http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd3991ac-e770-11df-b5b4-00144feab49a.html
California bucks national political trend
Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles
November 3 2010
California lived up to its reputation for bucking national political trends when its voters rejected Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, two former Silicon Valley chief executives who broke campaign spending records, halting Republican gains that had swept across the rest of the US.
Ms Whitman, former chief executive of Ebay, spent more than $140m of her own money and $160m in total on her campaign to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of the most populous state. Yet she lost to Jerry Brown, her Democratic opponent.
Ms Whitman’s record-breaking sum outstripped the $109m spent by Michael Bloomberg in his 2009 campaign to be re-elected mayor of New York. She failed to strike a chord with voters despite blanket television commercials that characterised Mr Brown as a weak-willed union stooge unwilling to take the “tough decisions” needed to put California back on track.
“We’ve come up a little short,” she told supporters in her concession speech. “But certainly not for lack of hard work, determination and a clear vision for making our state better.”
Ms Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, did not spend as much as Ms Whitman yet poured millions of dollars of her own money into her campaign to unseat Barbara Boxer in the Senate race. Yet she was unable to prevent voters backing Ms Boxer in what was an 11th consecutive election win for the Democratic senator.
Ms Fiorina “walks in that far right lane”, Ms Boxer told supporters this week. “And that is not where the majority of Californians walk.”
For Mr Brown, victory is the latest chapter in an extraordinary political career that will return him to a position he has held twice before. Mr Brown, who earned the sobriquet “Governor Moonbeam” for his liberal views, was California’s youngest governor when he was first elected in 1975, following in the footsteps of his father, Edmund “Pat” Brown.
At 74, Mr Brown is now the oldest governor the state has ever had. “I want everyone in California to know we might, and we will, have tough times, but if we all pull together . . . tell it like it is, and level with you, we can meet the challenges ahead,” he told his supporters in an e-mail.
Mr Brown spent only a fraction of the Whitman campaign. But he is a wily campaigner: his ratings surged on last month’s news Ms Whitman had employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years.
In beating Ms Whitman he seems to have avoided the anti-establishment mood that drove Democrats from office elsewhere in the US.
This may be because of his quirky personality and willingness to speak his mind. When asked during the campaign whether he would devote his attention to the job if elected, he said: “At 74, I’m ready. I now have a wife, I come home at night and I don’t try to close down all the bars in Sacramento like I used to when I was last governor of California.”
Showing posts with label Barbara Boxer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbara Boxer. Show all posts
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
WSJ: Pot is Saving Brown and Boxer
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/06/wsj-pot-is-saving-brown-and-boxer
WSJ: Pot is Saving Brown and Boxer
Jane Hamsher
Wednesday October 6, 2010
One of the first stories Peter Wallsten broke at the Wall Street Journal was Rahm Emanuel’s “f%#king r%!*ards” crack, which earned him both a Sarah Palin Facebook post and one of the best Saturday Night Live sketches of all times.
Today he picks up on the work Jon Walker has been doing on Prop 19, and the impact it is having on young voter turnout in California:
Surveys by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling suggest California voters under 30 years old are more likely to vote this year than their counterparts in other states. People in that age group make up 11% of California voters likely to turn out in November—compared with 8% of the likely electorate or less in Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan, all of which have competitive statewide elections. In the last midterms, in 2006, voters under 30 were 6.5% of the California electorate, according to data compiled for the non-partisan Field Poll.
Tom Jensen, polling director for PPP, said the results suggest the marijuana initiative is driving voter interest among those under 30. He said the interest may be boosting Democratic candidates, particularly Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), who has built a lead over GOP challenger Carly Fiorina recently.
The trend was identified in recent days by Jon Walker, an analyst at the liberal blog Fire Dog Lake, which has been pushing for marijuana legalization. Mr. Walker wrote that “the evidence is strong” that Proposition 19, not California Democratic candidates, was mobilizing young voters.
Democratic pollster Andrew Myers found in a December 2009 survey in Colorado that 45% of Obama “surge voters”—people voting for the first time in 2008—said they would be more interested in turning out again if marijuana legalization were on the ballot. “If you are 18 to 29, it’s far and away the most compelling reason to go out and vote,” Mr. Myers said.
