Obama Publicly Favored Lifting Oversight On Teamsters Back In 2004, Campaign Says
The Obama campaign has just sent me a newspaper clipping it says shows that Obama publicly favored lifting Federal oversight over the Teamsters union back in 2004.
The Obama camp argues that this shows that The Wall Street Journal overplayed its story today saying that Obama secured the Teamsters' support this year after privately saying that he favored lifting the oversight, which comes in the form of a Federal consent decree that governs the union.
As I noted below, the Hillary campaign hit Obama today on a conference call over the Journal report, pointing out that Obama on Good Morning America said that he "wouldn't make any blanket commitments" on the issue. Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer demanded that Obama reveal his true position.
A May 10, 2004 report in Crain's Chicago Business (via Nexis) says that Obama took the position of supporting lifting the consent decree when he was running for U.S. Senate that year -- thus winning him the Teamsters' support in the general election.
This doesn't explain Obama's claim today that he wouldn't make "blanket commitments" on the issue, and the Hillary campaign will continue pressing him to clarify his position in light of those comments.
But if Obama won the Teamsters' support four years ago partly due to his 2004 public position of support for lifting oversight, it would seem that there may not be as much news value in the Journal's report today than it would first appear. Or so the Obama campaign is arguing, anyway.
More soon.
Late Update: A reader argues that the Crain's article isn't really conclusive on whether he backed it in 2004. I would point out that the Obama campaign is standing behind that interpretation.
Either way, I've posted the entire article after the jump so you can make up your own minds.
Crain's Chicago BusinessMay 10, 2004, Monday
Ryan crosses party's lines in Teamster pitch
Which guy was the Republican?It might have been hard to tell after both of Illinois' U.S. Senate candidates dropped by to seek the endorsement of the Teamsters Joint Council 25, representing 22 union locals and 100,000 workers, on April 13.
According to a tape recording of the Chicago appearance by Republican Jack Ryan, the Teamsters will have a friend in Washington, D.C., regardless of who wins in November.
Mr. Ryan, a former investment banker, told Teamsters he favors removing a federal consent decree that governs the union, growing out of a 1989 settlement of racketeering charges. ''We've got to remove this consent decree that oversees your union,'' Mr. Ryan said. ''In Iraq after a year-and-a-half-and I support this idea-we should turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis. After 15 years, can't we turn the Teamsters back to the Teamsters?''
On April 29, the Teamsters top internal investigator, former federal prosecutor Edwin Stier, quit, complaining his work was being stymied by union leadership. And he specifically noted resistance within the Chicago Teamsters to his investigations. Chicago Teamsters deny wrongdoing.
Mr. Ryan also told Teamsters he opposes so-called right-to-work laws that undermine union workers. And he wants tougher enforcement of international trade agreements to protect American labor, music to Teamsters' ears.
Alas, Mr. Ryan's opponent, Democrat Barack Obama-who agrees with Mr. Ryan on those issues, and leads in public opinion polls-got the endorsement.
And Mr. Ryan was left with some more-traditional Republican supporters scratching their heads. ''He might have chosen his words more carefully,'' says Gregory Baise, president of the Illinois Manufacturers' Assn. The consent decree ''is not a particularly good political issue.'' DuPage County GOP chief Kirk Dillard, though, says Republicans have to seek union backing in labor-heavy Illinois. ''It's a savvy move, yet genuine.''
Greg, are you going to include this interesting bit of info from Ben Smith about Hillary Clinton's meeting with the Teamsters? I think in the interest of balance you should.
May 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
as best as I can determine, their positions aren't the same, are they?
May 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Greg, they might not be exactly the same, but Ben Smith certainly thought there was enough of a similarity to post. And did Minjo say they were the same positions? He just said you should include it. You'd make a pretty bad poker player - your "tell" is really obvious.
And why are you making that decision for all of us? Why not just post it and let us come to our own conclusions? Really, what's up?
May 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is correct that they are not the exact same, however, her statement should be included so the readers can make up their own minds. If she's hitting him so 'hard' on this, it bears to mind that her statements should also be held to scrutiny.
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that your sly way of reminding us she is a pathological liar?
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, one could make that assumption, but I was going more for "Flip-flopping panderer" myself.
May 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are too kind.
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I'm a latte-sipping, arugula-eating, elitist, activist liberal woman. Just so you know. :)
May 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, me too! ;)
May 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out here, Greg. What is Hillary's position on this?
