James Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

Palin in Madison: Veni, Vidi, Vici

Apr 16, 2011 23:48 UTC

Sarah Palin rides to the sound of the guns. It was a chilly, wet and blustery afternoon in Madison, Wisconsin — one more appropriate for a late-season Packers game than a springtime political rally. The stirring NFL Films theme,  “The Classic Battle,” would’ve been a more apt musical choice than Van Halen’s “Right Now” to accompany Palin as she entered the stage outside the state capital building to address thousands of Tea Party members, along with a good number of extremely hostile, expletive-hurling government union rowdies.

palin

In the last few months, political professionals and insiders have been writing off the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate, convinced she won’t run for the GOP nomination in 2012 or ever. Then again, even those GOPers who are running can hardly compete with the MSM’s weird, all-consuming fascination with The Donald.

But all it took was one powerful, pugnacious and presidential speech — just 15 minutes long — for Palin to again make herself completely relevant to the current political and policy battles raging across America.

She waded forcefully into the state’s white-hot battle over government union power, giving her full-throated support to Gov. Scott Walker: “These are the front lines in the battle of the future for our country. A pension is a promise that must be kept. Scott Walker understands this. He understands that states must be solvent to keep their promises. He’s not trying to hurt union members. Hey folks, he’s trying to save your jobs.”

Then, perfectly capturing the real-time mood of the conservative grassroots, Palin scorched the ever-shrinking budget deal negotiated by congressional Republicans. “We didn’t elect you just to rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. What we need from you, GOP, is to fight.” She then urged Washington Republicans to take a page from the national champion University of Wisconsin women’s hockey team and “learn how to fight like a girl.”

Finally, it was President Barack Obama’s turn. She defended, to great cheering, Wisconsin’s own Paul Ryan from the president’s blindside attack on his bold budget plan. Palin contrasted it with Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan, describing it as a “trillion-dollar travesty.” She mocked his latest economic proposals as naive bets on “really fast trains and solar shingles.” The clincher: “Our president isn’t leading; he’s punting on this debt crisis. Win the future? The only future he wants to win is his re-election.”

That line about fighting like a girl, as well as her “Game on!” declaration will surely reignite speculation about presidential plans. And understandably so. Frontrunner Mitt Romney continues to fashion and refashion a saleable explanation for his Obamacare-esque Massachusetts health plan. And while Tim Pawlenty scored a coup with the hiring of hotshot campaign manager Nick Ayers, his embryonic candidacy is still a work in progress. There’s enough voter unease that another Mitch Daniels boomlet seems to be in progress.

Will she run? Even many of those close to Team Palin have no idea. Palin herself may not have made a decision and may not feel she needs to until the autumn. But as it stands, she arguably represents the purest expression out there of Tea Party passion and free-market populist rejection of Washington’s bipartisan crony capitalism. If she ran, her high-wattage appearance in Madison shows just how dangerous her candidacy would be to a field of solid but stolid opponents.

Here’s how John Nolte of Big Government put it:

If Sarah Palin’s not running for president, what a terrible waste that would be of the single best stump speech I’ve heard since, well, Palin’s ’08 convention speech, which just happened to be the single most electrifying political moment of my adult life. … On this day, Tea Party tax-day, Sarah Palin walked into the heart of this nation’s battle, stared down a gallery of Leftist union goons with poise and grace, and articulated our message as well as anyone ever could. Let’s hope this is just the beginning.

So MSM, keep obsessing over the shiny new Trump toy if you must. But better keep an eye on a certain sharpshooting, grizzly mama. She’s back.

COMMENT

PethoKOOKis deserves Sarah Palin. Watching him on The McLaughlin Group is just as annoying as hearing the moronic verbal sensationalism out of Sarah’s Yukon yap. She has not got a chance in hell of being elected POTUS, and I am just dreading the whole 2012 election campaign because I will have to hear all of her obnoxious rants for the next year and a half. She is just a publicity hound like Trump with an inflated ego and a deflated brain. PethoKOOKis needs to stay off of PBS, as I am sure he is all in favor of cutting their funding “to help balance the budget”.