Blair Butterworth, a Democratic consultant in Washington state who works with legalization advocates, estimated a pot ballot measure could drive up youth turnout by two to four percentage points—enough to influence a tight race. “It’s not like a home run. But with elections being so close these days, it’s a big difference,” he said.
The PPP poll found that people age 18-29 favor Democrats over Republicans on the generic ballot by a margin of 62% to 18%. It’s ironic that both Boxer and Brown will benefit from higher youth turnout for Prop 19, considering the fact that both have come out against the measure, and Diane Feinstein is demagoguing pot brownies as the co-chair of the No on 19 campaign.
But on November 3, if people on both sides of the aisle see that young voters will turn out for weed, the issue has the ability to seriously impact the 2012 political landscape. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has been barnstorming marijuana festivals across the country with an emphatic pro-legalization message, and most think he will announce his presidential candidacy for 2012 soon.
As Chris Good says in the Atlantic, this could pose problems for Barack Obama. Nine former DEA chiefs recently demanded that he oppose Prop 19 if it passes:
One can... envision a coalition of younger and marginalized voters being disappointed in Obama if Prop. 19 passes and he decides to sue. Call them the Shepard Fairey coalition. In 2008, Obama was cool among this crowd; if he attacks Prop. 19, a lot of that mojo will disappear. Being seen as a buzzkill never helped any politician among young and disaffected voters, much less Obama, who rode their support to victory.
Obama is already losing support among Hispanics over the failure to bring up immigration reform. He can’t lose the youth vote too.
Forget about the Tea Party — 2012 could be all about the Pot Party.
WSJ: Pot is Saving Brown and Boxer
Jane Hamsher
Wednesday October 6, 2010
One of the first stories Peter Wallsten broke at the Wall Street Journal was Rahm Emanuel’s “f%#king r%!*ards” crack, which earned him both a Sarah Palin Facebook post and one of the best Saturday Night Live sketches of all times.
Today he picks up on the work Jon Walker has been doing on Prop 19, and the impact it is having on young voter turnout in California:
Surveys by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling suggest California voters under 30 years old are more likely to vote this year than their counterparts in other states. People in that age group make up 11% of California voters likely to turn out in November—compared with 8% of the likely electorate or less in Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan, all of which have competitive statewide elections. In the last midterms, in 2006, voters under 30 were 6.5% of the California electorate, according to data compiled for the non-partisan Field Poll.
Tom Jensen, polling director for PPP, said the results suggest the marijuana initiative is driving voter interest among those under 30. He said the interest may be boosting Democratic candidates, particularly Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), who has built a lead over GOP challenger Carly Fiorina recently.
The trend was identified in recent days by Jon Walker, an analyst at the liberal blog Fire Dog Lake, which has been pushing for marijuana legalization. Mr. Walker wrote that “the evidence is strong” that Proposition 19, not California Democratic candidates, was mobilizing young voters.
Democratic pollster Andrew Myers found in a December 2009 survey in Colorado that 45% of Obama “surge voters”—people voting for the first time in 2008—said they would be more interested in turning out again if marijuana legalization were on the ballot. “If you are 18 to 29, it’s far and away the most compelling reason to go out and vote,” Mr. Myers said.
Blair Butterworth, a Democratic consultant in Washington state who works with legalization advocates, estimated a pot ballot measure could drive up youth turnout by two to four percentage points—enough to influence a tight race. “It’s not like a home run. But with elections being so close these days, it’s a big difference,” he said.
The PPP poll found that people age 18-29 favor Democrats over Republicans on the generic ballot by a margin of 62% to 18%. It’s ironic that both Boxer and Brown will benefit from higher youth turnout for Prop 19, considering the fact that both have come out against the measure, and Diane Feinstein is demagoguing pot brownies as the co-chair of the No on 19 campaign.
