Tag Archives: Deaniacs

Sanders surges while naysayers blather

Bernie Sanders

A supporter holds a sign during a rally for democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Monday, Aug. 10, 2015, at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu)

Los Angeles Times and Associated Press photos

Presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders is doing quite well, bringing in massive crowds, polling well, and recently having been endorsed by the nation’s largest nurses’ union, yet some still persist with the worn-out “wisdom” that he can’t win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination and/or that if he does, he can’t win the White House. (Perhaps especially if billionaire jackass Donald Trump does run as an independent, Ross-Perot style, Sanders can win the White House.) Sanders supporters are shown above at a gathering for him at a sports arena in Los Angeles on Monday.

Bernie Sanders is surging.

For the first time, a poll has him beating Billary Clinton in the critical state of New Hampshire beyond the margin of error, and New Hampshire is a purple state, only leaning Democratic a bit. So much for the “democratic socialism” thing being an insurmountable barrier.

Indeed, the conventional “wisdom” about Sanders being unable to win within our rigged political system is bullshit. While the corporately owned and controlled pundits continue to announce that he can’t do it, Bernie just keeps chugging along, doing it.

And as to Sanders’ electability, that should be up to those who actually cast ballots and participate in the caucuses beginning in February, not to the mediocre, soulless pundits whose paychecks depend upon their continuing to act as propagandistic guardians of the status quo.

Among other things, Sanders’ crowds just keep getting bigger and bigger. Again, Billary Clinton has yet to reach a crowd of 6K – and that was at her kick-off in New York – but within the past week, Sanders hit around 28K in both Portland, Oregon, and in Los Angeles.

I agree with this commentator’s view that it’s the Internet and social media that are behind Sanders’ surge. We, the sociopolitically disgruntled, are bypassing the gatekeepers of the corporately owned and controlled “news” media and are communicating to each other – by the millions. This explains why Bernie is actually doing what the corporate-whore mouthpieces are saying he can’t do.

I do credit much of the groundswell of support for Bernie to his fellow Vermonter Howard Dean, who pioneered the use of the Internet and social media to propel political candidates. Unfortunately for Dean, the wave that he created wasn’t large enough to propel him into the White House, but the disappointing, mostly milquetoast Barack Obama, by ubiquitously promising “hope” and “change,” certainly rode the wave that Dean created right on into the Oval Office.

But the Deaniacs never went away, and many if not most of those of us who weren’t with them at the time (myself included; in 2003 I supported John Kerry early on and I kept on supporting him all the way to the November 2004 presidential election) are with them now.

And because Obama punk’d us by apparently only pretending to be a progressive doesn’t mean that the values and desires of those of us on the left just went away. No, they just went latent, and Sanders has reawakened them.

Billary doesn’t excite a majority of Democrats because even the dullest Democrats and Democrats in name only recognize that Billary represents (at best) only more of the same. Only 35 percent of the Democrats in the New Hampshire poll that puts Bernie ahead of her said that they are “excited” about Billary, and I surmise that a sizeable chunk of those poll respondents were lying (or perhaps kidding themselves).

Vice President Joe Biden also apparently represents only more of the same to Democratic primary voters; he came in at third place in the New Hampshire poll, with 9 percent (to Sanders’ 44 percent and Billary’s 37 percent).

Bernie not only is drawing the massive crowds and is polling better than anyone had thought he would (perhaps even himself), but he also is proving himself amply able to adapt quickly to the demands of the campaign.

He has hired Symone Sanders (no relation to him), a black woman who has been a blacks-rights activist, as his press secretary – a hire that was in the works before “Black Lives Matters” idiots selfishly and aggressively refused to allow him to speak this past weekend at a scheduled event on the topics of Social Security and Medicare in Seattle.

Some would call the hiring of Symone Sanders pandering, but those very same people would criticize Sanders if he didn’t have any black American on his campaign staff, so with those people – who are haters and malcontents – Sanders can’t win anyway (usually because he’s white, because he’s not of the “right” race).

We progressives need to ignore these haters and malcontents (many if not most of whom, ironically, are much more racist than they accuse others of being); we progressives have a presidential election to win, and we cannot afford to waste our time and energy on these dead-enders.

Sanders also recently released his platform on racial justice, which also apparently was in the works before the “Black Lives Matter” morons commandeered his first of two appearances in Seattle this past weekend.

This isn’t pandering, either (and again, if he didn’t have it in his platform, he’d be criticized for not having it in his platform); this is responding to the demands of the campaign, and this demonstrates (or at least strongly indicates) that as president, Sanders would respond effectively to the demands of the nation’s highest elected office, which includes serving the interests of many different groups of people.

Bernie Sanders, to our knowledge, is heterosexual, but as a gay man, I have full confidence that as president he would represent the interests of and would fight for the rights of us non-heterosexual and non-gender-conforming individuals.

Why some apparently can’t imagine that Sanders would have their backs even if he’s not within their particular demographic eludes me. (Well, not really: it’s the result of an utter lack of sociological imagination and of empathy and it’s the result of of toxic identity politics, including misandry posing as feminism and anti-white racism posing as racial justice.)

Bernie Sanders could, I suppose, ultimately flame out, but because he has called himself a democratic socialist and because his fellow Vermonter Howard Dean flamed out doesn’t mean that Sanders will.

Nor is Sanders destined to be another George McGovern, the late darling of the left who, like Bernie Sanders is, was a U.S. representative and then a U.S. senator, and who then went on to lose the 1972 presidential election to Richard M. Nixon in a landslide. (Yes, the American voters sure got that one right, didn’t they?) That was then; this is now.

Little in politics is certain, but something that is fairly certain is that we progressives can’t win with Sanders if we don’t give it a serious effort.

The corporately owned and controlled pundit-whores and their conventional, “Surrender,-Dorothy!-And-crown-Billary-already!” “wisdom” don’t dissuade me from doing what I can do to ensure that the most progressive candidate (regardless of his or her demographics) emerges as the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential candidate.

That candidate, hands down, is Bernie Sanders.

He isn’t concerned about the naysayers, and the rest of us shouldn’t be, either.

He is rolling up his sleeves and getting to work.

So should we.

P.S. E-mailgate is getting even worse for Billary Clinton. Apparently, “top-secret” information was exchanged via Billary’s home-brewed e-mail server when she was secretary of state. See this and this.

As much as some bash Bernie, I can’t see Billary going into the November 2016 presidential election from a position of strength. If the Democrats stupidly make her their nominee, she’ll be a considerably tarnished and weakened general-election candidate at best.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cry of the Clintonistas: ‘Surrender, Dorothy!’

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dean for 2016!

Des Moines Register photo

Howard Dean, photographed at a speaking engagement in Iowa today, today reportedly refused to rule out a run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Disclaimer: I did not support Howard Dean’s 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And in 2003 and 2004 I found the “Deaniacs” to be, well, more creepily cult-like than to be inspiring.

When Dean imploded in the snows of Iowa in January 2004 — when he came in at No. 3, behind John Kerry and John Edwards, after the Deaniacs already had painted Dean as all but coronated as the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate — I was pleased, I must admit.

Dean had had his hordes of zombie-like followers converging upon and canvassing all over Iowa in their tacky orange knit hats (their no-doubt-annoying-to-Iowans ubiquity probably harmed Dean a lot more than it helped him, I surmised then and still surmise today), and Dean’s followers struck me as pretty fucking smug, and so it was great to see Team Dean knocked down some pegs.

The “Dean scream” thing, I can say at least in retrospect, was overblown and probably unfair, but at the time I didn’t care, truth be told; I just wanted Dean knocked out of the race, and if that was what it took, so be it.

But don’t get me wrong. I didn’t necessarily feel in 2004 that Howard Dean never should be the Democratic presidential candidate. I just didn’t believe — and still don’t believe — that he was the best Democratic presidential candidate for 2004, when the goal was to boot the unelected George W. Bush from the White House, and when the post-9/11 “war on terror” and militarism still were big (or big-enough, anyway) issues.