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm a little perplexed myself. Is the difference one of degree? Obama thought the consent degree should be lifted, and Clinton says:
So what is the point of the Clinton attack?
May 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't print it, I will.
Hillary to the Canad.., sorry, to the Teamsters.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
May 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is wrong with any of this? Obama made a statement I approve of, and how can he make a commitment if I understand correctly this is a court decision?
May 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, why the heck is any of this a big deal. Hillary and Obama have the same policy (according to the link Minjo supplied) so why is Hillary trying to attack him on this?
Hillary is stooping to the redicules now. What's next, claiming he is unfit to be President because he is left handed?
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
HE'S LEFT HANDED???!!! OHMYGOD!
...does he put on his socks BEFORE his trousers?
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've tried everything else, it is only a matter of time.
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you call them trousers proves you're an elitist.
May 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I don't think she could go there since her own husband is left-handed LOL!! Although, who knows, she's so batshit crazy right now she might try it anyway. ;)
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect consistency or logic from the Clintons. They have shown they are willing to attack Obama for their own sins on many occasions.
May 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's against Lefties, Liberals, NAFTA, Elitists and Money Grubbers. I think Bill is either for or one of all of those things.
May 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a crazy flap to happen the day before the vote -
I can't see how it hurts Obama except with management and I can see very clearly how it could hurt Hillary if she is perceived as anti-union.
May 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
idiotic is MIA, so I'll start:
THIS...
May 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
news for the illiterate who support the Queen of the Clintoids.
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS!!!!
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!!!
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, that was fun!
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!!@#$
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
(for hillary)
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLMENTUM(TM)!!!!
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said he favors it but would not make it happen without investigating it first. That's why there is no "blanket commitment". Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not hard to understand... to anyone who doesn't live in Hillary's butt.
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Darn it I messed it up! hahahaha
May 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's okay, all in good spirit!
May 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will be a lot more "EXCELLENT" news after Tuesday.
May 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
A person registered a Democrat utters statement supporting a labor organization . . . I'm Shocked! Shocked! I tell you.
Shouldn't the REAL news article be that Republican-leaning Hillary Clinton want to SQUELCH labor.
The same platform, the same campaign, the same insanity . . .May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.
These positions are essentially the same and whether it's a "promise" or a "suggestion", both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.
Today Obama reinforces that is his position.
Today Clinton attacks that position.
Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it's another case of what is the meaning of "is".
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Supporting a position isn't the same as being unconditionally committed to it. Duh.
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oil is at $120.
Nice job opposing Clinton's help.
You get what you vote for so don't whine about gas prices. Ever.
May 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice trolling. And cutting the gas tax lowers the oil price traded in commodities markets.....How?
May 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
given hillary's disdain for "experts" maybe gotalife could be her AG. yeah, and the guy who works down at the shell station can be Sec of Energy! And maybe my sort-of slow cousin in PA can be Veep!
May 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you lost, little boy? The oil thread is downstream from here.
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an insufferable little twit.
Hillary wants a gas tax holiday that has zero chances of getting through Congress because it would only help oil companies and it would cost 300,000 jobs.
But Hillary doesn't care, she is just pandering to stupid people like you. Only the truly moronic believe a word she says, especially about the gas tax holiday.
Stop eating lead paint and playing under power lines. And for Gods sake STOP SNIFFING GLUE!
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that thermoglowing Iran will drive DOWN gas prices?
Damn, you live in bizzaro-world . . .
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to say this again, though why I bother I do not know -
Cheap oil does not exist anymore, gotalife.
It's never going down again. Can you understand that? It's supply and demand problem -the simplest problem in economics.
But you are so simple-minded you can barely read and comprehenion? Forget it.
May 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get worked up over Gotalife, just call him an insufferable little twit and move on.
He is probably a dittohead who lives in his mother's basement. He deserves pitty more than anything else.
May 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, ignore him. It'd be the best for everyone, I think. Ignoring trolls is the only sure way to get rid of them. An Obama sweep tomorrow would help, though.
May 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also a macro-economic gas price-spiking booster linking the wacky price of oil to current dollar devaluation against other major currencies, the Euro and Yen. Offering a gas-tax holiday is meaningless.
Bike paths, bus tickets, mass-transit expansion, and domestically produced, inexpensive quality walking shoes are the solution America seeks; IOW decreased demand is the only thing that will affect the price of gas.