But on November 3, if people on both sides of the aisle see that young voters will turn out for weed, the issue has the ability to seriously impact the 2012 political landscape. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has been barnstorming marijuana festivals across the country with an emphatic pro-legalization message, and most think he will announce his presidential candidacy for 2012 soon.
As Chris Good says in the Atlantic, this could pose problems for Barack Obama. Nine former DEA chiefs recently demanded that he oppose Prop 19 if it passes:
One can... envision a coalition of younger and marginalized voters being disappointed in Obama if Prop. 19 passes and he decides to sue. Call them the Shepard Fairey coalition. In 2008, Obama was cool among this crowd; if he attacks Prop. 19, a lot of that mojo will disappear. Being seen as a buzzkill never helped any politician among young and disaffected voters, much less Obama, who rode their support to victory.
Obama is already losing support among Hispanics over the failure to bring up immigration reform. He can’t lose the youth vote too.
Forget about the Tea Party — 2012 could be all about the Pot Party.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Moonbeam is Back!
http://www.observer.com/2007/moonbeam-back
Moonbeam is Back!
by Steve Kornacki
Published: August 23, 2007
Tags: Politics, The City, Jerry Brown
If you like comeback stories, then you’ll love this one. It seems that 69-year-old Jerry Brown – the former two-term California Governor, two-term Oakland mayor, California state Democratic Party chairman, three-time failed presidential candidate, unsuccessful 1982 U.S. Senate candidate, and current state Attorney General – is eyeing another run for Governor in 2010.
This according to the Sacramento Bee, which interviewed Brown on Wednesday.
And, early as it is, he’s probably the front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will be term-limited out in ’10 (when he may challenge Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer): A March poll showed Brown, who was elected AG last fall, topping a crowded Democratic field with 31 percent – not entirely surprising, given his name recognition and the positive press he’s received over the last decade.
Brown, the son of two-term California Governor Pat Brown, has reinvented himself countless times in a fascinating political odyssey that spans four decades. He has repeatedly pursued the presidency, but in unorthodox ways, and his standing – in California and nationally – has risen and fallen dramatically over the years.
For veteran Brown-watchers, it’s not exactly a surprise that after his elevation to A.G. last fall – his first statewide win in California since 1978 – he’d reach for the governorship again. The question is whether he might be laying the groundwork for another, even more improbable White House run down the line. Ken Khachigian, a longtime G.O.P. consultant, predicted to the Bee that "If he ran for governor in 2010 and won, he'd start running for president in 2011.”
He may be long in the tooth, but a look at Brown’s career suggests he may have another national campaign in him.
He claimed the governorship for the first time in 1974, succeeding Ronald Reagan at the age of 36. Almost immediately, he set out to run for President, entering – and winning – a string of late spring primaries in 1976 in an effort to stake a claim at a brokered Democratic convention that never came (Jimmy Carter won a first ballot victory). He was re-elected Governor in 1978 and tried for the presidency again in 1980 – this time with a dour, almost apocalyptic message that failed to resonate. He left the governorship in 1982 – pursuing an unsuccessful Senate bid that year – and then spent the rest of the 1980s in exile, working with Mother Theresa for a stint. He returned to politics in 1989 as California’s Democratic chairman, but left that job after a year, swearing off big money. After flirting with a Senate bid in 1992, he instead decided to run – again – for President, this time refusing to accept donations greater than $100 and flogging, in every public appearance, a 1-800 number for contributions.
New Yorkers may remember the climactic showdown of that campaign. In late March – a week after Paul Tsongas had left the race, supposedly clearing the field for Bill Clinton – Brown pulled a stunning upset in the Connecticut primary, knocking off Clinton by one point. That set the stage for a do-or-die battle in New York, with national Democrats prepared to pull the plug on Clinton – who, as you may recall, was dogged by character questions – if he lost. Brown poured his heart into the New York campaign, tossing copies of the federal tax code into trash cans at rallies (a 13 percent flat income tax was his pet issue in ’92) and bashing Bill and Hillary at every stop. But on primary day, Clinton prevailed – and the nomination was essentially his.
After that loss, Brown disappeared from public view again. He moved to Oakland and in 1998 won the mayoralty there, convincing voters to switch to a “strong mayor” model in the process. His reforms – particularly in education -- won him newfound mainstream respect and paved the way for his A.G. bid last year.
Now he’s using the powerful A.G.’s post to pursue a crusade against global warming, the perfect way to rack up headlines that should provide a seamless segue to a gubernatorial bid three years from now. It doesn’t matter if a Democrat wins the White House next year. If 2012 rolls around and Governor Jerry Brown wants to run, he’ll have a reason.
Moonbeam is Back!
by Steve Kornacki
Published: August 23, 2007
Tags: Politics, The City, Jerry Brown
If you like comeback stories, then you’ll love this one. It seems that 69-year-old Jerry Brown – the former two-term California Governor, two-term Oakland mayor, California state Democratic Party chairman, three-time failed presidential candidate, unsuccessful 1982 U.S. Senate candidate, and current state Attorney General – is eyeing another run for Governor in 2010.
This according to the Sacramento Bee, which interviewed Brown on Wednesday.
And, early as it is, he’s probably the front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will be term-limited out in ’10 (when he may challenge Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer): A March poll showed Brown, who was elected AG last fall, topping a crowded Democratic field with 31 percent – not entirely surprising, given his name recognition and the positive press he’s received over the last decade.
Brown, the son of two-term California Governor Pat Brown, has reinvented himself countless times in a fascinating political odyssey that spans four decades. He has repeatedly pursued the presidency, but in unorthodox ways, and his standing – in California and nationally – has risen and fallen dramatically over the years.
For veteran Brown-watchers, it’s not exactly a surprise that after his elevation to A.G. last fall – his first statewide win in California since 1978 – he’d reach for the governorship again. The question is whether he might be laying the groundwork for another, even more improbable White House run down the line. Ken Khachigian, a longtime G.O.P. consultant, predicted to the Bee that "If he ran for governor in 2010 and won, he'd start running for president in 2011.”
He may be long in the tooth, but a look at Brown’s career suggests he may have another national campaign in him.
He claimed the governorship for the first time in 1974, succeeding Ronald Reagan at the age of 36. Almost immediately, he set out to run for President, entering – and winning – a string of late spring primaries in 1976 in an effort to stake a claim at a brokered Democratic convention that never came (Jimmy Carter won a first ballot victory). He was re-elected Governor in 1978 and tried for the presidency again in 1980 – this time with a dour, almost apocalyptic message that failed to resonate. He left the governorship in 1982 – pursuing an unsuccessful Senate bid that year – and then spent the rest of the 1980s in exile, working with Mother Theresa for a stint. He returned to politics in 1989 as California’s Democratic chairman, but left that job after a year, swearing off big money. After flirting with a Senate bid in 1992, he instead decided to run – again – for President, this time refusing to accept donations greater than $100 and flogging, in every public appearance, a 1-800 number for contributions.
New Yorkers may remember the climactic showdown of that campaign. In late March – a week after Paul Tsongas had left the race, supposedly clearing the field for Bill Clinton – Brown pulled a stunning upset in the Connecticut primary, knocking off Clinton by one point. That set the stage for a do-or-die battle in New York, with national Democrats prepared to pull the plug on Clinton – who, as you may recall, was dogged by character questions – if he lost. Brown poured his heart into the New York campaign, tossing copies of the federal tax code into trash cans at rallies (a 13 percent flat income tax was his pet issue in ’92) and bashing Bill and Hillary at every stop. But on primary day, Clinton prevailed – and the nomination was essentially his.
After that loss, Brown disappeared from public view again. He moved to Oakland and in 1998 won the mayoralty there, convincing voters to switch to a “strong mayor” model in the process. His reforms – particularly in education -- won him newfound mainstream respect and paved the way for his A.G. bid last year.
Now he’s using the powerful A.G.’s post to pursue a crusade against global warming, the perfect way to rack up headlines that should provide a seamless segue to a gubernatorial bid three years from now. It doesn’t matter if a Democrat wins the White House next year. If 2012 rolls around and Governor Jerry Brown wants to run, he’ll have a reason.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Impeachment Countdown
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1151
Impeachment Countdown: Are Bush and Cheney Starting to Lose Sleep?