Posted by dogmatic | Report as abusive

Sarah Palin’s huge 2012 move: She endorses Paul Ryan’s ‘Roadmap’

Dec 10, 2010 15:55 UTC

With one op-ed piece in the WSJ, Sarah Palin has made a lasting impact on the dynamic of the upcoming Republican presidential race — even if she doesn’t run. (Though I think she will.) By strongly endorsing Rep. Paul Ryan’s outstanding Roadmap for America’s Future, Palin has set a floor for how radical and sweeping an agenda the 2012 candidates can offer. Anyone offering less will look timid and inconsequential and most un-Tea Party-esque. One of the big knocks against Ryan’s plan is that few of his colleagues are supporting it. Now the most high-profile Republican in America has given it her seal of approval. The Ryan Roadmap is quickly becoming the de facto GOP economic platform.  And if Palin does decide to run, she immediately starts out with  a specific and coherent agenda.  Candidates beware: Bullet points and platitudes aren’t going to cut it.

COMMENT

Fresh off her pronouncements on the Fed’s “quantitative easing” and federal aid to the states, Sarah Palin now adds the deficit and Medicare to her Potemkin façade of policy expertise. This is more than a little ironic for the propagator of the “death panels” myth. As it turns out, Ryan’s plan would inevitably lead to the rationing of the Medicare program on which 46 million American seniors now depend.

Hoping to lead the party that tried to block Medicare in the 1960′s and gut it in the 1990′s, Palin is endorsing Ryan’s proposal to cure what ails the health insurance system for millions of American seniors by killing it. When Ryan unveiled his Roadmap back in February, privatization of Medicare was the centerpiece. But because the value of Ryan’s vouchers fails to keep up with the out-of-control rise in premiums in the private health insurance market, America’s elderly would be forced to pay more out of pocket or accept less coverage.

George W. Bush’s disastrous drive to privatize Social Security helped undermine his presidency. Now, in the wake of a Wall Street meltdown that evaporated the retirement savings for countless thousands of Americans, the Republican Golden Boy Ryan is calling for an encore.

Yeah. Ryan is the one Republicans should be considering for president or VP. Go for it.

Posted by GetpIaning | Report as abusive

Why Wall Street should fear Sarah Palin

Nov 12, 2010 15:20 UTC

The only people in Manhattan who are probably eager for a Sarah Palin presidential run are the supposed comedy writers at “Saturday Night Live.” Wall Street bankers, on the other hand, not so much. Big Money has been snarkily dismissive of Palin’s recent opining on monetary policy, the dollar and the dangers of inflation. But guess what? A “free-market populist” campaign in 2012 would likely further highlight that Palin’s not too big a fan of them, either. And her economic musings are yet another sign she’s running

In a speech and a pair of Facebook postings this week, Palin unexpectedly warned her followers about the inflationary dangers of the Federal Reserve’s “pump-priming addiction” — a reference to the latest round of bond-buying by the U.S. central bank, known as quantitative easing. That’s hardly a novel or unreasonable critique. Many conservatives, and even some Fed officials, share Palin’s unease.

It’s the politics and timing rather than the substance that is raising eyebrows. Avid Palin-watchers see her move into economic commentary as further evidence of a run for the White House. Indeed, the campaign team for putative Republican frontrunner and former banker Mitt Romney is assuming she will be in the race. And her upcoming, much-hyped reality television show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” will no doubt play like an extended campaign commercial. And polls certainly hint she would be right in the thick of the fight with Romney and Mike Huckabee, if he runs (via CNN):

In Iowa, it appears Mike Huckabee’s still got a base: the former Arkansas governor is tied with Mitt Romney at 21 percent, with Sarah Palin close behind at 18 percent, and Gingrich nabbing single-digit support. In New Hampshire, former Massachusetts governor Romney displays his home court advantage: he draws more support, at 39 percent, than the rest of his top rivals combined. Palin once again nabs 18 percent.  And in the key early-voting state of South Carolina – where Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney both endorsed Gov.-elect Nikki Haley in the GOP primary this year – Palin, Huckabee and Romney are again neck-and-neck.

If Palin does get in the game, her views leave her — not for the first time — well positioned to exploit the zeitgeist. Voters right now seem dubious of Big Anything, be it Government, Business or Money. In her 2009 book, “Going Rogue,” Palin offered a remix of 1980s-style Reaganomics — low taxes, less government spending, strong dollar. That’s all perfectly sync with her recent Fed-bashing. But she also attacked “corporatism” in which government and business conspire against entrepreneurs and consumers. This view fuels Palin’s critique of Obama’s financial reform plan, which she portrays as a creation of Wall Street designed to perpetuate bank bailouts. As she wrote on Facebook:

Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality. … The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.” …  You’ll find the name Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chiefs of staff. We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism.

Palinomics, embryonic as it is, seems to be rooted in “free-market populism,” a version of conservative thinking that is pro-market rather than pro-business. It says the role of government is to help markets function more fairly and efficiently for everyone, encouraging competition and “creative destruction” (which Palin specifically mentioned in her book).  Pro-business policies, by contrast, can end up subsidizing favored companies, raising barriers to entry and otherwise entrenching the status quo.

Palin is also familiar with one of the champions of free-market populism, the University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales, linking to his writings from her Facebook page. It’s easy to imagine her campaigning against corporate tax breaks, say, or in favor of limiting the size of banks under the belief that as long as they are ginormous, government will find a way to bail them out. That agenda might not attract much campaign cash from Manhattan bankers or Washington lobbyists, but it could be a compelling formula in the new Tea Party-infused Republican party. Then again, bankers who care about cutting government spending and keeping taxes low might want to take a second look.

Sarah Palin (and Germany and China) against Obama

Nov 9, 2010 19:05 UTC

Of course, Sarah Palin is quite right in her concerns about the economic impact of more quantitative easing.  At best, Ben Bernanke’s efforts may add a third of percentage point to GDP. Maybe. And at what cost? Bubbles in commodities and emerging markets, capital controls, currency interventions, further erosion of America’s role as an economic model. All for, as Palin puts it, “temporary, artificial economic growth.”   Or as Kevin Warsh of the Fed puts it:

But if the recent weakness in the dollar, run-up in commodity prices, and other forward-looking indicators are sustained and passed along into final prices, the Fed’s price stability objective might no longer be a compelling policy rationale. …  Overseas—as a consequence of more-expansive U.S. monetary policy and other distortions in the international monetary system—we see an increasing tendency by policy makers to intervene in currency markets, administer unilateral measures, institute ad hoc capital controls, and resort to protectionist policies. Extraordinary measures tend to beget extraordinary countermeasures. Heightened tensions in currency and capital markets could result in a more protracted and difficult global recovery.

Or as PIMCO’s Bill Gross puts it: “Check writing in the trillions is not a bondholder’s friend; it is in fact inflationary, and, if truth be told, somewhat of a Ponzi scheme. Public debt, actually, has always had a Ponzi-like characteristic.”

COMMENT

“(QE2 is) somewhat of a Ponzi scheme” -institutionalized/government run Ponzi scheme, and currency manipulation.

Posted by blinded1 | Report as abusive

Shock poll: Americans think Bush doing a better job than Obama (and more)

Oct 28, 2010 15:53 UTC

Some fascinating numbers from longtime Democratic pollster Doug Schoen (via U.S. News & World Report). Among them: Voters prefer Bush over Obama, want the GOP to control congress, favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, don’t favor another term for Obama and would give Palin nearly 20 percent of the vote if she ran as a third-party presidential candidate.

His survey of 1,000 likely voters finds the following (bold is mine):

The 2010 midterms

– In the generic Congressional midterm election, the Republican Party has a nine-point lead over the Democratic Party, 48% to 39%. 13% are not sure.

– However, when given the choice between a Republican, a Democrat, and a Tea Party candidate for Congress, the Tea Party candidate gains more support (19%) than the Republican candidate (15%). Meanwhile, support for the Democratic Party consolidates (39%) and more voters become undecided (27%).

-- 53% prefer the outcome of this year’s Congressional elections to be a Republican-controlled Congress, while 36% prefer the Democrats to have control.

-- 66% say things in the country are headed on the wrong track, while 26% say they are headed in the right direction. 8% are not sure.

– 57% say the economy is headed on the wrong track, while 31% say it is headed in the right direction. 12% are not sure.

– Those who say they plan to vote for a Republican for Congress do so because they think the Democratic Party is doing a bad job running the country and to oppose Obama’s agenda (37%), and because they agree more with the Party’s position on social issues (17%).

– Those who plan to vote for a Democrat do so to support Obama’s agenda and have the Democrats continue to run the country (34%), and because they agree more with the Party’s position on social issues (30%).

– If the Republicans win one or both houses in Congress, over half (53%) think it is a reaction against the perceived failed policies of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, while 29% think it is because Republican Party special interest groups bought the election. 19% are not sure.

– 39% say the Democratic Party is closer to their views on major issues, while 48% say the Republican Party is closer to their views.

Barack Obama

– Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56% say he does not deserve to be reelected, while 38% say he does deserve to be reelected President.

–  43% say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48% say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

–  42% approve of the way Obama is performing his job as president, while 57% disapprove. Similarly, 43% approve of President Obama’s handling of the economy, while 55% disapprove

Tea Party movement

– The Tea Party movement has unprecedented, broad-based support. One-quarter now says that they are Tea Party supporters, while 27% say they are opponents. 44% say they are neutral. One-quarter of Tea Party supporters self-identify as members of the Tea Party movement.

– Almost half (49%) say they are looking for someone else to vote for in the next Congressional election, while just 36% say they are inclined to vote to re-elect their representative.

– Support for the Tea Party movement is bipartisan. Tea Party supporters say the movement is a protest against business as usual in Washington (43%) rather than a protest against President Obama (20%), Democrats in Congress (11%), or Republicans in Congress (0%).

– Over half (52%) of Tea Party supporters say they support the movement because it is committed to reducing the federal government’s size and spending and the national debt. 13% support it because it supports personal liberty of the individual.

– 39% have a favorable impression of Karl Rove, while one-third have an unfavorable impression. 28% are not sure.

– 45% have a favorable impression of the Chamber of Commerce, while 26% have an unfavorable impression. 29% are not sure

2012 election

– If a Tea Party candidate is on the 2012 ballot, 32% say they would vote for a Democrat, 19% say a Republican, and 16% say a Tea Party candidate. One-third are not sure.

– In thinking about the 2012 Presidential election, if the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Tea Party candidate Sarah Palin and the election were held today, 40% would vote for Obama. 32% would vote for Romney, and 17% would vote for Palin.

– If the candidates in the 2012 Presidential election were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Tea Party candidate Mike Huckabee, and the election were held today, 40% would vote for Obama. 24% would vote for Romney, and 24% would vote for Huckabee.

Tax cuts and healthcare

– Over three-quarters (77%) favor extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year, while just 15% oppose extending them.

– Half favor extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including those making $250,000 or more a year, while 40% oppose this.

– Over half (52%) favor repealing the new health care law that was passed earlier this year, while 38% oppose repealing it.

COMMENT

There is no way in hell that Bush evens hold a candle to Obama, There’s to much crap being said and I feel it’s the media that is destroying this country with all these lies. If Palin ever was voted in as our President then USA have alot of stupid people…

Posted by Mcq | Report as abusive

Making sense of Sarah Palin’s third-party threat

Oct 19, 2010 19:53 UTC

For Sarah Palin, it’s Tea Party first, Republican Party second:

Some in the GOP, it’s their last shot, it’s their last chance. We will lose faith, and we will be disappointed and disenchanted from them if they start straying from the bedrock principles. … If they start straying, then why not a 3rd party?

A few observations:

1. She’s in, but not as a third-party spoiler. Let me reiterate that I think Palin is almost certainly running for president as a Republican. So does the Romney campaign. So does Weekly Standard reporter and Palin expert Matthew Continetti:

I do [see her running]. I see her endorsing candidates and joining them on the trail, raising money through her political action committee, establishing a national voice through her books and upcoming television series, and engaging the Obama administration through television appearances, Facebook, and Twitter. Palin sees her influence in Republican circles, sees her continued popularity among Republicans, sees the potential weaknesses in Obama, and sees the potential parallels between the 1980 election and the 2012 election. She’s getting ready.

2. She has a shot. I also think she can certainly win the GOP nomination and presidency. The media-created caricature of her has created such a low competence hurdle that she only needs to be as well-spoken/well-versed on policy as the typical member of Congress to clear it.  In fact, she may already be there. And don’t underestimate the Dancing with the Stars factor.  Bristol Palin’s time on the show is allowing America to see a whole another side of the Palin family, one that seems firmly in tune with middle-American culture.

And the bigger the GOP primary field — and it is looking like it could be quite crowded right now — the better it is for her (and Mitt Romney). As for the general, two more years of abnormally high unemployment — twice as high as the typical level for the past generation — has created  for vulnerability for Obama that is hard to measure. But the midterm results will give a big hint.

3.  She has a potent potential agenda. If I were plotting a Palin campaign, I would encourage her to run on a free-market populist agenda. That would mean pushing free trade agreements while attacking Obama for being soft on Chinese protectionism. That would mean advocating less cumbersome financial regulation while attacking Obama for not breaking up the big banks on Wall Street. That would mean advocating lower corporate taxes but reducing corporate loopholes and subsidies. In short, portray Obama as soft on banks, China and big business.  That, and him being a big spender and taxer who has failed to turn around the U.S. economy, natch.

4. She’s Ronald Reagan — at least a smidge. Palin frequently invokes the name of the 40th president. Of course, she can’t match his decades of debating public issues before winning the presidency in 1980. But like RR, Palin has been maligned and downgraded by the media and punditocracy. But when Reagan stood next to Jimmy Carter and got to make his case in his own words, opinions changed.

COMMENT

I never really had a problem with John McCain – a tad old, but generally a pretty reasonable guy. But I will NEVER forgive him for bringing this woman to (in her words) ‘Lame-stream media’ and giving her an agenda to push. If Neo-Cons could take off their partisan hats and instead put on thinking hats I would sleep so much better and Sarah Palin would return to obscurity – or Hollywood?

Also – though not as if Americans care – but the rest of the world thinks LESS of Sarah Palin than even her most strident haters in America. Food for thought…

Posted by CDN_finance | Report as abusive

The next big political issue? The U.S. dollar

Oct 12, 2009 18:22 UTC

The state of the dollar probably hasn’t been a first-tier political issue in the United States since, say, the presidential election of 1896. Back then, it manifested as whether or not America would stay on the gold standard or switch to a bimetallic one. (The William Jennings Bryan “cross of gold” speech and all that.)

The aftershocks of the global financial crisis may now be propelling the dollar back to the political forefront. The greenback’s continuing slide makes it a handy metric that neatly encapsulates America’s current economic troubles and possible long-term decline. House Republicans for instance, have been using the weaker dollar as a weapon in their attacks on the Bernanke-led Federal Reserve.

For more evidence of the dollar’s return to political salience, look no further than the Facebook page of Sarah Palin. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee — and possible 2012 presidential candidate — has shown a knack for identifying hot-button political issues, such as the purported “death panels” she claims to have found in Democratic healthcare reform plans. In a recent Facebook posting, Palin expressed deep concern over the dollar’s “continued viability as an international reserve currency” in light of huge U.S. budget deficits.

She might be onto something here, politically and economically. A recent Rasmussen poll, for instance, found that 88 percent of Americans say the dollar should remain the dominant global currency. Now, the average voter may not fully understand the subtleties of international finance nor appreciate exactly how a dominant dollar has benefited the U.S economy. But they sure think a weaker dollar is a sign of a weaker America.

And that’s the political problem for the Obama administration. Its benign neglect of the dollar is another example of an economic policy — along with TARP and the $787 billion stimulus — that the White House thinks is helping the economy, but many Americans find wrongheaded.

In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman makes the usual case for a weaker dollar: It helps U.S. exporters and is a necessary part of a global economic rebalancing. And there is some truth in that, particularly the idea that Rising Asia will result in a less-dominant dollar. Then again, a devalued currency hasn’t exactly been a proven path to prosperity. (Ask Jimmy Carter.)

But Krugman too easily dismisses the idea that the dollar’s decline could tumble out of control. Former Clinton economic officials such as Robert Rubin and Roger Altman have been making the case that investor concern about budget deficits could lead them to abandon the dollar. As Altman argued in a Financial Times op-ed piece today: “The dismal deficit outlook poses a huge longer-term threat. Indeed, it is just a matter of time before global financial markets reject this fiscal trajectory. That could lead to a punishing dollar crisis.”

Now many Democrats and liberals, like Krugman, don’t want to hear such talk, fearing a rerun of the Clinton era when the progressive policy agenda was sacrificed on the altar of budgetary rectitude.

But that is a tremendous political and economic gamble, one that may result in taunting Republican cries of “Who lost the dollar?”

COMMENT

Unfunded public employee pension benefits is the next big political issue.

Posted by EconRob | Report as abusive

Sarah Palin speaks! Some thoughts on her speech in Hong Kong

Sep 23, 2009 16:34 UTC

So Sarah Palin gave her big speech in Hong Kong. She talked about eliminating cap gains and estate taxes, giving people tax breaks to buy their own health insurance, and took a few shots at the Fed. That section was particularly interesting. (A bit of video here.) Here is the WSJ’s take:

“How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform?” she said. “The words ‘fox’ and ‘henhouse’ come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.”

“Lack of government wasn’t the problem, government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to,” she said. “The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks. So many to be blamed on so many different levels, but the fact remains that these people were responding to a market solution created by government policies that ran contrary to common sense,” she said.

Me: I will  alsopredict that she’ll also come out strong against TARP, which may be a big dividing line among 2012 candidates.

COMMENT

@Jeremy
OK, here are my thoughts on the substance of the speech. Palin fundamentally doesn’t understand the causes of the economic crisis (this should come as no surprise to anybody that has ever seen her interviewed).
Government was not the root cause of the crisis and it is simply untrue to say that financial markets didn’t fail. If anything, INSUFFICIENT regulation (a lack of sensible constraints on leverage, etc) was a larger part of the problem. Saying this does not make one a socialist.
You can have a sensible discussion about such matters with an intelligent conservative like Mitt Romney, but Palin has absolutely nothing to offer to the debate.

Posted by Kramer | Report as abusive

Palin explained, kind of …

Jul 4, 2009 13:26 UTC

I think this hunk by Mark Halperin on Sarah Palin’s resignation is pretty good:

1. This means she can’t run for president in 2012.

2. She would have been a stronger candidate for 2012 if she had stayed in office.

3. Republican primary and caucus voters in 2012 will care if she served out her term or not.

4. This means she is definitely running in 2012.

5. Making the announcement on the Friday of a holiday weekend was really stupid.

6. Until today, Palin was well positioned to run in 2012.

7. Palin made the decision not to run for re-election all of the sudden.

8. Palin’s rhetoric about the politics of personal destruction was not heartfelt.

9. Palin’s ambition is limited to electoral politics.

COMMENT

All she ever was was a political ploy used by an old man trying to be president; without the 100% hand-of-GOP directing her every move, she showed her true colours, and they were not at all impressive or competent. I suppose it does show one thing though – that she was not lyng when she compared herself to a hockey-mom… that’s really about all she is. Just an average person who was thrust in the spotlight because she had the right ‘look’. I desperately hope this is the last we hear of her. The farright in America seem to think that average Joes and Janes need to be in positions of power. I, humbly, disagree WHOHEARTEDLY!!! What an insane approach to politics… I suppose this is wasted typing time, as so many vote down partylines, regardless of who they’re voting for.

Posted by the Shah | Report as abusive
  •