In Malaysia, a Mill Creek man who is there studying languages was arrested for distributing Christian literature. All of my research on the state of religion in Malaysia indicates that they take their church-state bond very seriously, to the point that the government sponsors and funds pilgrimages to Mecca for its citizens. Malaysia is representative of the reason that democracy requires a separation of church and state. All of us who profess to understand the intent of our own democracy would undoubtedly say that this man has been unjustly jailed. Will the Republican leadership, including President Bush, recognize the dangerous path they travel when they seek to politicize faith?
Here is the King 5 article that reveals a little of the story.
I wonder how much of a big deal will be made about this in the media? Will it be hush-hush? Opposition could really use this as a showcase story to identify the dangers of our own congressional predicament vis-a-via the filibuster.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Something to consider
Do you think that birds sing sometimes just because they enjoy the music?
Chad (The Left) Shue
Chad (The Left) Shue
Friday, April 22, 2005
Bush's 2nd term Trifecta?
Yesterday, amidst very little fanfare, the United States Senate (in a 98-2 vote) confirmed John Negroponte (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2452) to become George W. Bush's new Director of National Intelligence. Following not far behind their recent vote to confirm Alberto "we have ways to make you talk." Gonzales (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536) as Attorney General, they are just one cast member away from giving Bush his second trifecta in as many terms in the Whitehouse (See: Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Powell). Will John Bolton (http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/boltonquestions.htm) round out the field as the new UN Ambassador?
In a remarkably refreshing sign that there may still be some life in the "opposition" party, Senate Democrats (with the much needed support of a couple of rational republicans) have managed to slow down the confirmation process by a couple of weeks while they investigate yet more allegations of Bolton's ill temper and bizarre diplomatic flare. Most interesting in this story is the emergence of Colin Powell as nemesis to Bush and his nominee (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22bolton.html?ex=1114833600). After playing "good soldier" to the neo-con war machine, perhaps this is an early sign on contrition?
Chad (The Left) Shue
Watch out for those flying monkeys
In a remarkably refreshing sign that there may still be some life in the "opposition" party, Senate Democrats (with the much needed support of a couple of rational republicans) have managed to slow down the confirmation process by a couple of weeks while they investigate yet more allegations of Bolton's ill temper and bizarre diplomatic flare. Most interesting in this story is the emergence of Colin Powell as nemesis to Bush and his nominee (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22bolton.html?ex=1114833600). After playing "good soldier" to the neo-con war machine, perhaps this is an early sign on contrition?
Chad (The Left) Shue
Watch out for those flying monkeys
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Where is a Progressive to Turn?
Let us turn to our "Washingtonian's Manual for Progressive Activism" and examine the chapter on "Identifying the Progressive in the Congress". You know, the one with Jim McDermott's picture at the top of the page. Why is Jim's picture the only one there? Well, in fact Jim McDermott is the only member of the Washington delegation who openly aligns himself with the House Progressive Caucus and has a consistent voting record to match. What about the rest of the crew? How about Patty Murray and Jay Inslee? To find these folks, you need to turn to the chapter called, "Selectively Progressive."
In this chapter we get into the point system where our affections are won or lost depending on a particular vote on a particular issue or just on overall perception. Patty and Jay fall into the latter category perfectly. Because they have advanced a 99% Progressive agenda on such issues as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Choice, and the environment they get a "pass" when they stray occasionally to vote to confirm Condileeza Rice or vote in favor of so-called Emergency Supplemental Funding requests even though they personally acknowledge, "It is greatly troubling that these funds continued to be requested off-budget so as to hide the true cost of the war and further mask the deficit from the American public, as they were clearly expected funding needs." (Jay Inslee, April 5, 2005)
Further into this chapter we get to the "Can't Shoot (or vote) Straight Gang." In this group we find Maria Cantwell and Rick Larsen. Both of these folks got early praise for their strong stances on Choice and the Environment. Of course, both of these folks made their entries into their current jobs by running to replace two of our state's most conservative legislators in Slade Gorton and Jack Metcalf. Once in office, however, Cantwell and Larsen starting having trouble with being too closely identified with the Progressives in their party. In Maria's case, she appears to be a majority voter. That is, if the clear majority of the Democratic Caucus is voting one way, you will probably find her there. Where she really got off track was with her vote in favor of the Use of Force in Iraq resolution and subsequent supplemental funding requests. Even though she has stood with the Democrats to filibuster radical judicial nominees, she is not forgiven for her votes to confirm Condi Rice or in favor of the Patriot Act (see Patty Murray above) or her vote to move class action lawsuits into federal courts.