Thu, 07/12/2007
by Dave Lindorff
Now it's Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The junior senator from California on Wednesday stated publicly on national radio (the Ed Schultz Show) that in her view, impeachment of the president should be "on the table."
The reference, of course, was a pointed dig at Boxer's San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who over a year ago announced that if Democrats were to regain control of the House, impeachment would not even be considered. It would, she famously vowed, be "off the table."
Of course, since Pelosi made that shameful declaration, brushing aside Bush's already committed crimes against the Constitution, it has become clear that this president has been refusing to enact dozens, perhaps hundreds, of laws duly passed by the Congress, and that he has ignored the clear will of the people to have the disastrous Iraq War brought to a quick, merciful end. As well, proof has mounted of presidential and vice presidential lying to put the country at war with Iraq. More recently, the vice president pushed for, and the president decided on, a commutation of I. "Scooter" Libby's sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice. Beyond that, news has come of a string of political firings of U.S. Attorneys, primarily because they had not acceded to the filing of harassing election fraud lawsuits designed to help keep Democrats away from the polls.
In short, evidence of outrageous administration lawlessness and abuse of power has been piling up for a year since Pelosi's statement, and during her 6-month stint as Speaker, during which time she has continued not just to block impeachment bills in Congress, but to work hard behind the scenes to undermine a growing grassroots impeachment movement.
Sen. Boxer's bold statement puts impeachment front and center inside the Beltway, and in the national media. It adds new weight to the bill calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed in the House on April 24, and which now has 14 additional co-sponsors.
We're not there yet, but thanks to a growing grassroots campaign, impeachment is being forced into public and Congressional consciousness. It is reaching a point where even the most cowardly or complicit news editors will not be able to push it aside, black it out, or deride it as a "fringe" thing.
We're getting to a point where the powerful in Congress, and the pundits and opinion makers in the media, are going to have to acknowledge that impeachment is being demanded by the public, and that it is appropriate to the crimes that are being perpetrated by the White House.
Speaker Pelosi's position is becoming less and less tenable, and is looking more and more shrill and even ridiculous.
How, after all, can the leader of the House say that impeachment is inappropriate when the president is thumbing his nose at Congress every time they send him a bill! She and the rest of the members of Congress are well aware that if Bush doesn't like a bill, he will just sign it and then refuse to enact it, making a joke of the whole legislative process.
How many other institutions can you think of where the members of that institution have stood idly by, hands in pockets, while their power and authority was trampled? Even on the grounds of simple ego, you would think Congress would rise up as one to put an end to such a travesty, and yet not one bill has been submitted calling for the president's impeachment.
Even Kucinich's bill is limited to the vice president, and to issues of war and peace, and it says nothing about abuse of power -- the really serious crime of this administration.
No wonder support for the Democratic Congress has tanked, falling to 23 percent in the latest poll on the subject. No wonder Pelosi herself has seen her popularity in California plunge to 39 percent. No wonder she's being threatened by peace activist and Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan with a challenge for her seat in 2008.
But with each new member of the House who signs on to Kucinich's H Res 333 (the latest is California Democratic Rep. Sam Farr), and with each new senator who joins Barbara Boxer in standing up and calling for impeachment, it becomes easier for the next ones to follow.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have had pretty much a free ride for 6 years, and have probably shared plenty of laughs at the Democratic "opposition" over the last six years as they steamrollered both them and the Constitution. But suddenly, things are turning around, and as is often the case in politics, they are turning quickly.
My guess is that Bush and Cheney are starting to lose sleep, wondering if they may end up facing impeachment after all. I suspect Pelosi is starting to lose sleep too, wondering if she needs to rethink her menu.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
DAVE LINDORFF, a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist, is author, most recently, of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now in paperback), co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. Lindorff's work can be found at thiscantbehappening.net.
Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution Dave Lindorff impeachment Barbara Boxer MSM Dick Cheney Dennis Kucinich Nancy Pelosi
Impeachment Countdown: Are Bush and Cheney Starting to Lose Sleep?
Thu, 07/12/2007
by Dave Lindorff
Now it's Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The junior senator from California on Wednesday stated publicly on national radio (the Ed Schultz Show) that in her view, impeachment of the president should be "on the table."
The reference, of course, was a pointed dig at Boxer's San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who over a year ago announced that if Democrats were to regain control of the House, impeachment would not even be considered. It would, she famously vowed, be "off the table."
Of course, since Pelosi made that shameful declaration, brushing aside Bush's already committed crimes against the Constitution, it has become clear that this president has been refusing to enact dozens, perhaps hundreds, of laws duly passed by the Congress, and that he has ignored the clear will of the people to have the disastrous Iraq War brought to a quick, merciful end. As well, proof has mounted of presidential and vice presidential lying to put the country at war with Iraq. More recently, the vice president pushed for, and the president decided on, a commutation of I. "Scooter" Libby's sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice. Beyond that, news has come of a string of political firings of U.S. Attorneys, primarily because they had not acceded to the filing of harassing election fraud lawsuits designed to help keep Democrats away from the polls.
In short, evidence of outrageous administration lawlessness and abuse of power has been piling up for a year since Pelosi's statement, and during her 6-month stint as Speaker, during which time she has continued not just to block impeachment bills in Congress, but to work hard behind the scenes to undermine a growing grassroots impeachment movement.
Sen. Boxer's bold statement puts impeachment front and center inside the Beltway, and in the national media. It adds new weight to the bill calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed in the House on April 24, and which now has 14 additional co-sponsors.
We're not there yet, but thanks to a growing grassroots campaign, impeachment is being forced into public and Congressional consciousness. It is reaching a point where even the most cowardly or complicit news editors will not be able to push it aside, black it out, or deride it as a "fringe" thing.
We're getting to a point where the powerful in Congress, and the pundits and opinion makers in the media, are going to have to acknowledge that impeachment is being demanded by the public, and that it is appropriate to the crimes that are being perpetrated by the White House.
Speaker Pelosi's position is becoming less and less tenable, and is looking more and more shrill and even ridiculous.
How, after all, can the leader of the House say that impeachment is inappropriate when the president is thumbing his nose at Congress every time they send him a bill! She and the rest of the members of Congress are well aware that if Bush doesn't like a bill, he will just sign it and then refuse to enact it, making a joke of the whole legislative process.
How many other institutions can you think of where the members of that institution have stood idly by, hands in pockets, while their power and authority was trampled? Even on the grounds of simple ego, you would think Congress would rise up as one to put an end to such a travesty, and yet not one bill has been submitted calling for the president's impeachment.
Even Kucinich's bill is limited to the vice president, and to issues of war and peace, and it says nothing about abuse of power -- the really serious crime of this administration.
No wonder support for the Democratic Congress has tanked, falling to 23 percent in the latest poll on the subject. No wonder Pelosi herself has seen her popularity in California plunge to 39 percent. No wonder she's being threatened by peace activist and Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan with a challenge for her seat in 2008.
But with each new member of the House who signs on to Kucinich's H Res 333 (the latest is California Democratic Rep. Sam Farr), and with each new senator who joins Barbara Boxer in standing up and calling for impeachment, it becomes easier for the next ones to follow.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have had pretty much a free ride for 6 years, and have probably shared plenty of laughs at the Democratic "opposition" over the last six years as they steamrollered both them and the Constitution. But suddenly, things are turning around, and as is often the case in politics, they are turning quickly.
My guess is that Bush and Cheney are starting to lose sleep, wondering if they may end up facing impeachment after all. I suspect Pelosi is starting to lose sleep too, wondering if she needs to rethink her menu.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
DAVE LINDORFF, a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist, is author, most recently, of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now in paperback), co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. Lindorff's work can be found at thiscantbehappening.net.
Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution Dave Lindorff impeachment Barbara Boxer MSM Dick Cheney Dennis Kucinich Nancy Pelosi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
