidate instead, Lieberman would have gotten 9,6% less of the vote - and still have won the elections, by a hairwidth.

Lamont lost the elections on three fronts. Of course any of the above alternative scenarios are completely hypothetical; it's unthinkable that one of these three things would have gotten strongly reversed while there'd be no budge in the other two. In order to have won the elections, Lamont would have had to gain ground a little bit extra on all three fronts.

Divided over the three things, the change wouldnt even have needed to be big. Eg, if Lamont had won 75% of Democrats (rather than 65%) and 40% of Independents (rather than 35%), he would have already won - without any change in the vote patterns of Republicans needed.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lamont, in short, lost because of three different reasons.

If Lamont had managed to reverse any one of these three things, he would have won the elections.

Lamont couldn't persuade the 1/3rd of Democrats who remained loyal to Lieberman.

Even if he had persuaded just half of those people, he would have gotten 6% of the vote extra, Lieberman would have gotten 6% less, and Lamont would have won the election.

And just how realistic a scenario is that, really?

You are going to come into a party on a statewide basis for the very first time, defeat an incumbent who not only had his own party behind him but virtually all the state's independents for the last two elections, and if that candidate runs a viable independent campaign, you are going to limit him to only 16% of the the Democrats?

If Lieberman's campaign was NOT viable-and the Republican support made it viable-then yes, Lieberman might have gotten less than 16% of the Democratic vote. Because the people who might have voted for him would look at it as "throwing away their vote". But with a viable independent candidacy, it is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where you can limit the percentage of Democrats Lieberman takes with him to just 16%.

0 Replies

Lieberman didn't win because of Independents... he won because of Incumbancy. How many of those Unenrolled voters you are erroneously calling "Independent" (as if this was a party) voted for Bush (nimh can probably calculate a number for this.

But people who voted for Bush supporting Lieberman is hardly a surprise. (and yes there are probably people who voted for Kerry who also voted for Lieberman, but I doubt that many people who voted for Nader (the independent in the 2004 election) voted for Lieberman).

CFL is better called the Incumbancy party. The term "Independent" should be reserved for politicians who are truly outside of the power establishment.

0 Replies

Sorry Keltic, didnt mean to ignore you - I was writing that second post while you were posting.

Re your point that Lamont "would have beaten Lieberman as well, if the Republicans hadn't abandoned their own candidate and gotten behind Lieberman", that is true of course, at the bottom line - if all the Republicans had stuck with their own candidate, Lamont would also have won.

But considering the extent of the "coming home" to Schlesinger that would have been necessary among Republicans to keep Lieberman from winning, I think that was actually the least acute of the three reasons for Lamont's eventual failure. (When talking purely of political demographics, of course, you could also analyse reasons in terms of strategies, political content, etc.)

Interesting point about the Republican playing "third party". You see that a lot in the UK of course, where Labour is a third party in many districts in the South where Conservatives and Libdems fight it out, and where the Conservatives are the third party in many districts in the north where Labour and the Libdems fight it out.

I cant quickly think of another place this has recently happened in the US either. Perhaps you'd need to go back to the days when Wallace left the Democratic Party and started his own presidential run - back then I suppose the Republican Party ended third behind Wallace and the Dems in parts of the South. But any time more recent?

There's a bunch of individual House races where one of the two main parties did not compete, and left the incumbent either without challenger altogether, or to face off against only a Green or a Libertarian. But no state-wide equivalent.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

And just how realistic a scenario is that, really?

You are going to come into a party on a statewide basis for the very first time, defeat an incumbent who not only had his own party behind him but virtually all the state's independents for the last two elections, and if that candidate runs a viable independent campaign, you are going to limit him to only 16% of the the Democrats?

Well, not to tease you, but - though I'm not going to look this back up - I distinctly remember you saying here, after Lamont won the primary, that Lieberman's share among Dem voters would now rapidly fall. That the CT Democrats would swing around their elected candidate once the primary was decided and national party Lieberman backers switched to Lamont.

ebrown_p wrote:

those Unenrolled voters you are erroneously calling "Independent" (as if this was a party)

Um. For someone who just (rightly) called Set on playing semantics that's an odd point to make.

Go and look around on this board, or any random political website, to see how the voters who are not registered as Dem or Rep are called. Independents. Or "Indys," even. I hadnt even seen the term "Unenrolled", that I can remember, until today, and as you know I've looked at enough sites.

0 Replies

Saying the Republicans were playing "Third Party" in the Connecticut race is a bit ludicrous.

Lieberman not only got two thirds of the Republican votes (and this doesn't take into account the portion of the unenrolled voters who typically vote Republican), he also was largely funded by Repblicans.

Had the Republican candidate been supported by the national Republican party, Lieberman would have lost.

It is very clear that the Republican party actively supported Lieberman and did all it could to ensure his victory.

How can you say the Republicans were a "Third party" when their preferred candidate, who they were actively supporting, won the election?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Saying the Republicans were playing "Third Party" in the Connecticut race is a bit ludicrous.