May 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to Irrelevancy, population: 1
May 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that 28 bucks that she is going to save us this summer is going to make a real big difference. Oh wait. The oil companies are gonna take half so thats about 14 bucks. My last tank of gas was 40 bucks. So Hillary wants to buy me a litte more than a quarter of a tank of gas? And she is going to shut down the federal highway progarm to do it. So on top of costing all those highway construction jobs all the pot holes on the Highway are going to go unrepaired for the summer so I am probably going to break an axl on 95 this summer anyway. That'll cost about 500 bucks to fix so thanks but no thanks.
May 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, I won't. I made a conscious decision to live close enough to my work to commute by bicycle. On bad weather days I take the bus. After a few years of insufferably high gas prices most people will decide to do the same. The problem will resolve itself if we employ a little common sense. There is no law which obliges folks to live 30-60 minutes from their places of employment and each drive him or herself all the way in a 1 person/car commute. Most folks can live closer to work, or carpool, or take the bus/train and the whole problem will just disappear as quickly as it came. No innovative new technologies required; just a small measure of common sense.
May 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I parked the car in 1996 for the last time. I have saved about $72,000 since.
May 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You stupid gobshite (to quote my ex-husband) - her own HUSBAND was against a gas tax holiday in 2000 (as was she):
Here's the full post -
http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/05/04/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-her-economic-advisor-oh-my/
May 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I vote that you go away, forever.
May 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"More soon."
Translation: Mr. Blumenthol's email hasn't gotten here yet.
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Translation: Mr. Blumenthol's email hasn't gotten here yet"
Thats cold Lamont. lol
May 5, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Lamont! Greg, we're still waiting for the post about Hillary's statements vis-a-vis the Teamsters...
May 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn.
May 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
More excellent news for HRC: This from the LA Times, SD rethinking their support for her, might switch to Obama.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-supers5-2008may05,0,4564727.story?track=rss
May 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truckers say thanks for nothing me generation.
May 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you talk to a lot of truckers as they drive by your chicken farm?
May 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, he just waves at them, like diCaprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
May 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. F**K The construction workesr.
May 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
right, the truckers are the ones who love the federal monitoring best of all! that's why hillary is opposed to lifting the consent decree, except when she's not!
May 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did I tell you about sniffing glue?
Put it down and back away you insufferable little twit.
May 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A well placed comma can make all the difference, gotalife.
May 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an insufferable twit.
(Gosh, I hope I'm first!)
May 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
May 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sneaking "insufferable little twit" into every reply I make to that insufferable little twit.
I don't know, I like the way it sounds. It's far kinder than some of the alternatives. Fuckwit is just such a rude word!
May 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's kinder, yet still very appropriate.
May 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You came up with it, I'm just pushing it out there.
May 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
O but I love "fuckwit"
It's one of my particular fave words -
May 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more Goatshite droppings. Step around them folks.
May 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Wait. The truckers are gonna have to spend more money fixing their broken trucks because of the shoddy state of the highways then they will save in gas so F**k them too.
May 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you think it is all about you, the me generation.
Some folks can use the 30 bucks and the truckers definitely need a break to keep the economy moving.
But is all about you and what you want in the your kool aid infested minds.
Its not about you, it is about 300 million of Americans.
You are tiny minority of kooks who only think about themselves.
May 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
More Goatshite droppings Just step around them folks.
May 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
BROKEN HIGHWAYS MEAN BROKEN TRUCKS! Is it hard to be that stupid?
May 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not coming out of transportation.
Educate yourself before you spew that stupid bs.
BTW, they called McGovern super man too.
May 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its coming out of the highway fund. That is where the gas tax goes. Its the biggest dumbest pander in the history of politics, and Guess what? According to the polls most of the country sees thru it. So I as you again. Is it hard to be that stupid.
May 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are utterly stupid, ignorant and irrelevant. Where do you think the gas tax goes? As Bugs Bunny would say, "what a maroon!"
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_052.mp3
May 5, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Insufferable little twit,
How is it you don't understand that this is not only bad policy, but policy that will never, ever, ever get passed? Do you really think Dubya will sign a bill that has a windfall profit tax on oil companies? No? I don't either. How can it pass if Congress won't even consider it?
Do you know what it is called when politicians promise something they can not deliver? They call it pandering.