I couldn’t see the peacenik Dean (that was the perception of him, anyway) beating the chickenhawk Bush, who quite effectively had used the specter of “terrorism” for political gain, who had milked the fall of the World Trade Center like Adolf Hitler had milked the Reichstag fire.

I, along with millions of others, desperately wanted to deny Bush a second term, and in my eyes it was Vietnam vet John Kerry (contrasted to the Vietnam War-evading cowards Bush and Cheney) whose resume was best matched to accomplishing that.

I supported Kerry from early on, but I figured that his campaign was dead, or at least on life support, no later than in the late fall of 2003, when it sure looked like he was a goner. Then, like Lazarus, Kerry came back from the dead and kicked Dean’s ass in Iowa, the first contest of the presidential primary season. Kerry’s momentum from Iowa quickly made him the front-runner; Dean dropped out of the primary race after he again placed third, this time in Wisconsin, in February 2004.

That Kerry ultimately lost to Bush does not make me believe, in retrospect, that Dean would have been the better candidate. Bush had the incumbent’s advantage, and while I won’t claim that the Kerry campaign made no missteps, I posit that Kerry did significantly better against Bush than Dean would have.

With Dean, I saw an embarrassing, Walter Mondale- or Michael Dukakis-level loss, frankly. At least with Kerry it was close (251 electoral votes to 286 electoral votes, and 48.3 percent of the popular vote to 50.7 percent).

But the political environment of 2016 is shaping up to be quite different from that of 2004. 9/11 occurred almost 12 years ago, for starters.

Let’s face it: Barack Obama in 2008 fairly simply coasted to the White House on the wave that Howard Dean had created.* Obama, whose only “accomplishment” had been a nice, touchy-feely speech that he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (before he had even been elected to the U.S. Senate), is an opportunist who saw his opportunity and took it.

Although I didn’t support Dean in 2004 primarily for strategic reasons, he’s the right candidate for 2016.

Billary Clinton does not deserve to be coronated (any more than Dean did in 2004), and if Obama gave her a run for her money in 2008 — and he did, obviously (while Dean flamed out after only a month in the presidential primary fight, recall that Obama and Billary duked it out for five looong months) — then I don’t see why Dean couldn’t do so in 2016, especially when Obama in 2008 pretty much had only pretended to be the second coming of Howard Dean.

I would support Dean over Billary for 2016, hands down. I’m more than ready for our first female president, but she would need to be one who is actually progressive, not one who rubber-stamped the unelected Bush regime’s Vietraq War, helped her husband pimp the Democratic Party out to corporate weasels and drag the Democratic Party to right, and who has coasted and capitalized on her husband’s name rather than having actually achieved anything on her own.

Thankfully, there is talk that Howard Dean might be considering a 2016 run. He was in Iowa today (visit Iowa while being a politician, and tongues will wag), and The Des Moines Register reports:

Another presidential campaign is not an immediate goal for Democrat Howard Dean, who came to Iowa today to rake Republicans as either radicals or cowards who are too afraid to stand up to the extreme right.

“At this point, I’m supporting Hillary Clinton,” Dean, a former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate, told The Des Moines Register in a brief interview in Iowa today.

Asked if he’s definitively ruling out a White House bid, Dean climbed into a waiting car and said with a grin, “Ahhgh, we’re done here. Thank you.”

Dean, the founder of a political action committee called Democracy for America, was the keynote speaker at the 57th annual Iowa Federation of Labor Convention at a conference center at Prairie Meadows in Altoona this morning.

Earlier this year, Dean had said he wasn’t ruling out running for president in 2016. He came in third place in the Democratic Iowa caucuses a decade ago, after John Kerry and John Edwards. …

I could support Al Gore for 2016, too, but I haven’t heard that Gore has had any interesting in running for the White House again, and, truth be told, I surmise that Gore is widely viewed as already having lost a presidential election (even though, of course, he actually won it), whereas Dean does not, it seems to me, carry that level of baggage.