In Rep. Larsen's case the tide is just beginning to turn. His vote against the Use of Force Resolution and his sponsorship of the Wild Skies Wilderness legislation set him in high esteem with local Progressives. However his recent votes to permanently repeal the Estate Tax, to pass the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Bill, and to support $82 Billion in off budget funding for Iraq (See Jay Inslee, above) have him in the Progressive Doghouse.
So where are the Progressives to turn? How do we find more McDermotts, Inslees or Murrays? We turn inward. We become the change. We recruit and train from within our own ranks. However, more importantly, we educate and communicate with our neighbors and voting districts. We help other voters to understand why a Progressive agenda is in their better interests. We expand the base. We should run candidates in the primaries who can run effective challenges to the incumbents and be sure that our message is heard. What we do NOT do is quit! While it is critical that we make our disappointments known to legislators with whom we have issues, we must not "let the perfect become the enemy of the good." To be Progressive means to move forward, not become a roadblock to progress. This country has shifted to the right over the past 20 years. We will not shift it back in one election cycle and we certainly will not shift it at all if we quit trying.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Wait, is that a yellow brick road I see?
In this chapter we get into the point system where our affections are won or lost depending on a particular vote on a particular issue or just on overall perception. Patty and Jay fall into the latter category perfectly. Because they have advanced a 99% Progressive agenda on such issues as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Choice, and the environment they get a "pass" when they stray occasionally to vote to confirm Condileeza Rice or vote in favor of so-called Emergency Supplemental Funding requests even though they personally acknowledge, "It is greatly troubling that these funds continued to be requested off-budget so as to hide the true cost of the war and further mask the deficit from the American public, as they were clearly expected funding needs." (Jay Inslee, April 5, 2005)
Further into this chapter we get to the "Can't Shoot (or vote) Straight Gang." In this group we find Maria Cantwell and Rick Larsen. Both of these folks got early praise for their strong stances on Choice and the Environment. Of course, both of these folks made their entries into their current jobs by running to replace two of our state's most conservative legislators in Slade Gorton and Jack Metcalf. Once in office, however, Cantwell and Larsen starting having trouble with being too closely identified with the Progressives in their party. In Maria's case, she appears to be a majority voter. That is, if the clear majority of the Democratic Caucus is voting one way, you will probably find her there. Where she really got off track was with her vote in favor of the Use of Force in Iraq resolution and subsequent supplemental funding requests. Even though she has stood with the Democrats to filibuster radical judicial nominees, she is not forgiven for her votes to confirm Condi Rice or in favor of the Patriot Act (see Patty Murray above) or her vote to move class action lawsuits into federal courts.
In Rep. Larsen's case the tide is just beginning to turn. His vote against the Use of Force Resolution and his sponsorship of the Wild Skies Wilderness legislation set him in high esteem with local Progressives. However his recent votes to permanently repeal the Estate Tax, to pass the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Bill, and to support $82 Billion in off budget funding for Iraq (See Jay Inslee, above) have him in the Progressive Doghouse.
So where are the Progressives to turn? How do we find more McDermotts, Inslees or Murrays? We turn inward. We become the change. We recruit and train from within our own ranks. However, more importantly, we educate and communicate with our neighbors and voting districts. We help other voters to understand why a Progressive agenda is in their better interests. We expand the base. We should run candidates in the primaries who can run effective challenges to the incumbents and be sure that our message is heard. What we do NOT do is quit! While it is critical that we make our disappointments known to legislators with whom we have issues, we must not "let the perfect become the enemy of the good." To be Progressive means to move forward, not become a roadblock to progress. This country has shifted to the right over the past 20 years. We will not shift it back in one election cycle and we certainly will not shift it at all if we quit trying.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Wait, is that a yellow brick road I see?
Friday, April 08, 2005
Hail to the Pope
This one seemed to have slipped in under the radar, and all good subjugations and perversions should: Flags are being kept at half-mast by presidential order for the soldiers killed in the helicopter crash....no wait, wait....I meant for THE POPE!
Are they serious? I thought our half-mast flag was for national tragedies - the death of Americans or those in the service of America.
The Pope? Most of the evangelicals I meet don't even think (or realize) that Catholics are Christians. This is a tawdry attempt to connect our GW to the "culture of life". The Pope was adamantly against the war and the death penalty (and yet his dogmatic policies towards birth control did their own damage in third world countries) so how is it that GW thinks there is any connection between himself and the Vatican? Notice how Scott McClellan dodged those very questions at the latest White House press briefings?
Are they serious? I thought our half-mast flag was for national tragedies - the death of Americans or those in the service of America.
The Pope? Most of the evangelicals I meet don't even think (or realize) that Catholics are Christians. This is a tawdry attempt to connect our GW to the "culture of life". The Pope was adamantly against the war and the death penalty (and yet his dogmatic policies towards birth control did their own damage in third world countries) so how is it that GW thinks there is any connection between himself and the Vatican? Notice how Scott McClellan dodged those very questions at the latest White House press briefings?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
A Conversation with Mark Wilson
As many of you may know Maria Cantwell may be facing a challenge for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate in the person of Mark Wilson. Mark's name may be familiar to some who will know that he challenged for Patty Murray's senate seat as a Green Party candidate in the 2004 election. I met Mark last night at the DFA Meetup in Everett and would like to share some of the conversation that took place. I hope that this will be the beginning of an on-going conversation and that we will be able to delve into the issues that will shape this race; both during the primary and into the general election in November, 2006. I will add here that I have not yet invited Senator Cantwell to join this conversation or, perhaps, start a new one as a counterpoint. I will make my best effort to do this. Now to Mark Wilson:
The Left Shue:
Mark, what is drawing you to this race? Why would you believe you can challenge an incumbent US Senator?
Mark Wilson:
Many concerned citizens fear that with the 2006 elections, we could see a Republican super-majority in the US Senate. I believe, as do many of our fellow Washingtonians, that Cantwell’s Senate seat is in jeopardy. Her voting record -- for the Iraq War, for the PATRIOT Act, for NAFTA, for confirmation of Condoleeza Rice, and for moving class-action lawsuits out of state and into federal courts -- has alienated and alarmed what should be her base constituency. Many have come to regard her as a fast-tracking, free-trading corporate elitist and will not vote for her in 2006 under any circumstances. Consider: Cantwell effectively “bought” her seat in the 2000 election, spending approximately $10 million of her own money. Yet even so, she barely squeaked by Slade Gorton (R): Only 2,229 votes got her in the door. And her “win” was largely circumstantial. When Greens turned out in large numbers in the 2000 election to support Nader. Many of them also voted for Cantwell as an “anti-Gorton” vote. Likewise, some 50,000 Libertarians voted for their own Senate candidate and siphoned votes away from Gorton. With the 2006 election, the situation’s changed. This time, there’ll be no Nader effect blowing in Cantwell’s favor. This time, the Libertarians, who have lost major-party status, may not even field a Senate candidate -- and they’re not going to vote for Cantwell. And this time, rather than starting out with a flush campaign war-chest, Cantwell starts out in the hole. With her campaign debt of more than $2.5 million, she’s hobbled right out of the gate. For all these reasons I am deeply concerned that Cantwell will make a gift of her Senate seat to a smooth, centrist Republican -- a soccer-dad or -mom type with deep pockets.
TLS:
So what gives you an edge? What qualities or background will you bring to the race that will help garner the support that you will need to be successful?