That was Keltic's description, but 'll already reply to this as well:

ebrown_p wrote:

Lieberman not only got two thirds of the Republican votes (and this doesn't take into account the portion of the unenrolled voters who typically vote Republican), he also was largely funded by Repblicans.

You can also put it this way: Republicans made up only about a third of Lieberman's voters. Just a third. How then can you make him out to simply be 'the Republican Party candidate'?

Can you think of any Republican Senator or even House member, past or present, whose support base was two-third non-Republican?

ebrown_p wrote:

Had the Republican candidate been supported by the national Republican party, Lieberman would have lost.

Thats not at all clear.

The support Lieberman retained among independents, and the loyalist minority he had among Democrats, would together have allowed him to run at least a competitive bid in any case. And as soon as he had started such a competitive run against Lamont, many Republicans would in any case have been faced with a choice. The choice between voting for a candidate with their label who didnt stand a chance in hell of winning - or helping Joe "working with Bush" Lieberman win against liberal Ned Lamont.

Even if none of the national Republicans had spoken up for Lieberman, I think it would therefore have been pretty likely that at least sizable minority of registered Republicans would have pragmatically switched to Lieberman. And again, as I just showed - even if Lieberman just got a third of the Republican voters, he would still have won the elections if he got the share of independent voters and Democrats that he now got.

0 Replies

The Lessons of Today's Stunning Lieberman Poll
Maybe Lieberman has exposed himself as the shameless Israel agent in the Senate when he told General Petraeus that the U.S. should invade Iran. Petraeus responded that he disagreed. ---BBB

The Lessons of Today's Stunning Lieberman Poll
by: David Sirota
Thu Sep 13, 2007

This is another in the regular series called Strategery, which is written by David Sirota and appears Wednesdays on OpenLeft

According to a new poll released today by the nonpartisan firm Research 2000, if Connecticut's 2006 Senate general election happened today, Ned Lamont would defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman handily. What is of particular significance in the numbers is that the shift is due precisely to the deception that Lamont supporters had been exposing during the campaign - but which reporters refused to cover both during the race and in the post-election analysis. This deception on the issue of Iraq goes straight to how the media and political Establishment will do anything to keep this war going. And the two lessons that come out of this poll after looking at its details are worth remembering.

As the poll shows, if the race were held today, Lamont would garner 48 percent of the vote, Lieberman just 40 percent and Republican Alan Schlesinger would get 10 percent. This represents roughly a 16-18 point swing from the actual results (Lieberman 49, Lamont 40, Schlesinger 10), and according to today's poll, the major shift to Lamont from Lieberman would be among Democratic and Independent voters.

You may recall that in a post-election analysis I wrote for In These Times, I noted that Lieberman's entire general election strategy was about pretending that, if reelected, he would lead the fight to end the Iraq War. The man literally portrayed himself as the leader of the antiwar movement after he lost the primary. His very first ad in the general election was him looking to camera saying "I want to help end the war in Iraq." During debates he said "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do." It was, as this well-known YouTube video showed, a positively Nixonian enterprise by Lieberman - and it was a deliberate effort to confuse precisely the same Democratic and Independent voters who now say they would vote for Lamont. As I reported:

"Our internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war-a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working."

During the campaign, we did all that we could to point out how Lieberman was lying about his position on the war through as many venues as possible - blogs, candidate speeches, and television advertising making the point that "a vote for Lieberman means a vote for more war" (an ad that Lieberman actually held a special press conference to attack for supposedly being not true). But in the general election's stretch run, the independent validators in the race - the local and national media - refused to report on Lieberman's actual positions and votes continuing to support Bush and the war, and this key slice of Democratic and Independent voters remained confused. They voted for Lieberman because they believed that he perhaps had been pro-war before, but had changed - when in fact the only thing that had changed temporarily was his language, but not his actions.

But now this key group of Democrats and Independents isn't confused anymore because, since the election (and, as predicted) Lieberman has become even more supportive of the Iraq War, and is actually publicly pushing a war with Iran. You can't turn on a television and see a story about the political debate over war without seeing/hearing/reading about Lieberman ratcheting up the saber rattling.

There are two major lessons from this, beyond the fact that as politicians become more supportive of President Bush's war in Iraq and more supportive of a war in Iran, the more unpopular they become.
First, craven politicians like Lieberman will do anything they can to confuse the public about their positions on the war - and they can succeed if the major media refuses to ask them questions or consistently highlight their hypocrisy. Especially on Iraq, we know that deference and stenography are now standard operating procedure. Remember, it was New York Times' chief White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller who said that when it comes to the war, journalists are "very deferential because...it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there" and ask politicians tough questions. And you can bet the effort to confuse the public is only going to intensify from both political parties in the coming weeks with the debate over the Iraq War in Congress. We are already seeing politicians trying to pretend that non-binding measures that do nothing to end the war are actually ironclad efforts that will end the war.

Second, this poll should remind us why new and alternative media are so important. We have to continue to develop as many communications resources to get the real story out about all politicians of all parties - Republican, Democrat and Connecticut for Lieberman. We need as many communications tools as possible so that we don't always have to rely on media intermediaries to get the truth out. We need conduits that circumvent those intermediaries to get the truth out - directly (The fact that Markos had to commission this poll in absence of any news organization doing it is just another reminder of why we need said conduits - and thanks for doing it Markos!).

Had Connecticut voters had more information about exactly how Lieberman's campaign to reinvent himself as an antiwar leader was a complete sham, that key segment of the Democratic and Independent voters might not have been confused, and the election - as the poll now confirms - would have gone the other way.

0 Replies

More betrayal from Lieberman: his "wholesale negligence as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee" - which is the Senate's version of Rep. Waxman's Oversight Committee in the House.

Seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. But over a year later, the committee has conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance.

Quote:

USE IT OR LOSE IT....

[..] Brian Beutler has a great piece today on "The Year in Oversight," and notes a point that doesn't get emphasized nearly enough:

There certainly have been gaffes, softballs, and missed opportunities. And the most obvious are found in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security -- the Senate's version of Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee in the House. Unlike Waxman's enthusiastic probing, the Senate chair conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance. It's chairman? Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman.
A year ago, seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. And now that he has the authority he sought, he's decided not to conduct any real oversight of the administration at all.

He seems to have desperately sought a chairman's gavel just for the sake of having it -- Lieberman wanted power he had no intention of using.

I appreciate the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in a bind before the 110th Congress began. Rumor has it, to keep Lieberman in the caucus, Reid had to give him the chairmanship -- or get stuck with a 50-50 split.

But consequences have to matter. Instead of a Senate Committee on Government Affairs that functions as it should, Lieberman just treads water, using his gavel as a flotation device. It's an embarrassing waste of what's supposed to be the Senate's watchdog committee.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. But over a year later, the committee has conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance.

Joseph Lieberman probably doesn't now believe there is any worth investigating. From what I hear out of Mr. Lieberman, he is fed up with the party that just a few short years ago selected him as the vp candidate. It would not surprise me to see him become a Republican sooner or later. I think he is had it with many Democrats.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
Seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. But over a year later, the committee has conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance.

Joseph Lieberman probably doesn't now believe there is any worth investigating. From what I hear out of Mr. Lieberman, he is fed up with the party that just a few short years ago selected him as the vp candidate. It would not surprise me to see him become a Republican sooner or later. I think he is had it with many Democrats.

good enough for me, the sooner the better.

0 Replies

ditto

0 Replies

Lieberman hit the trifecta in his attempts to discredit himself as a Democrat once and for all this week... let's chronicle 'em:

1. Is Obama a Marxist? That's a good question!

Quote:

FOX'S ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that's a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he's a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn'tI'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

2. Rush Limbaugh - to be admired for his big heart and love for America

Quote:

As an Independent, it doesn't bother me at all to be honored at the same dinner with Rush Limbaugh. In fact, to show you how much things have changed for me, one of my greatest missions this year is to convince Rush to support the Republican candidate for President! The truth is I greatly admire Rush's love for our country and support for our troops, as shown by his remarks tonight and his generous support of MCLEF. Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.

3. The Republican Convention - Oh, to make a keynote address there...

Quote:

Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September. [..] "If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will," Lieberman said in a brief interview. Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators' discussions. Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a "likely possibility" he will address the Republican audience in some form.

Quotes from Fox News, The Hill and the National Review - too lazy to link 'em in.

0 Replies

Far to the left of Lieberman is approaching approaching right of center, from the right, re the rest of the world.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lieberman hit the trifecta in his attempts to discredit himself as a Democrat once and for all this week... let's chronicle 'em:

1. Is Obama a Marxist? That's a good question!

Quote:
FOX'S ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that's a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he's a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn'tI'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

2. Rush Limbaugh - to be admired for his big heart and love for America

Quote:
As an Independent, it doesn't bother me at all to be honored at the same dinner with Rush Limbaugh. In fact, to show you how much things have changed for me, one of my greatest missions this year is to convince Rush to support the Republican candidate for President! The truth is I greatly admire Rush's love for our country and support for our troops, as shown by his remarks tonight and his generous support of MCLEF. Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.

3. The Republican Convention - Oh, to make a keynote address there...

Quote:
Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September. [..] "If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will," Lieberman said in a brief interview. Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators' discussions. Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a "likely possibility" he will address the Republican audience in some form.

Quotes from Fox News, The Hill and the National Review - too lazy to link 'em in.

nimh, you are just one that needs to pay attention to something important here. The Democratic Party of the USA is now controlled by extreme far leftists, and they have left most of the mainstream Democrats a long time ago. Joseph Lieberman is a good example of this. He is not a different man than the man chosen as vp by Gore in 2000, yet now the left hates this fine man with a passion. Good for Joseph Lieberman to stand up and be counted among the decent and honorable Americans of this country.

0 Replies

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know