And, as I noted, Barack Obama would not be where he is had he not coasted along the path to the White House that Dean already had paved for him. Obama in 2008 undeservedly fairly automatically picked up the energy, the money and the support of the Deaniacs, which propelled him into the Oval Office.

It’s time, it seems to me, for Howard Dean to finally be sitting in the chair in the Oval Office, the chair that Obama fairly effortlessly slipped into but that Dean actually deserves.

*Wikipedia notes of Howard Dean, “Although his [2004] presidential campaign was unsuccessful, Dean is regarded as a pioneer in raising the profile of Internet-based fundraising and grassroots organizing” and: 

Dean formed the [progressive political action committee] Democracy for America [in 2004] and later was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February 2005. As chairman of the [Democratic Party], Dean created and employed the “50-state strategy” that attempted to make Democrats competitive in normally conservative states often dismissed in the past as “solid red.”

The success of the strategy became apparent after the 2006 midterm elections, where Democrats took back the House and picked up seats in the Senate from normally Republican states such as Missouri and Montana. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama used the “50-state strategy” as the backbone of his candidacy.

Wikipedia further notes that although Dean has not held elected office since he wrapped up his chairmanship of the Democratic Party in 2009, “In June 2013, Dean expressed interest in possibly running for the presidency in 2016.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

War on Libya just another of Obama’s broken promises

Obama Clinton Bush two.jpg

AFP photo

Three peas in a pod.

I have yet to write on Barack Obama’s War on Libya. This is because admittedly, I haven’t kept up with what Moammar has been up to these past many years and because I more or less wanted to see how things were going to pan out before making a comment.

But more and more, Barack Obama’s War on Libya seems like a Clintonesque “wag the dog” scenario, in which military action is meant to make Obama look like a bad-ass and/or give him some other political benefit at least as much as it’s meant to do any actual good.

And remember George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing,” a pathetic attempt to give the appearance that his Vietraq War had widespread global support, instead of the support pretty much only of Britain? Obama’s “coalition” against Moammar Ghadafi is almost as pathetic.

And war is always a great distraction, as the treasonous, unelected Bush regime knew fully well, although somehow when a Democratic president wages a war these days, the war doesn’t get very high ratings.

I don’t assert that Ghadafi is a great guy, but I have to agree with pundits’ assertion that Obama violated the U.S. Constitution when he took the U.S. to war (even an apparently minor war) without the approval of Congress. A president may take the nation to war without the approval of Congress only in cases of actual national self-defense. Obama said so himself in a presidential campaign questionnaire put before him by the Boston Globe in 2007 (this via Glenn Greenwald):

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

“As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

“History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

As Libya poses about as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq did before the Bush regime launched its illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War in March 2003, we can only conclude that Barack Obama has reneged on yet another campaign promise.

(Ironically, Obama’s answer to the abovementioned questionnaire’s last item included this gem: “[Every] president takes an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this [the Bush] administration.”)

Of course, this is the very same Barack Obama who also in 2007 promised, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”

Of course, Obama didn’t even send Vice President Joe Biden or another proxy to Battleground Wisconsin, but instead he left what is left of the labor movement (after Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush spent almost three decades dismantling it) on its own. Just like Bill Clinton would have done.

Barack Obama promised “hope” and “change,” at least implicitly promised that he was the next Howard Dean, the anti-Clinton (indeed, he was running against a Clinton in the drawn-out Democratic presidential primary season), but he is, for all intents and purposes, just another fucking Bill Clinton (at best), never missing an opportunity to sell out his base, which includes those of us who are against war except in clear-cut cases of national self-defense (and in limited instances otherwise — and only then with the consent of Congress) and who support the labor movement.

Barack Obama is dead to me, frankly. To me he is a sellout, just another fucking liar in Washington. However, unless he faces a strong challenger for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination, just like it was with Bill Clinton, we most likely will be stuck with Obama — about whom, thus far, the only remarkable thing that history can record is that he was the first black president* — for another four more years.

Because Obama pretended to be another Howard Dean and thus inherited Dean’s base of support — without which Obama never would have made it to the White House — it seems to me that Howard Dean is the best candidate to try to knock Obama off of the presidential ballot in 2012. It seems to me that Dean’s former supporters — and they are legion — would prefer the real Dean to the cheap Dean knock-off that is Barack Obama.

At this point, however, I’ll support even a long shot, such as U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, over Barack Obama, who isn’t getting another fucking penny from me, and certainly never again will he get my vote.

*And by itself, this just isn’t nearly fucking enough.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Book says ‘zombies’ follow voodoo prez

If regular zombies want braaaains!braaaaaains! — then what do “Obama zombies” want?

“Chaaaaange! — chaaaaaaaange!”?*

Today I noted for the first time on amazon.com’s top-100-selling books list this wonderful little title:

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

Hey, at least the wingnuts are starting to get a little creative! All of these wingnut books that make references to the Founding fucking Fathers — who surely intended that we be the right-wing, white supremacist, fascist nation that the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-Quayle want us to be — have grown beyond stale. So now, albeit a little late, the wingnuts have hopped upon the zombie bandwagon.

I love the subtitle of the new wingnut book: “How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation.” (The book, by the way, is endorsed by luminaries Ann Cunter and Michelle Malkin, so I think that you can consider the source…) 

Hmmm. Let’s see. Apparently the “liberal machine” isn’t all that efficient if this member of Generation Y (the author, I mean) somehow wasn’t successfully brainwashed. (I mean, presumably, if his brainwashing were successful, he wouldn’t have written this book. [Presuming that he even actually wrote it…])

Further, I live in California, one of the bluest of the blue states, and I just haven’t seen any “Obama zombies.” I never saw any “Obama zombies.” Of course, I wasn’t looking for any, that’s true; after I put so much time, money and energy into trying to get John Kerry elected in 2004, only to watch Kerry concede even while Ohio was still looking awfully fishy, I decided that I wasn’t going to work nearly as hard for the Democratic Party in 2008.

(And I didn’t — my main goal for 2008 was to make sure that Barack Obama and not Billary Clinton got the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, calculating that Obama is the more liberal of the two and that he had a better shot at beating the Repugnican candidate. Once Obama got his party’s nomination, my donations to him dwindled.)

But if “Obama zombies” were so pervasive as to justify an entire book on the topic, wouldn’t I have spotted at least a few of them? (The person I recall being the most jazzed up about Obama actually is a baby boomer, not a member of Generation Y, the presumed “brainwashed” and “zombified” generation that this book discusses.)

Look, if you want to talk about zombies, the “Deaniacs” — the supporters of Howard Dean’s bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination — were fucking zombies. They even called themselves “Deaniacs.” Proudly.

And I saw them. Everywhere. While attendance at my monthly John Kerry Meetups was low — oh, maybe around a dozen or so people, before he finally won the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination — hundreds of people would attend the local Howard Dean Meetups, I heard. And when Dean lost the nomination, the Deaniacs still wouldn’t let it go, but morphed their organization, Dean for America, into Democracy for America (whose meetings I’ve attended in the past, after Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election).

Now, these were fanatics. If memory serves, thousands of the Deaniacs descended upon the poor state of Iowa, at their own expense, to campaign on Dean’s behalf in that state’s caucuses, the first event of the 2004 Democratic Party presidential primary season, all of them wearing bright orange knit caps.

My guess is that Iowans were not impressed by, but were quite put off by, the sea of orange-headed zombies for Dean, and that that largely if not primarily accounts for why Dean came in at No. 3 in the caucuses, dealing a crushing blow to his campaign, which had wanted all of us to just coronate him already. (Kerry’s campaign had been on life support before he won the Iowa caucuses; in the few months right before he won the Iowa caucuses, I couldn’t even get 10 people to a Kerry Meeup. I tell you, Lazarus had nothing on Kerry.)