In closing let me add one other thing; stop sniffing glue.
Yours Truly,
nisleib
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
INSUFFERABLE LITTLE TWITS FOR HILLARY UNITED President Gotalife has spolen!
So let it be!
May 5, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
as best as I can determine, their positions aren't the same, are they?
Posted by Greg Sargent
May 5, 2008 11:25 AM
Who made you THE DETERMINATOR.
Post what Hillary said, and let people decide for themselves.
May 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Liam - my thoughts exactly. The coverage on this site is getting worse and worse as Hillary's "chances" become more and more hopeless.
May 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Teamsters: Hillary Had Same Position.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
May 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This Obama is a weasel. He campaigns on high-mindedness of transparency and turns around and negotiate deals behind close doors, whether it be on Nafta or the Teamster endorsement. We don't really know what else he has been cooking, as he had said, behind close doors. This is reminiscent of Bush and Cheney. Enough of these wink-wink away from the eyes of the electorate.
May 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not nice to make fun of retarded people, so I'll just note that this "secret" position of Obama's was made public in 2004.
May 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking, no longer a threat, but a reality. She is out of her damn mind! Via Huff Post.
UPDATE | May 5, 11am ET : Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.
In a statement issued in response to a story on The Huffington Post ("Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option," see below), the campaign declared:
"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated."
May 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they will make up their own minds Greg.
The kool aid is very strong in their minds.
With oil at 120, this is our downfall.
Business as usual and doing nothing is not going to work.
Clinton has the solutions and will not be another oil man like oilbama, w and cheney.
May 5, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Goatshite droppings. Just step around them folks.
May 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you just go educate yourself and then we'll see who has the truth on their side and who has "Drunk the Kool-aid?"
May 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone's favorite glue sniffing insufferable little twit has lost his marbles.
May 5, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
heads up Greg, you have an admirer!
May 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC - Dispicable dishonest rule breaking tramp.
May 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the wall-to-wall coverage given Clinton's townhall meeting, one would think it was the most watched program on Sunday. One would be wrong:
Obama/Clinton Sunday TV showdown ... In Indianapolis:
ABC [Hillary] THIS WEEK 1.3 rating/4 share
NBC [Obama] MEET THE PRESS 8.5 rating/21 share
May 5, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder Wee Georgy has had that " O no, I have soiled my diapers" look on his face ever since he got exposed during the last debate.
The boycott of ABC is biting. Do not watch any ABC news programs. We can take down George and Charlie.
May 5, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I watched it. Stephanopolis kicked her ass. It was her worst showing to date, IMO.
May 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama kicked ass on MTP. He took control of the program.
MTP is actually quite enjoyable when Timmy is kept off camera.
May 5, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
reminiscent of Bush and Cheney.
you mean like this?:
We’ve got to get out of this mindset where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans.
The Science Primary is now over Tom levenson via balloon juice
May 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, second paragraph also bush's, i mean hillary's.
May 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't the public bickering of both the democratic candidates' support to unions, become a talking point against them during GE ?
I think Hillary is actively aiding the knee-capping of Obama by providing the hockey sticks to repugs.
May 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love any insult with 'fuck'. It improves my French.
May 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, That was in reply to Tena @12:06.
May 5, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY SAID THE SAME THING TO THE TEAMSTERS.
ONCE A TWO FACED LIAR, ALWAYS A TWO FACED LIAR.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintont_to_Teamsters_Turn_the_page_on_consent_decree.html
I've obtained audio of Clinton's own endorsement meeting with the Teamsters last March 27, above, in which she similarly suggested that the decree should be lifted.
"The world’s longest consent decree?" she said in response to a question, drawing laughter.
I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.
May 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess: It's about that time for the last 24 hours bullshit kitchen sink media barrage from camp Clinton.
Expect more bullshit Clinton talking points crap posted dilligently by the media through out the day.
The MSM obediently jot down the sludge and post it breathlessly, in an effort to dupe last minute voters, with no possibility of factchecking or corrections (a la NAFTA-gate).
Here's clue for TPM and the rest of the media: Next time Wolfson and Ickes tell you about this last minute "news" which you gotta run with, ask them if it were so darned important, why they waited until the 11th hour to bring it up. There outta be a law, like in the general, about a bombshell blackout 72 hours prior to a primary
This horseshit from Clinton before every single primary is out of hand. And the MSM lemmings play right along.
May 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink