Adam Green’s dishonest fundraising attack, Obama’s debt ceiling rope-a-dope

If you missed Lawrence O’Donnell’s brilliant breakdown of the White House strategy on the debt ceiling, watch it below before reading any further:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Okay, got it? Now read this…

Adam Green runs the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (a/k/a BoldProgressives.org), an entity designed to automatically disgorge mass solicitation emails attacking President Obama every time the president speaks, thereby raising copious amounts of cash to … um … what do they do, exactly? Oh, right… to buy a few ads attacking President Obama and the occasional Republican.

Green and his fellow travelers on the anti-Obama left have been spoiling for a fight with the White House on entitlements, which these folks are apparently convinced Barack Obama is about to feed into a giant shredding machine, so that going forward, poor people and old people receive daily paper cuts instead of checks. But Green’s latest fundraising email, which landed in my in-box just after 7 p.m. on Monday (and was headlined BREAKING, even though the news it refers to happened hours earlier, at 11 a.m.) opens on an exquisitely dishonest note:

BREAKING: Obama outrage.

Joy-Ann,

BREAKING: Today, in a press conference, President Obama came right out and said it: He’s pushing for benefit cuts in important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

You and 175,000 others boldly pledged that if Obama actually cuts Medicare/Medicaid benefits, you’ll take your money and volunteering elsewhere in 2012. [Emphasis added]

Green then urges recipients to sign a pledge not to give money to the Obama campaign if he cuts Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (presumably, they should give money to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee instead…) and he goes on to list the three quotes the he says PROVE Obama is out to throw grandma from the train, so Paul Ryan doesn’t have to:

1) “We’re going to have a sales job. This is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues.”

Significance: This is the first time Obama admitted he is pushing “benefit” cuts that would hurt our grandparents, kids, and the disabled — not just “savings” like negotiating lower drug prices.

2) “I want to be crystal clear — nobody has talked about increasing taxes now.  Nobody has talked about increases — increasing taxes next year.”

Significance: Polling shows that by 4 to 1, Americans want taxes increased on the rich. The “millionaires tax” proposed by House progressives would raise $1 trillion — helping to take benefit cuts off the table. By his own admission, Obama is not even asking for this!

3) ”With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems….the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

Significance: Seriously??? Why is a Democratic president going out of his way to help Republicans cut Social Security??? That’s just wrong.

But here’s the thing. The White House releases an entire transcript of the president’s remarks when he does press conferences and such, which makes it possible for the discerning progressive to search for context. So let’s do that, shall we?

First off, nowhere in his press conference today did President Obama discuss cutting people’s Social Security benefits, let alone Medicare and Medicaid benefits.  This despite repeated reporters questions pushing him to get specific on Social Security in particular.

Let’s start with the president’s opening statement, in which he lays down his fundamentals:

What I emphasized to the broader group of congressional leaders yesterday is now is the time to deal with these issues. If not now, when? I’ve been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way. I’ve been hearing from them that this is one of the things that’s creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. And so what I’ve said to them is, let’s go. And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.

Here, a flashback might be in order; to Ronald Reagan, and the “grand bargain” he and Tip O’Neill struck to save Social Security back in 1983. That deal, which even Reagan critics look back on with gauzy eyes, came despite Reagan’s ideological opposition to Social Security as quazi-Socialism in 1976, and included such liberal heresies as:

[raising] the regressive payroll tax, which hit working- and middle-class Americans harder than wealthier citizens. Nonetheless, the 1983 agreement did succeed in extending the trust fund’s solvency for a couple of generations by raising the retirement age to 67 from 65 (to be phased in by 2027); imposing a six-month delay in the cost-of-living adjustment; and requiring government employees to pay into Social Security for the first time. The compromise also cemented a new reigning political consensus on Social Security—Social Security, in historian Sean Wilentz’s words, was “untouchable” because it had become more than ever the “‘third rail’ of national politics.

Keep in mind that not only did Tip O’Neill sign off on that deal — which if Barack Obama proposed it would lead to literal torches and pitchforks waved outside the White House in the fevered hands of “bold progressives,” the 1983 deal, which came via a series of amendments following the recommendations of a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, was voted through a Democratic-controlled House. (Ironically, the House and Senate were mirror images of today, with Republicans, led by Senate President George H.W. Bush, controlling the United States Senate.)

Obama throughout the press conference talked about doing a deal to strengthen Social Security now, not because he believes it contributes to the deficit, or because he wants to cut people’s benefits, but because later, politicians might not be able to muster the political will to do yet another big deal after the debt ceiling crisis is passed.

Now, as to that quote that Adam puts forward in horror. Here it is in context. The president is asked whether he thinks John Boehner will “come back to the $4 trillion deal.” Here’s his answer in full:

I think Speaker Boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. I think he’d like to do something big. His politics within his caucus are very difficult — you’re right. And this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain, when we actually are in a position to try to do something hard we haven’t always laid the groundwork for. And I think that it’s going to take some work on his side, but, look, it’s also going to take some work on our side, in order to get this thing done.

I mean, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependant on some of these programs.

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

And if you’re a progressive that cares about investments in Head Start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we’re not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order.

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about — making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future — if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

Doesn’t sound like an ogre out to destroy the middle class and the poor. But hey, I’m not a “bold progressive.” And note that the line “trimming benefits” is three paragraphs away from the discussion of Social Security. Is he talking about trimming Social Security benefits there, or Medicare benefits, or student loan benefits, or R&D? He could be talking about all of the above, or none, or one of them; but you have to want to connect that phrase to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to go where Adam Green went. President Obama laid out a full raft of programs important to Democrats, and said it will take both sides making hard choices to make sure those programs are there for future generations. How that translates into “we’re going to cut Social Security benefits” is not clear to me, though apparently it is clear to Adam Green.

Now, here is the very next question after Green’s “money quote”:

Rich Wolf.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You keep talking about balance, shared sacrifice, but in the $4 trillion deal that you’re talking about roughly, it seems to be now at about four-to-one spending to taxes; we’re talking about $800 billion in taxes, roughly. That doesn’t seem very fair to some Democrats. I’m wondering if you could clarify why we’re at that level. And also, if you could clarify your Social Security position – would any of the money from Social Security, even from just chained [sic] CPI, go toward the deficit as opposed to back into the trust fund?

THE PRESIDENT: With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened? So the reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years. And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.

With respect to a balanced package, is the package that we’re talking about exactly what I would want? No. I might want more revenues and fewer cuts to programs that benefit middle-class families that are trying to send their kids to college, or benefit all of us because we’re investing more in medical research.

So I make no claims that somehow the position that Speaker Boehner and I discussed reflects 100 percent of what I want. But that’s the point. My point is, is that I’m willing to move in their direction in order to get something done. And that’s what compromise entails. We have a system of government in which everybody has got to give a little bit.

Did the president just say he wants to cut Social Security? Not unless “cut” now means “strengthen.” And note that he didn’t even bite on Richard Wolff’s question re altering the index by which benefits are calculated via the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Next, Sam Stein of the Huffpo takes a crack at the same question:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. With unemployment now at 9.2 percent and a large chunk of those lost jobs coming from the private sector, is now a really good time to cut trillions of dollars in spending? How will we still create jobs? And then to piggyback on the Social Security question — what do you say to members of your own party who say it doesn’t contribute to the deficit, let’s consider it but not in the context of this deal?

After several paragraphs on job creation, and his ideas for an infrastructure bank to get people back to work, his defense of the stimulus and lament that the political situation won’t allow it to be extended so states don’t have to lay people off, etc., the president says this:

With respect to Social Security, as I indicated earlier, making changes to these programs is so difficult that this may be an opportunity for us to go ahead and do something smart that strengthens Social Security and gives not just this generation but future generations the opportunity to say this thing is going to be in there for the long haul.

Now, that may not be possible and you’re absolutely right that, as I said, Social Security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt. On the other hand, we do want to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for the next generations, and if there is a reasonable deal to be had on it, it is one that I’m willing to pursue.

Again, where did he say benefit cuts? Oh, right. He didn’t. Let’s give Sam a second shot, in his follow up, immediately after the previous answer from the president:

Q Are there things with respect to Social Security, like raising the retirement age, means testing — are those too big a chunk for –

THE PRESIDENT: I’m probably not going to get into the details, Sam, right now of negotiations. I might enjoy negotiating with you, but I don’t know how much juice you’ve got in the Republican caucus. (Laughter.) That’s what I figured.

In other words, the president is not, and has not said, what he would consider to be reasonable ideas to strengthen Social Security. It could very well be that the president is considering directly cutting current benefits of Social Security recipients, but you cannot argue that he said that, either in this press conference, or really in any other public statement.

For the record, I find it unfortunate that Social Security is even coming up in this debate, since indeed, it has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, nor does Medicare, Medicaid or hell, any of this. The debt ceiling is about past, not future spending, and Social Security isn’t even the kind of spending that’s remotely relevant.

But if you go back to Lawrence O’Donnell’s excellent presentation of what the president is doing — he is literally dangling everything that could conceivably be on a Republican wish list in front of a caucus he knows will recoil from any idea he is associated with, even if the idea is theirs. And while the president never specifically calls for cuts to cherished Democratic programs, he gets credit for “putting everything on the table,” and sounding as if he’s willing to entertain any and all ideas related to the programs. That people automatically go to “cutting benefits” doesn’t matter in this context, because cutting benefits isn’t going to happen. The deal that’s ultimately worked out is going to need Democratic votes in the House, to compensate for the extreme tea baggies who won’t vote for any debt limit increase, and it has to get through the Senate. Do you think the president doesn’t know that benefit cuts would die a quick death in either chamber?

And when, again, has Obama said he is “determined to cut” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits? Anyone? The president has said, clearly, “bring me ideas to strengthen these programs and I’ll put them on the table for consideration.” Republicans aren’t going to do it, because they aren’t negotiating. Besides, they’ve already proposed their idea: vouchercare and Social Security privatization. And no, Obama hasn’t said he’d sign off on either of those, either.

Ok, let’s move on to Adam’s second point, on taxes. To review:

2) “I want to be crystal clear — nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increases — increasing taxes next year.”

Significance: Polling shows that by 4 to 1, Americans want taxes increased on the rich. The “millionaires tax” proposed by House progressives would raise $1 trillion — helping to take benefit cuts off the table. By his own admission, Obama is not even asking for this!

Uh-huh. OK let’s find that quote. This is going to be a bit long, but bear with me. The answer actually came from the very first question asked during the presser:

Q: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Two quick topics. Given that you’re running out of time, can you explain what is your plan for where these talks go if Republicans continue to oppose any tax increases, as they’ve adamantly said that they will? And secondly, on your point about no short-term stopgap measure, if it came down to that and Congress went that route, I know you’re opposed to it but would you veto it?

THE PRESIDENT: I will not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension. That is just not an acceptable approach. And if we think it’s going to be hard — if we think it’s hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of election season where they’re all up. It’s not going to get easier. It’s going to get harder. So we might as well do it now — pull off the Band-Aid; eat our peas. (Laughter.) Now is the time to do it. If not now, when? \

We keep on talking about this stuff and we have these high-minded pronouncements about how we’ve got to get control of the deficit and how we owe it to our children and our grandchildren. Well, let’s step up. Let’s do it. I’m prepared to do it. I’m prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done. And I expect the other side should be willing to do the same thing — if they mean what they say that this is important.

And let me just, Ben, comment on this whole issue of tax increases, because there’s been a lot of information floating around there. I want to be crystal clear — nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increases –increasing taxes next year. What we have talked about is that starting in 2013, that we have gotten rid of some of these egregious loopholes that are benefiting corporate jet owners or oil companies at a time where they’re making billions of dollars of profits. What we have said is as part of a broader package we should have revenues, and the best place to get those revenues are from folks like me who have been extraordinarily fortunate, and that millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more — going back to the Bush tax rates. [Sidebar: I believe he meant to say "Clinton" tax rates. Not sure if it's a transcript error or a presidential misspeak.]

And what I’ve also said to Republicans is, if you don’t like that formulation, then I’m happy to work with you on tax reform that could potentially lower everybody’s rates and broaden the base, as long as that package was sufficiently progressive so that we weren’t balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class families and working-class families, and we weren’t letting hedge fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook.

That is a reasonable proposition. So when you hear folks saying, well, the President shouldn’t want massive, job-killing tax increases when the economy is this weak — nobody is looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out-years. In fact, the only proposition that’s out there about raising taxes next year would be if we don’t renew the payroll tax cut that we passed in December, and I’m in favor of renewing it for next year as well. But there have been some Republicans who said we may not renew it.

And if we don’t renew that, then the $1,000 that’s been going to a typical American family this year as a consequence of the tax cut that I worked with the Republicans and passed in December — that lapses. That could weaken the economy.

So I have bent over backwards to work with the Republicans to try to come up with a formulation that doesn’t require them to vote sometime in the next month to increase taxes. What I’ve said is to identify a revenue package that makes sense, that is commensurate with the sacrifices we’re asking other people to make, and then I’m happy to work with you to figure out how else we might do it.

So the president is saying 1) any tax changes must maintain the progressivity of the tax code, so that the rich don’t derive more benefits from the changes than the middle class; 2) that what he is proposing is a rollback of the Bush tax cuts on schedule at the end of 2012 (with the exception of the payroll tax cut), which means any tax increases wouldn’t kick in either when the economy is still fragile — something most economists agree is smart — or before the election, which should give Republicans the political space to make a deal. Adam attacking the president for not adopting a proposal from some House democrats who don’t have the votes to make their idea law, whether Obama likes their idea or not, is entirely beside the point, and is the kind of petty, unfair attack that some of us have gotten used to from the emo crowd.

Now, to number three:

3) “With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems….the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

Significance: Seriously??? Why is a Democratic president going out of his way to help Republicans cut Social Security??? That’s just wrong.

As outlined earlier in the post, this is called “assuming facts not in evidence.” President Obama never once during this presser said “let’s cut Social Security.” In fact, he used the phrase “Strengthen Social Security” or some permutation of it nearly a half dozen times. And the only time he talked about “trimming benefits,” the phrase was disconnected, by several paragraphs, from the discussion of Social Security.

Clearly, Green and friends aren’t the only ones who are hearing “Social Security benefit cuts” even when Obama isn’t saying it, just like last week, the left heard “Medicare benefit cuts” when Obama didn’t say that. Nancy Pelosi is, wisely, drawing a line in the sand, even on COLA adjustments in the out years or even the out-decades. That’s what she’s supposed to do as the Democratic leader in the House.

But if Democrats believe that Obama is the devil despite never having uttered a specific Social Security proposal, but Tip O’Neil is a hero for agreeing to dramatic Social Security changes when Democrats ran the House and he was negotiating with Ronald Reagan, I suppose that’s fine, as far as it goes, but it’s not exactly fair, and it’s sure as hell not gonna get me to open my checkbook for the PCCC.

By the way, the White House does have an official position on Social Security:

The President is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security—and securing the basic compact that hard work should be rewarded with dignity at retirement or in case of disability or early death.  That’s why he has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to preserve Social Security as a reliable source of income for American seniors and as a program that provides robust benefits to survivors and workers who develop disabilities.  He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.  The President also stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

You don’t have to believe that. In fact, clearly there are some progressives who don’t believe a word the president says. But let’s not demonize the guy by making up stuff he hasn’t actually said.

This entry was posted in 112th Congress, 2012, News and Current Affairs, People, Politics, President Barack Obama and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Adam Green’s dishonest fundraising attack, Obama’s debt ceiling rope-a-dope

  1. bmull says:

    I don’t know where you were in 1983 but only Villagers were pleased with that deal. Liberals were furious.

    There’s some truth to the argument that Adam is being shrill. I personally feel fairly confident that entitlement cuts won’t be a part of this deal, but I don’t fault others for feeling somewhat unsettled. Obama has been conspicuously vague about what he will and will not do, which is understandable as a negotiating position, but still.

    Let’s night fight about this.

  2. Flo says:

    Adam Green is shrill– Jane Hamsher does the same thing, proclaiming the end of the Democratic Party on Friday. I hear what they are against, but what are they for? Deficits galore, apparently, since I don’t see them on the street demanding tax increases.

    I like that Obama woke up some of the Democrats in Congress, gave Pelosi a chance to draw a line. The Dems are much too quiet while the Republicans are all over the media making their case; wacky as their case may be, much of the public begins to believe we can leave the debt ceiling as it is.

  3. Cha says:

    I am on SS and have been getting those last two emails from Adam Green because I gave them money for Wisconsin. He should stick to fighting repubs instead of wallowing in the gutter trying to scare up money lying about President Obama.

    These are the last two replies I sent him..thanks for exposing Adam Green’s dishonest fundraising attack, Joy Reid.

    “FO Chicken Littles. I’m not into your professional whining trips. Yeah, Robert Gibbs was right.. I absolutely hate the panic of you professional “leftists”. At least Howard Dean isn’t acting like a stupid idiot over these anonymous sources.

    You’re the freaking “outrage”.

    “Bullshit! I support President Obama and renounce professional leftists. That’s what I pledge”.

    He’s too busy thinking up the next fundraising scam to actually answer.

  4. Flo says:

    Well done, CHA.
    If Pres. O wears a red tie instead of blue, Adam will send out a fund raising letter.

  5. Kerry Reid says:

    If I hadn’t already removed myself from the “Bold Progressives” list after their ridiculous “We hatez Rahm, Precious, and we wants you to sign a petition pinkie-swearing you’ll never ever vote for him againz!” shenanigans, I’d be responding to each and every email from that odious bunch with that Open Secrets link. Seriously, if that doesn’t scream “slush fund PAC,” I don’t know what does.

    Oh, and of course I’m sure that elected-in-a-landslide Mayor Emanuel (and I didn’t vote for him, btw) feels just AWFUL about the political weight “Bold Progressives” demonstrated in their valiant attempt to defeat him for calling them what they are (however offensively he expressed it).

  6. hilda banks says:

    I can’t stand that lisp speaking Adam Green. You see what happened when his group primaried Blanche Lincoln. He and Jane Hamsher should just become Republicans and then they would have a real reason for hating the President. I wouldn’t give 2 cents to that group. I don’t know, they may already be Republicans, who can tell anymore.

  7. Dorothy Gibbs says:

    Thanks Joy Ann for this report. I agree that Adam Green has been dishonest with some of his reporting on the President. I also agree with the comment that both Adam and Jane Hamsher are really unreasonable for the most part. We do need to make sure to let president know were we Stand on issues, but we don’t
    Need to become the tea party on the left to do so. it’s not helpful to react without
    All the facts

  8. Pingback: Balloon Juice » Debt Ceiling Kerfuffle: Lawrence O’Donnell Explains that Liberal Outrage Helps Obama With Swing Voters

  9. glasnost says:

    These aren’t misrepresentations. At best, they’re disagreements over what Obama actually means.

    Just because the full quotes give you a different impression of various nonempirical judgments such as whether obama is “determined” to cut SS benefits or not, the most logical reading of this deal is that SS cuts have been offered.

    “Obama throughout the press conference talked about doing a deal to strengthen Social Security now, not because he believes it contributes to the deficit, or because he wants to cut people’s benefits”

    Look, I’ve got news for you: In politician-speak, when you say you want to “strengthen” a program, it means you want to cut benefits. That’s not the only possible meaning, but that’s a very common way to say “cut benefits”. The logic is, of course, that by doing so you reduce the program’s cost, thus giving it a better revenue-cost ratio, thus ‘strengthening’ it. It’s the same term Paul Ryan uses about Medicare.

    Your argument is weak. Let’s move on.

    “Adam attacking the president for not adopting a proposal from some House democrats who don’t have the votes to make their idea law, whether Obama likes their idea or not, is entirely beside the point, and is the kind of petty, unfair attack that some of us have gotten used to from the emo crowd.”

    petty and unfair, huh? Or it’s a legitimate criticism that Obama ends up cutting terrible deals because instead of striking maximalist opening positions and being forced to compromise to something middle of the road, he starts with middle of the road positions and ends up getting forced into Republican bags of shit.

    See also something here about working to change what is politically possible instead of constantly trying to stand at the 51% point as it gets dragged ever farther to the right.

  10. sara says:

    I am too shocked to be outraged right now. I emailed him and complained about his “Obama bashing” but he kept on emailing me-the last email is the “outraged” one Can we mass-email this to the media?
    thanks

  11. I’m just shocked, shocked and outraged I tell you, that someone who makes their living spinning the plot lines of political theater would actually write such stuff.

    It’s just so dishonest and self-serving. I had no idea that such behavior was going on. It should not be tolerated.

    So thank you Joy, for another well-researched and probing expose of… who was it this time? It was absolutely invaluable.

  12. LucasFoxx says:

    Odd how they generally give their Republican sources more creedence than their Democratic sources. I’ve often wondered how much false flag funding they get from right wing sources. They certianly get most of their outrage from what the right wingers feed them.

  13. Pingback: Balloon Juice » Adam Green and Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) Rip Off Stephen Colbert

  14. Pingback: Adam Green's Dishonest Attack And Appeal For Cash (Updated) | Angry Black Lady Chronicles

  15. Cyril says:

    Awesome website you have here but I was curious about if you
    knew of any user discussion forums that cover the same topics discussed here?

    I’d really like to be a part of group where I can get responses from other experienced individuals that
    share the same interest. If you have any recommendations,
    please let me know. Kudos!

  16. Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to
    my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed.
    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back!
    LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>