I’m sure that there were some fanatics for Obama, but they weren’t nearly as fanatical or as numerous as were the Dean lemmings. And I’m sure that they’re not that fanatic now, now that things haven’t been, as Sarah Palin-Quayle might put it, all that hope-y and change-y.

So this book by this Jason Mattera guy, whoever he is, about left-wing “zombies” is hardly timely. The true zombies were around for Howard Dean, not for Obama, and whatever little bit of zombiism might have existed for Obama faded months ago.

So it’s bullshit to assert that there is this entire “generation” that has been “brainwashed” by Team Obama.

There is a generation of young people for whom (in no certain order) racism, white supremacism, “Christo”fascism, xenophobia, sexism, misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia, militarism, jingoism, American exceptionalism, etc. — the platform of the Repugnican Party, whether it’s spoken or just understood — don’t appeal.

Call them “brainwashed” “zombies” if you like; I call them “enlightened” and “evolved.” They are the nation’s future, while the Repugnican Party now represents only the old dead hand of the past, the stupid white man’s death throes. (Really, a black man in the White House pretty much is the stake in the heart of the racist and white supremacist Repugnican Party and its “tea-partying” allies, is it not?)

As far as goes some national march into the abyss, which the Repugnicans and the “tea party” dipshits keep talking about, I just don’t see that, either.

Socialism? It took Obama more than a year to get health-care reform passed. And what finally got passed needs a lot more improvement.

Our stormtroopers remain in the Middle East, and speaking of our stormtroopers, we are told that letting the gay ones serve without discrimination still needs some “study.”

The economy remains in the shitter more than a year after “socialist” Obama took the reins. It might be status quo lite these days, but it’s still the status quo.

Socialism? If so, it’s creeping at narcoleptic snail’s pace.

The nation was much closer to the abyss when the members of the BushCheneyCorp stole office in 2000, allowed 9/11 to happen, and then, using 9/11 as their Reichstag fire, launched their Vietraq War and went about shitting and pissing all over the Constitution, using their “war on terror” as an excuse for doing what they’d wanted to do all along anyway. Um, we won’t be seeing another Abu Ghraib House of Horrors under Obama, yet it’s Obama whom the wingnuts call dangerous to human rights.

And if we do have zombies among us today, um, they would be members of the “tea party,” not Obama supporters. I don’t see Obama supporters all frenzied up and spewing forth spittle and epithets at Repugnican lawmakers. No, that would be the “tea party” dipshits doing so to Democratic lawmakers.

Indeed, the recent convergence of the “tea party” fucktards on Capitol Hill in an apparent attempt to intimidate lawmakers from voting for health-care reform: That was right out of a zombie movie, with the zombies attacking Capitol Hill.

Liberals are almost never that organized. Getting the “tea party” fascists whipped up and marching in lockstep is about as hard as getting a Repugnican to support a tax cut, but getting liberals to protest is like herding retarded, blind and deaf cats on crack.

If the wingnuts want to view their detractors as “brainwashed” “zombies,” I suppose that’s fine. We progressives see the wingnuts, perhaps especially the “tea party” dipshits, as even more so brainwashed and zombified. Because they are.

What else can you call it when someone fights against what actually would help him or her — like health care taken out of the greedy grubbies of the corporatocrats? Or combatting global warming? Or relative peace instead of perpetual war?

You have to be pretty fucking brainwashed to vote against your own best interests.

And when you start spitting on lawmakers, calling them offensive names and throwing bricks through their office windows, and doing so in mindless unison, you’re acting an awful lot like a zombie.  

Hey, I feel a book coming on…

*Actually, that’s the little joke that I tell about the panhandlers in my neighborhood in Sacramento, whose numbers increased dramatically each year that the unelected, plutocratic BushCheneyCorp was in office, further enriching the already filthy rich and further impoverishing the already impoverished: I likened the panhandlers to zombies, demanding not “braaaaains!” but “chaaaange!”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized