Democrats & Liberals Archives

The "L" Word

Now that the Democrats have taken over the House and Senate, it’s time to talk about the strengths of liberalism. The “L” word has been used by Republicans and their media partners for decades to defame, dishonor and denigrate all those who disagreed with Republicans or who expressed any sentiment that could be even remotely labeled as liberal. Now comes a new book boldly titled “Return of the “L” Word,” and boldly proclaiming a new age of liberalism.

The book was written by Douglas S. Massey. By briefly tracing American history, he makes you understand how beautiful and grand is the concept of liberalism, that liberalism is a fundamental part of our system of government. He lists 5 big liberal events in our history:

  1. BILL OF RIGHTS - Our founding fathers rejected the monarchy and established a country based on a democratic form of government. The Bill of Rights, detailing our civil liberties, is the greatest present we, their heirs, have ever received

  2. FREEING THE SLAVES - After the Civil War, the slaves were freed. No longer would black people be considered inferior to white people. Of course, it did not enfold this way for some time, but at least we got started

  3. PROGRESSIVE ERA - During the Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson administrations, corporations were regulated and monopolies were broken up to improve the common good. Also, the U.S. Department of Labor and the graduated income tax were voted in. As Roosevelt put it, the "great malefactors of wealth" were constrained

  4. THE NEW DEAL - Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal, which most economists now agree, saved capitalism. Among the many new agencies he gave us is the most popular and most successful agency of all: Social Security

  5. THE GREAT SOCIETY - During Kennedy's and especially Johnson's administrations, Democratic leaders produced a long list of civil rights legislation. Medicare, too, was established
After the Great Society, according to Massey, Democrats lost their footing and Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, resulting in a big conservative wave. Democrats got cocky and arrogant, and during the Vietnam War lied and deceived the people. Republicans used racial prejudice to separate the poor whites from the blacks. Later they used religion in a similar way.

Now that conservatives have demonstrated that their primary attachment is to the elite, the rich and the religious extremist, and that they rarely ever think of the needs of the poor and middle class, the citizenry is ready to accept the new liberalism.

Like conservatism the new liberalism is based on capitalism. However, there are 2 kinds of capitalism. Conservatives base everything on money capitalism, whereas Massey, while not discounting money capitalism, places more emphasis on "human capitalism." Liberals want to build up the capacities of people in order to better face world competition brought about by globalization.

Massey says there is no such thing as "free markets." All markets are constructed by people. What liberals want are "democratic markets," where all people, not only businesspeople, have a voice.

Conservatives have torn our nation apart. We need to build community. We are all in this together. All of us deserve a voice. All of us deserve to benefit from business activity and from globalization. All of us will benefit from the new liberalism.

The "L" word has returned and marks the beginning of a new era of advancement for all Americans.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 12, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #202921

While you’re gloating, you might want to notice the following list.

Congress still fails to address any of the nation’s most pressing issues.

Better look out, or 2008 will unravel your short-lived victory.

Fueling the partisan warfare will only guarantee that Do-Nothing Congress lives up to its reputation.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #202924

Before you say anything, let me guess …
It’s the Republicans’ fault ?

You are proud of starting Medicare?
LBJ ? Please!

You conveniently left out how Dems voted against civil rights.

Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Act, Black Codes, Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, and supported the formation of the KKK. Then, in their great wisdom, they created welfare programs that created a cycle of dependency.

Whooohooo !

You believe the Democrat party is the solution ?

Not hardly.

But neither are the Repubs.

The fact is, there ain’t much difference.

BOTH parties are very deserving of the title: Do-Nothing CONGRESS.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #202930

Thanks Paul…again.That is a list to be proud of.Much of the Vietnam fiasco can be lais at LBC’s feet. Pursuit of that war was the result of a compromise. In order to push through the war on poverty and medicare he put us to war as a sop to the powerful right wing forces deatly afraid of communism. It was a tragic mistake indeed. War should never be entered for political reasons, only for self-defense.
Our new challenge,as profound as any you listed, should be independance from fossil fuels. This is less a tech problem as a geo-political and economic one. The current economic institutions and the world hegonomy are built on oil. The oil oligarchy are more powerful than the robber barons ever dreamed of and they will resist. Still the rewards for our country and planet are too great and failure to horrible for us to shirk from this task.

You really might give the new congress more than ten days to solve problems

Posted by: BillS at January 12, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #202955


I admire your constant optimism. This is a list worthy of respect and speaks mostly of compassion and government for the people. These are important facets of government which have been missing for some time now. For the last six years our governmental direction has been so twisted and mangled that no one can anylonger tell us exactly where our country is headed. I do hope Massey is correct. If so we may once again attain a government capable of attaining level headed non-partisan legislation which is in the best interests of the people.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 10:10 PM
Comment #202957


Well said. I agree that energy independance should be the number one issue. After all oil seems to be the biggest nemesis. It amazes me that we can dump hundreds of billions of dollars into trying to democratize an oil rich country and guaranteeing profits for the oil companies. But we can only dump a small fraction of that into the research and development of alternative energy sources. To hell with the oil barons. I personally am willing to pay more just to get them off my back and their influence out of politics. The way I see it is the more we spend on alternatives now the sooner we can realize that independance.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 10:19 PM
Comment #202962
BillS wrote: d.a.n. You really might give the new congress more than ten days to solve problems.


Dems touted the “first 100 hours”.

I’d be delighted if they adequately addressed some of the nations most serious problems in the first 100 days.

However, the Dems had power before the Repubs for 70 years.
The Repubs had power for the last 12 years.

Neither are serious about solving this nation’s most pressing problems.
Don’t believe it ?
Just revisit that list a year from now.
Two years from now.
Four years from now.
Eight years from now.

Congress’ track-record for the last 30 years do not lend to much optimism.

Already the first 100 hours is a total farce.

I’d love them to prove me wrong, but the odds (just based on the last 30 years) are not good.

It’s highly unlikely this 110th Congress will seriously adequately address any of the nation’s most badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms, growing in number and severity, because Congress is FOR-SALE, and voters keep rewarding them for being irresponsible.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #202965

These labels “conservative” and “liberal” are actually pretty meaningless in reference to our history and to our contemporary political parties, so its nonsense to relate the current Democratic majority to a new era of “liberalism.”

For one thing, I notice that of your “five big liberal events,” two were accomplishments of Republican presidents (#2 under Lincoln, #3 under Theodore Roosevelt along with the Democrat Wilson). #1 occurred before either of our current parties existed. And as for #5, civil rights legislation in the sixties, a higher percentage of Republican officeholders voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.

Only one of your “big liberal events,” #4, was solely a Democratic party measure.

The “liberal” and “conservative” labels in current American politics are incredibly diluted and muddied.

What is classicly “liberal” about hate crimes legislation, for example, which seeks to police not only a person’s evil actions but their very thoughts? What is “liberal” about trying to weaken the 2nd Amendment—something enshrined in what is supposedly the number one “liberal” accomplishement you name, the Bill of Rights?

By the same token, what is “conservative” about Bush’s massive Medicare drug entitlement? What is “conservative” about attempts to overthrow foreign regimes and install so-called democracies?

Your claims that Americans are now ready to accept “human capitalism” instead of “money capitalism” sounds like meaningless New Age pablum. Capitalism is about money, pure and simple.

There’s more to life than money, of course, and there are places in life to dwell on those things. But the notion of economic system which is not based on money is ridiculous. It’s like talking about restaurants that aren’t based on food.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 12, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #202968

Loyal Opposition, I believe Paul is talking about the accomplishments of Liberalism during the past two hundred and thirty years. Before FDR, the republican party was the liberal party compared to the democrats. The Southern Democrats that supported racist legislation were conservatives. It was not until after they were replaced by conservative republicans that the democratic party became a mainly liberal party. When it comes to the second amendment, many people have an opinion that differs from the majority of their other opinions, mostly conservative republicans take the liberal side of expanding rights of gun owners and liberal democrats take the conservative side of limiting the rights of potential criminals.

Posted by: Warren P at January 12, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #202971

PC promoters change the names of things when they start becoming pejorative. After a while the new words become pejorative because they are describing something that is unpleasant. You can change the name of manure to flower and after awhile flowers will be known for their unpleasant smells.

Liberal in the original sense, and the sense that it is still used in Europe, meant someone who advocated liberty, which also included economic liberty and property. You correctly point this out. But you miss the highjacking of the term. In the 1930s, liberalism began to became associated with government intervention & group instead of individual rights. By the 1960s the transformation was complete. Liberals became associated with soft headed PC codes and government handout programs. If they have changed very much, by all means the word should not longer be pejorative. If not, they should just keep the word, since as long as they are using it, it can be nothing but bad news.


What right wing forces were those in 1964. I recall Goldwater didn’t do very well. Democrats controlled the Senate, House and the Presidency. Democrats held the ground in the media etc.

Vietnam was a natural outgrowth of liberalism of the time. The Democratic wizz kids just saw it as another social program.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #202979

A main problem with these conservative vs. liberal formulations is precisely that America is founded on ideas that are “liberal” in a classical sense.

Since that is our nation’s tradition, if you attempt to preserve that tradition you can be labeled as conservative.

How “liberal” is somebody who wants to change the status quo when the status quo is liberty?

These terms have gotten all mixed up and have taken on meanings which have little to do with how they originated.

Unfortunately, the one thing so-called conservatives and so-called liberals seem to agree on these days is that the government needs to exert more control over our lives.

The “conservatives” want to force us to follow their ideology, telling us who to marry, how to reproduce, etc, and the “liberals” want to force us to follow their ideology and to reorganize our economy and even our very thoughts to conform to their own PC version of “fairness.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #202997

What I was mentioning was based on some Johnson writings. It has been long since I read them. I was young at the time but I do recall the John Birch Society as being influential and much of the print media was owned by the likes of the Chandlers etc. There was a very powerful anti-communist coalition that wanted to fight them in Vietnam. Johnson was above all else a politician. He understood that what he wanted to do for thr poor would be open to attack from that quarter as communist unless he gave them their war.

Posted by: BillS at January 13, 2007 2:04 AM
Comment #203001


Fighting the Communists was and is a worthy task but the John Birch Society opposed the Vietnam war because it was unconstitutional-no Congressional declaration of war as required in Article I, Section 8 and there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to go to war for any purpose other than the defense of the United States and her people.

Posted by: traveller at January 13, 2007 8:26 AM
Comment #203015


Johnson could claim it; it doesn’t make it so. History indicates that the “right” in those days was more isolationist than the left. I any case, they right was very weak in those days.

Vietnam was primarily a liberal Dem war. They slipped into it more or less the same way and with more or less the same motivations as the neo-cons did Iraq. That is the one real parallel between the conflicts.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #203023

I have been disappointed in the first 100 hours thus far.

Pelosi has extended last years deficit spending for the first 100 hours. And her decision to extend deficit spending was supported on the left as “wise”.

The “pay as you go” bill didn’t keep pelosi from passing a bill that would spend tens of additional billions of dollars (9-11 bill), increase our deficits, and no mention was given as to the cost and how she would “pay as she goes”. Pay as you go is looking to me, to be more and more like a meaningless propaganda bill to wave about whenever anyone criticizes their deficit spending.

Pelosi’s promise to rule the house in a kind, bipartisian way from “the very first day” went out the window, she herself announced the end of her bi-partisian talk saying she would not allow republicans to offer any amendments to any of the democratic parties bills in the first 100 hours.

And as far as ending corruption, Pelosi passed a bill to KEEP EARMARKS which clearly need to be done away with. Transparent massive pork spending that leads to corruption is really very little improvement on the old corrupt earmarks.

Then there is Harry Reid, the leader of the house. Taking a million bucks from that lawyer in vegas on a “land deal” which was nothing more then influence peddling….how many such “land deals” has Harry done? He still refuses to give back the Abramoff money he took for services rendered. And I understand he has family that he got positioned as lobbiests. So much for ending the “culture of corruption. New crowd, same old corruption.

And that doesn’t even address the issue of Reid and Pelosi being FOR MASSIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Lets face it, they are, and it’s WRONG.

What do I want from a congress?
1)Balanced budgets.
2) A Fix for Social Security…not a patch, a fix.
3) A Fix for Medicare, not a patch.
4) the END of EAR MARKS to really help get at corruption.
5) National Health care AFTER the other massive social programs are FIXED and the budget is BALANCED.
6) A fence on the boarder to keep the massive flow of illegals out.
7) A war waged against radical Islam/terrorists who ARE WAGING A WAR AGAINST THE WEST.

What will the democratic congress give us? None of the above I’m afraid. And certainly not the most important item, a balanced budget….they are already spending like crazy and refusing to even discuss the possibility of balancing the budget.

Posted by: Stephen at January 13, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #203027

So the “anti-communist” agenda was not from the right? Whatever. I was really not trying to caste blame on the right or make excuses for Johnson. My point was that war should only be engaged if it is to stop a direct threat and then only as a last resort. Never as a political compromise or tool of economic expansion. Afganistan rose to that level. Iraq did not. That is another paralell.

Posted by: BillS at January 13, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #203032


Back then even Dems were anti-Communist. I liked Truman for that reason. Kennedy’s speeches on foreign affairs could have been given by Ronald Reagan. Liberals turned pink only AFTER the Vietnam war.

We did not get into Vietnam or Iraq for economic reasons. They never made any sense for economic reasons. When Johnson waxed eloquent about Vietnam, he wanted to help it develop economically, but for the common good, like a worldwide great society program.

Vietnam, like Iraq, was morally right. It was strategically and practically mistaken.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #203034


BTW - I will be out and w/o my computer for a day or two, so I will not be ignoring you, just not here.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #203047

If that is your list ,may you continue to be disapointed.
SS is not broken and will be solvent without ant changes until 2042. Some minor adjustments are in order like raising the cap on taxation etc. but it does not requir a major overhaul. “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke”
Medicare ,especially the drug benefit that was designed to fail, needs some work. Allowing price negotiations,already under way if Bush does not veto,will help but a real fix will take addressing national healthcare.
Adopting transparency rules for earmarks should help keep special interest /private projects from being funded. However one of the important things any congressman does is bring home money for projects in their district. Money for highway projects,sewer plants etc. That is their job.Transparency rules are being adopted.
A fence on the border is simply a bad and wasteful idea.Securing the border is a good idea . This means setting up a workable ,fair.large, guest worker program and a responsible path toward citizenship or legalization for undocumented people already here coupled with real enforcement efforts against employers.If the path toward legality is too onerious they will just stay underground and the border will remain unsecure. Has to do with demograpics. Migrations of this sort are never stopped by political borders any more that tree pollen or butterflys.
So far we have been doing a terrible job against radical Islam. The Iraq incursion has served to radicalize Muslum youth all over the world. It was a tremendious blunder. The sooner we end it the better and yes it will take years to deal with the consiquinces.Time to get realistic. The biggest non-military threat they pose is cutting off our oil supply. A geniun national push for energy independance is long overdue and on the agenda. Bushes new budget cuts reasearch funding on alternate fuels in half. Funding will be restored by the Dems but leadership on this must come from the top. I hope both parties put forward presidential candidates that are willing to make this a priority.
A balanced budget? Good target. A repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy will help.Ending corporate giveaways,especially to oil companies will help as well as collecting owed royalties. Cutting funding for obcenely expensive.useless weapons systems will help. Adopting policies that encourge wage growth instead of hinder it will help.I am glad we can count on your support for these efforts.

Posted by: BillS at January 13, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #203055

Loyal Opposition:

Allow me to inform you about what some great business gurus thought and think about human capital:

“The term human capital was first used by Nobel Prize—winning economist Theodore W. Schultz in a 1961 article in American Economic Review. His basic thesis was that investments in human capital should be accounted for in the same manner as investments in plant and machinery.”

And this is what Peter F. Drucker, THE business guru of his time, said:

“In the knowledge society, the most probable assumption for organizations—and certainly the assumption on which they have to conduct their affairs—is that they need knowledge workers far more than knowledge workers need them.”

You can

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 13, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #203062

I’m in an economics class now, and the definition of capital is anything that facilitates production. My chair is capital as it facilitates the production of this post. Therefore human capitalism is not self-contradicting.

Titles of liberal and conservative are relative, just like rich and poor. I am conservative compared to most democrats. I am liberal compared to most republicans. Therefore, my definition depends on who I am compared to. These terms generally are defined by masses of people with similar beliefs and how the compare to the rest of the country. John Kerry is more liberal than most of the country, making him a liberal. GWB is more conservative than most of the country, making him a conservative. Liberal positions tend to be pro-abortion and gay marriage, pro-immigrant rights, etc. Conservatives favor less abortions and no gay marriage, and and border security to exclusion of a guest worker program.

The middle of the country chooses which approach they like best and that side has temporary dominance. Last November the center and some of the right went with Democrats because of Iraq. If Dems swing to far left the center will correct them and vote republican. Yay for America.

Sorry for the probably really confusing post. Maybe some of it will be intelligible.

Posted by: Silima at January 13, 2007 2:47 PM
Comment #203066

You forgot dandruff,long supermarket lines.leaky roofs,increased back hair,dead batteries and cockroaches. Insiteful,intelligent comments like yours will help make sure the Republican Party achieves its rightful place in American politics.

Posted by: BillS at January 13, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #203068

There are many conservatives that would disagree with you . They rightfully do not believe GWB is a conservative. He has expanded to government,is not fiscally responsible,believes in nation building etc. Some of the issues you mentioned are just red-herrings. There are conservatives ie Goldwater,that believed in a womens right to choose. There are conservatives that do not care if gays want to marry based on the equal protection clause. No one liberal or conservative favors MORE abortion.
The center has swung far to the right. example: Nixon the conservative proposed a national health plan very similar to the one the H.Clinton proposed that was attack as extreme. Pauls point is finally it is swinging the other way and together we can make some real progress. He pointed out some important milestones that have been achieved in the past when this has occured.

Posted by: BillS at January 13, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #203115

I don’t mind liberal electoral victories as long as the libs are honest about what they are selling. Unhappily however, liberals are rarely honest about what it is they want to accomplish.

How many newly elected ‘conservative democrats’ gave Nancy Pelosi the speakership in 2006? Rohm Emmanuel deserves an award for recruiting and running conservative democrats in conservative districts. But does this create a new age of liberalism?

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2007 10:10 PM
Comment #203124

Given on the Bush thing. However, you mention, “together we can make some real progress.” This indicates that swinging left is good. If so, what part does the right play. If going left is the right direction, why bother with what the right has to say?

Posted by: Silima at January 14, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #203129


Once the Democrats kick the progressives out of the Democratic Party and return liberal to mean the protection of all of our rights afforded by the constitution, including Amendments 9 and 10, then perhaps your post will be poignant.

Until then, if you want true liberty and defense of the constitution, you’ll have to join the Libertarian Party.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #203203


I find your use of Drucker as a cite interesting. I think that many of us conservatives would find his work more likely to support our viewpoints than yours as to the involvement of government in the economy at large and the conduct of individual companies.

For example, you realize that this quote can and has been used as the cornerstone of an argument that says that knowledge workers are powerful enough in the new economy that they can bargain more effectively as individuals than collectively.

It does this by directly undermining the “means of production” argument posited by Marx that is the lynchpin of the collective bargaining/ union movement.

The “means of production” are no longer industrial equipment that requires heavy capital investment, but rather the collective brainpower of the organization that are nutured and invested in by the individuals who make up the workforce. Because of their direct control over the “means of production,” they can leave for greener pastures or stay and negotiate better compensation internally.

How does this jib with your overall view of the labor vs. management view of the world?

The same viewpoint also supports arguments in favor of globalization, outsourcing, and that the increased divide between the educated and the uneducated classes are organic outcomes of the new knowledge economy rather than the intentions of any individual groups of people, and as such are not likely to be controlled by government forces.

This also seems to go against many of the posts that you have written in the past year or so.

Btw, “And this is what Peter F. Drucker, THE business guru of his time…”

I think many would agree that his time has not yet passed, though unfortunately, his life has.

Posted by: Rob at January 14, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #203330

The best role for a conservative party is that of a minority party helping to keep government excesses in check. The essence of “conservative” as defined in the dictionary is protecting the status quo,taking changes slowly etc. Nothing basically wrong with that except that when major changes are necessary a country must look to progressives to develope those changes.
“Right” and conservative are not the same thing however. The rightwing has collected ,racsist,homophobic miscreants,religous zealots,militarist,the selfish,the less cerebral etc. I actually have some confidence that because of the recent electoral changes their brighter lights will see to it that they shed some of this baggage and return to the compassionate realism of Eisenhaur.One can hope.

Posted by: BillS at January 15, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #203335

You are correct there was a liberal-conservative consenes to fight communism.
We have a very different world view. I would submit that ALL wars are economic. As too morality of the Vietnam war please refer to the Pentagon Papers. Our major objective was to prevent democracy and maintain colonialism. You may believe that was a moral stance. I do not.As to a Communist Vietnam being a threat to our security I would point out that they are communist and Australia has not fallen nor are the Chinese marching four abreast on Santa Monica. Nike makes shos there. Had we not gone to war Nike would make shoes there. What a waste.

Posted by: BillS at January 15, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #203482


The Democrats’ new promise: “A New Direction For America”

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America’s 401K’s are back. A new direction from there means, what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Oil prices are going down. A new direction from there means, what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means, what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means, what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means. what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means, what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means, what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new direction from there means, what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he’s alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda’s top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means, what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of
the 9/11/01 attacks. A new direction from there means, what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made “ground zero” for the war on terrorism — and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means, what?

Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:

The economy to go South
Illegals to go North
Taxes to go Up
Employment to go Down
Terrorism to come In
Tax breaks to go Out
Social Security to go Away
Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone
But what the heck!

I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive National Security
Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay
Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six
Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan.

I forgot the No More Katrina Storm Plan.

Now I know why I feel good after the elections. I am going to be able to sleep so much better at nights knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of me and my welfare.

Posted by: Veritatis at January 16, 2007 12:07 AM
Post a comment