MW:
Why me? Because I think I can keep that seat in the Democratic Party. My informal survey shows I have wide potential appeal -- to blue collar and white collar alike. I own a small business and belonged to the Teamsters, and I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman in the Bering Sea. My dad and I both served in the Marine Corps, and two of my sons are also veterans. In addition, I’m a founding member of Veterans for Peace. This means I can talk to military supporters and peace advocates alike and working families and small business owners. And I can do it with empathy and compassion. Veterans in Washington State form a huge constituency; more than 600,000 live here, and many have traditionally voted Republican. Union members are another big voting bloc: the Washington State Labor Council boasts more than 500,000 members. Many of them are moving more and more Republican. Many commercial fishermen have too. These are people I know and can talk to. I’ve lived their lives, and I share their concerns. I can show them why it’s not only against their self-interests, but against their values, to vote Republican. I’m also a capital “P” Progressive, and unlike Cantwell, I won’t cave in to corporate-elitist pressure. While I may be a political maverick, I am not inexperienced in the ways of campaigns. In 2002, I ran as a Libertarian for the U.S. House -- and in 2004, I ran as a Green for the U.S. Senate. (I was a Kucinich delegate to our county convention.) While at first blush these parties appear to be at opposite ends of the political divide, they share enough values to reach people throughout the political spectrum. For example, both Greens and Libertarians -- as well as Progressive Democrats everywhere -- support ending the illegal Iraq war, ending the tragically misguided war on drugs, decreasing the Orwellian power of the so-called PATRIOT Act, and ending corporate welfare, unlike Maria Cantwell. Both parties advocate a renewed allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and both work to strengthen personal liberty and individual responsibility. But though I’ve run as a Green and a Libertarian before, this time I’ll return to my Democratic roots. Why? Because I want to fight for the Progressive changes we all believe in -- and because I want to win. As a Democratic candidate, I expect to pull votes from the Libertarian and the Green Parties, as well as the strong progressive core of the Democratic Party. And oddly enough, I think I stand a shot at garnering some Republican support as well. From true Republicans: not the neo-con wolves masquerading as beneficent-benefactor sheep. From the politically homeless Republicans, those who still believe in Lincoln and are deep in the rough over the aggressive and corporate-loving fascists who have taken their party and our country by force and are now threatening our very world. Republicans who still believe in cooperation across party lines and working in concert towards the common good. I can reach these real Republicans.
TLS:
Speaking of the republicans, who do you see in your crystal ball as far as potential republican candidates in the general election?
MW:
Dino Rossi’s one possibility. In a race against Cantwell, Rossi -- or any other well-funded Republican -- could be the beneficiary of what I’ll call the “Independent sympathy vote.” “Rossi should have been Governor,” the thinking among Independents might be, “so let’s give him and the Republicans Gorton’s old Senate seat.” I’d also keep a sharp eye on Republican multi-millionaire John Stanton, formerly of Western Wireless. You think Cantwell bought her way into the U.S. Senate? Stanton could pay for that seat with his lunch money. And don’t think this can’t happen. While Washington Republicans were unsuccessful at convincing Stanton to run for Governor -- where he would have crushed Rossi and move on to a possible win-- they may well be successful convincing him to go after Cantwell. If he does, that’s one Senate seat out of the critical four that will be deeper in trouble.
TLS:
Well Mark, thanks for taking the time to begin this conversation. I look forward to continuing into the specific issues of the race in the coming weeks and months. I guess this would be a good time for the website plug and contact information.
MW:
Chad, Thanks so much for coming out to meet me. I really enjoyed getting to know you all a bit. I know much of what I ask is like being on a blind date proposing marriage. But Cantwell is going to make a gift of this important seat to the R's if we don't rescue it from her.Bottom line? We’ve just got to keep this Senate seat in the Democratic fold. Many think I can be the way to make this happen. These concerns should be yours too. I hope you’ll take some time to seriously consider me. Take a look at my web site http://www.votemark.org/. You might want to start by reading a talk I gave while running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 http://www.votemark.org/articles/tvw.htm. I'd really appreciate the chance to meet with you and your concerned family, friends and neighbors.
Stay tuned
Chad (The Left) Shue
Somewhere in an Oz cornfield........
The Left Shue:
Mark, what is drawing you to this race? Why would you believe you can challenge an incumbent US Senator?
Mark Wilson:
Many concerned citizens fear that with the 2006 elections, we could see a Republican super-majority in the US Senate. I believe, as do many of our fellow Washingtonians, that Cantwell’s Senate seat is in jeopardy. Her voting record -- for the Iraq War, for the PATRIOT Act, for NAFTA, for confirmation of Condoleeza Rice, and for moving class-action lawsuits out of state and into federal courts -- has alienated and alarmed what should be her base constituency. Many have come to regard her as a fast-tracking, free-trading corporate elitist and will not vote for her in 2006 under any circumstances. Consider: Cantwell effectively “bought” her seat in the 2000 election, spending approximately $10 million of her own money. Yet even so, she barely squeaked by Slade Gorton (R): Only 2,229 votes got her in the door. And her “win” was largely circumstantial. When Greens turned out in large numbers in the 2000 election to support Nader. Many of them also voted for Cantwell as an “anti-Gorton” vote. Likewise, some 50,000 Libertarians voted for their own Senate candidate and siphoned votes away from Gorton. With the 2006 election, the situation’s changed. This time, there’ll be no Nader effect blowing in Cantwell’s favor. This time, the Libertarians, who have lost major-party status, may not even field a Senate candidate -- and they’re not going to vote for Cantwell. And this time, rather than starting out with a flush campaign war-chest, Cantwell starts out in the hole. With her campaign debt of more than $2.5 million, she’s hobbled right out of the gate. For all these reasons I am deeply concerned that Cantwell will make a gift of her Senate seat to a smooth, centrist Republican -- a soccer-dad or -mom type with deep pockets.
TLS:
So what gives you an edge? What qualities or background will you bring to the race that will help garner the support that you will need to be successful?
MW:
Why me? Because I think I can keep that seat in the Democratic Party. My informal survey shows I have wide potential appeal -- to blue collar and white collar alike. I own a small business and belonged to the Teamsters, and I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman in the Bering Sea. My dad and I both served in the Marine Corps, and two of my sons are also veterans. In addition, I’m a founding member of Veterans for Peace. This means I can talk to military supporters and peace advocates alike and working families and small business owners. And I can do it with empathy and compassion. Veterans in Washington State form a huge constituency; more than 600,000 live here, and many have traditionally voted Republican. Union members are another big voting bloc: the Washington State Labor Council boasts more than 500,000 members. Many of them are moving more and more Republican. Many commercial fishermen have too. These are people I know and can talk to. I’ve lived their lives, and I share their concerns. I can show them why it’s not only against their self-interests, but against their values, to vote Republican. I’m also a capital “P” Progressive, and unlike Cantwell, I won’t cave in to corporate-elitist pressure. While I may be a political maverick, I am not inexperienced in the ways of campaigns. In 2002, I ran as a Libertarian for the U.S. House -- and in 2004, I ran as a Green for the U.S. Senate. (I was a Kucinich delegate to our county convention.) While at first blush these parties appear to be at opposite ends of the political divide, they share enough values to reach people throughout the political spectrum. For example, both Greens and Libertarians -- as well as Progressive Democrats everywhere -- support ending the illegal Iraq war, ending the tragically misguided war on drugs, decreasing the Orwellian power of the so-called PATRIOT Act, and ending corporate welfare, unlike Maria Cantwell. Both parties advocate a renewed allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and both work to strengthen personal liberty and individual responsibility. But though I’ve run as a Green and a Libertarian before, this time I’ll return to my Democratic roots. Why? Because I want to fight for the Progressive changes we all believe in -- and because I want to win. As a Democratic candidate, I expect to pull votes from the Libertarian and the Green Parties, as well as the strong progressive core of the Democratic Party. And oddly enough, I think I stand a shot at garnering some Republican support as well. From true Republicans: not the neo-con wolves masquerading as beneficent-benefactor sheep. From the politically homeless Republicans, those who still believe in Lincoln and are deep in the rough over the aggressive and corporate-loving fascists who have taken their party and our country by force and are now threatening our very world. Republicans who still believe in cooperation across party lines and working in concert towards the common good. I can reach these real Republicans.
TLS:
Speaking of the republicans, who do you see in your crystal ball as far as potential republican candidates in the general election?
MW:
Dino Rossi’s one possibility. In a race against Cantwell, Rossi -- or any other well-funded Republican -- could be the beneficiary of what I’ll call the “Independent sympathy vote.” “Rossi should have been Governor,” the thinking among Independents might be, “so let’s give him and the Republicans Gorton’s old Senate seat.” I’d also keep a sharp eye on Republican multi-millionaire John Stanton, formerly of Western Wireless. You think Cantwell bought her way into the U.S. Senate? Stanton could pay for that seat with his lunch money. And don’t think this can’t happen. While Washington Republicans were unsuccessful at convincing Stanton to run for Governor -- where he would have crushed Rossi and move on to a possible win-- they may well be successful convincing him to go after Cantwell. If he does, that’s one Senate seat out of the critical four that will be deeper in trouble.
TLS:
Well Mark, thanks for taking the time to begin this conversation. I look forward to continuing into the specific issues of the race in the coming weeks and months. I guess this would be a good time for the website plug and contact information.
MW:
Chad, Thanks so much for coming out to meet me. I really enjoyed getting to know you all a bit. I know much of what I ask is like being on a blind date proposing marriage. But Cantwell is going to make a gift of this important seat to the R's if we don't rescue it from her.Bottom line? We’ve just got to keep this Senate seat in the Democratic fold. Many think I can be the way to make this happen. These concerns should be yours too. I hope you’ll take some time to seriously consider me. Take a look at my web site http://www.votemark.org/. You might want to start by reading a talk I gave while running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 http://www.votemark.org/articles/tvw.htm. I'd really appreciate the chance to meet with you and your concerned family, friends and neighbors.
Stay tuned
Chad (The Left) Shue
Somewhere in an Oz cornfield........
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Lessons from "New Democrats"
I received this notice in my email the other day:
"Congressman Adam Smith and the Washington State Democrats invite you to a
Progressive Strategy Session
Featuring guest speaker Simon Rosenberg,
President of the New Democrat Network..................."
I believe I will go. There must be allot to learn about Progressivism from a group whose last claim to fame was a letter to the US House Speaker expressing their eagerness to vote for the morally bankrupt "Bankruptcy Reform" Bill. Funny thing though, I was at the WSDCC in Pasco this weekend and do not remember one mention by the Washington State Democrats about this event........
I am interested to hear Congresman Smith's thinking with regard to the Patriot Act *(see "twisted note" below) which will be coming back to a Congress near you in the coming months as certain parts are set to expire. I think we all remember the Progressive way Rep. Smith dealt with his last voting opportunity on the Patriot Act. Any wagers on what the New Democrat Network "Progressive Strategy" will be on the upcoming votes?
If you are interested in learning the New Democrat's approach to Progressive Strategy, plan to attend this session:
Saturday, April 23, 12pm - 3:30pm
Renton Carpenters Hall
231 Burnett Ave. N.
To RSVP please contact Chelsea Waliser
253-572-6125
Chelsea@electadamsmith.com
I am sure Congressman Smith and Mr. Rosenberg will be happy to see a large showing of Progressives in one room.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Lost Deeper in Oz
* Twisted Note:
I noticed that Alberto Gonzales was in front of Congress yesterday making deals to keep the Patriot Act alive. I thought I heard him say he would be willing to remove the part about searching library records if he cold replace that with authority to torture the librarians.............
"Congressman Adam Smith and the Washington State Democrats invite you to a
Progressive Strategy Session
Featuring guest speaker Simon Rosenberg,
President of the New Democrat Network..................."
I believe I will go. There must be allot to learn about Progressivism from a group whose last claim to fame was a letter to the US House Speaker expressing their eagerness to vote for the morally bankrupt "Bankruptcy Reform" Bill. Funny thing though, I was at the WSDCC in Pasco this weekend and do not remember one mention by the Washington State Democrats about this event........
I am interested to hear Congresman Smith's thinking with regard to the Patriot Act *(see "twisted note" below) which will be coming back to a Congress near you in the coming months as certain parts are set to expire. I think we all remember the Progressive way Rep. Smith dealt with his last voting opportunity on the Patriot Act. Any wagers on what the New Democrat Network "Progressive Strategy" will be on the upcoming votes?
If you are interested in learning the New Democrat's approach to Progressive Strategy, plan to attend this session:
Saturday, April 23, 12pm - 3:30pm
Renton Carpenters Hall
231 Burnett Ave. N.
To RSVP please contact Chelsea Waliser
253-572-6125
Chelsea@electadamsmith.com
I am sure Congressman Smith and Mr. Rosenberg will be happy to see a large showing of Progressives in one room.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Lost Deeper in Oz
* Twisted Note:
I noticed that Alberto Gonzales was in front of Congress yesterday making deals to keep the Patriot Act alive. I thought I heard him say he would be willing to remove the part about searching library records if he cold replace that with authority to torture the librarians.............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)