Just from reading the linked AP story, I think it might be useful to disaggregate two claims that Obama's lawyers appear to be making.

The first is that the stations should not be broadcasting advertising that constitutes "malicious falsity." This is a classic claim that a public figure has been libeled, a standard which is almost impossible to meet. (And btw/ most stations probably have insurance coverage to cover these issues)

The second issue are organizational issues concerning the not-for-profit corporation. DOJ PDF Link here, My impression without reading the other side is that Obama's lawyer is exaggerating, but the not-for-profit corporation may have been too sloppy.

The first issue is a SLAPP lawsuit that doesn't have much to do with the McCain/Feingold. The second issue has to do with McCain/Feingold, as well as older laws dealing with what a not-for-profit corporation can do in an election cycle.

I think we can all agree that the left is no longer 'liberal' or 'progressive' according to the dictionary definitions of those words.

I don't know any of the legal stuff, however, it is perfectly reasonable for voters to boycott advertising they feel is malicious and inappropriate (as per O'Reilly ridiculous boycott France escapade). That's how capitalism should work.

Unfortunately, can't find the video on the web, so I can't comment on the allegations.

Still, I wonder how many Americans even remember who Ayers was, or the circumstances around the issue. If there's no visceral emotional reaction to the name Ayers, I'm not sure the ad would be successful anyway.

If you mean that you can't find the 501c4's ad, you can see it at their website:

http://www.americanissuesproject.org/

The ad is almost beside the point, however: nobody seems to be disputing the facts in the ad (the Obama campaign disputes whether they matter in 2008, but not the truth of the claims, as I understand it). What bothers me is the attempt to use a Justice Department criminal investigation to silence an American citizens group during an election.

That's just wrong -- no matter who is doing it. If the facts are wrong, tell us the facts are wrong. If the facts are right, but you don't think it matters, tell us why. Trying to send your political opponents to prison for speaking against you, though, is not what America is about.

Perhaps only "reliable" people and "reliable" organizations should be allowed public speech.
I have it on good authority that no right is absolute.
I'm sure Mr. Obama only wants to enforce "reasonable" restrictions.

Grim,

I've looked and looked with no particular axe to grind.

There is no evidence of "outrageous attacks by then-Gov. Bush's campaign, that slandered [McCain] and his adopted daughter in the hope of playing on racist feeling in the electorate."

That media meme started after one woman at a McCain town hall meeting related what her 13 year old son told her about a phone call he received. One hearsay account. That's it. No first hand accounts even by McCain supporters.

This is what I found after researching the topic. If you have other evidence, by all means link to it. Otherwise, be careful what you accept as history, and by all means stay away from the Oliver Stone movie.

The more important fact here is that this is an extremely foolish thing for the Obama campaign to do. Even if the ad were not true, it would be a bad idea to draw attention to it. The Willie Horton ad was seen only once in 1988 but the story about it devastated the Dukakis camapaign. Obama really does not want to open the door on his relationship with Ayres but he seems to have poor judgement about this and the Rezko case.

The One is taking a page out of Kerry's book.

"Our courts, which are ready to extend "free speech" to nude dancing as a form of "expression," won't recognize and defend the First Amendment right to free political speech that was the Founders' whole purpose"

Isn't this a tad jumping the gun? Let the courts decide first and then condemn them later.

My guess is that they'll tell Obama to take a hike.

#6 you are completely correct.

Interesting that the false charge against the Bush campaign of smearing McCain is itself a smear. There is no evidence whatever of the Bush campaign going after McCain's daughter. Never happened.

Grim you beat me to blogging this - Obama has all kinds of answers available to the charges here, but silencing them like this only a) makes them look more important and b) makes him look bad...

A.L.

Boston Globe, The anatomy of a smear campaign, by [McCain campaign manager] Richard H. Davis. March 21, 2004.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

I've now read the response of the American Issues Project to the Obama Campaign's letter to the DOJ. PDF Link Here I'll take back my earlier impression that AIP "may have been too sloppy." The response seems pretty thorough on all points.

I have no idea who is in the right, which is itself troubling. If using a not-for-profit corportation to promote a point of view is tied to requirements that lawyers can reasonably debate, then speech willb be discouraged.

A few non-legal points in the letter might be of interest here:

1. AIP says that it functions exactly as the pro-choice group NARAL functions, implying a double-standard.

2. Since Obama is now paying for advertising on this very subject, AIP notes the irony that Obama should be able to pay for speech that others are under threat of prosecution for.

The first impulse of the modern day left is to tyranny. Anyone who is surprised that Obama would attempt to silence his critics in this manner hasn't been paying attention.

The problem at the heart of being a liberal in this country and in this age is that every policy you promote is based on force. National healthcare is based on forcibly separating people from that which they have earned. Speech codes are based on punishing those whose views you disagree with until their thoughts conform with yours. Environmetalism is based on forcing everyone to value the same things in the same proportion that you do (when it is not just based on outright lies and hysteria). How liberalism morphed into totalitarianism is something for historians to ponder... if they are allowed to.

In the meantime I will enjoy the irony of the first black man to have a serious shot at the presidency proposing mandatory national service as part of his platform. The Democrats have always been the party of slavery in all of its forms. This too is something no one should be surprised about if they have been paying attention.

AMac,

You've found the allegation. Where is the evidence?

Name one person, McCain supporter or other, who came forward with a first hand account of receiving such a call. Name a polling firm who conducted the push poll.

This Globe story was published in 2004, four years after the 2000 election. No evidence. But just in time to smear Bush with the accusation.

As for the statements of the Bob Jones University professor:

1) Is that to say he was connected to the Bush campaign?

2) Notice these same "friends of McCain" on the left similarly tried to smear McCain for his speaking at BJU in 2008? Same game, different target.

As I said, peel away all the press articles written on the subject back to their origins and look for the evideniary basis. When you do, as I did, you find there is none.

edh, I remember this contemporaneously - and I remember how pissed off McCain was at the time as well.

A.L.

#11 AL

Anyone who would associate with and take money from an UNREPENTANT terrorist IS bad, IMHO.
If it quacks, looks and swims with other ducks, it is a duck.

I oten said, "The First Amendment is not about nekkid dancing and the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting"

edh #15 --

I don't clearly recall the "smear" episode from 2000. The excerpted Boston Globe piece was by the director of McCain's 2000 campaign, and gave a sense of the limits of what's known of who-did-what. Presumably, his view is worth knowing if the subject's worth discussing?

Similarly, the NYT from last year.

The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt.

“One time in Hilton Head, we chased these punks down the block who were handing them out,” said State Representative James H. Merrill, the Republican state majority leader, “and when we got to them and asked them where they got them, they said some guy in a red pickup truck said, ‘Hey do you wanna make $100?’”

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, and the entire Bush team strongly denied involvement, though it was clear Mr. Bush was the beneficiary of the campaign.

If I had a more useful or detailed opinion on the matter, I'd offer it.

#6, #12, and others re: the alleged Bush smear:

Now that's interesting. I was not aware the claim was in dispute; but I have done the reading you requested, and can find no additional evidence beyond the claim by McCain's campaign manager. I have altered the post accordingly, and directed readers to your comments.

#9:

I was not referring to the court's decision in this matter, which may never even reach the courts; the Justice Dept. may refuse to file charges. I was referring to the Court's willingness to embrace McCain/Feingold restrictions on citizens' right to speech and to buy access to advertising in election seasons, etc. That has already been decided, although I would be pleased to see a reversal in the future.

#13:

What is going on here, as nearly as I can tell, is that the right of speech is being constricted. It used to be that any group of guys could pool their money, buy an ad, and put out their thoughts or even their opinions on a candidate or an issue. After McCain/Feingold, in 2004 we saw the rise of the 527s, because it became "regulated."

After the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth were so successful, the regulations were tightened still further: the 527 can no longer question a candidate's fitness for office. So, first citizens can't do it themselves without being approved by the government as a 527; and then, 527s are forbidden from doing it also.

The 501c4 still can, but as the piece notes, you have to spend the majority of your money on nonpolitical issues. That raises the bar substantially: instead of you and me and ten other guys pooling X dollars to buy an ad, now we have to buy 2.1X dollars to buy X dollars' worth of the ad, with 1.1X being spent on some other purpose entirely.

So, if you just wanted to comment on the election, you either have to raise more than double the money you'd have needed before, or you have to buy less than half the advertisements if your budget isn't flexible (as, for many citizens, it isn't).

What they seem to want (as I opined in the piece) is ever-greater constrictions on American citizen participation; the Senators are willing to talk to each other, but they don't want any of us interloping in their election campaigns. I find that unacceptable, as I suppose is evident from my original comments.

I live in South Carolina and I never received any of the push-poll phone calls about McCain's daughter, or heard of anyone else who did. I think it was a phony issue. However, Obama's attempts to silence political speech are indicative of what we can expect from him if he is elected.

Get real! So now Barack is silencing peoples free speech while before You called him a terrorist for acknowledging someone in his district! Come On! Grow Up. Your racism is showing here

Get real! So now Barack is silencing peoples free speech while before You called him a terrorist for acknowledging someone in his district! Come On Grow Up. Your racism is showing here

Grim, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm more upset at the letters to the TV stations seeking to restrain the ads run.

Grim:

The 501c4 still can, but as the piece notes, you have to spend the majority of your money on nonpolitical issues. That raises the bar substantially: instead of you and me and ten other guys pooling X dollars to buy an ad, now we have to buy 2.1X dollars to buy X dollars' worth of the ad, with 1.1X being spent on some other purpose entirely.

That's my understanding as well. See this piece at Huffington Post. The writer concludes that there may not have been any violation of campaign laws so long as the group "actually engages in other activities besides independent spending in federal elections." He skips over the 501©(4) issues, but AFAIK that also has to do with money (whether the expenditures should be taxed).

So, yes, it looks like there are work-arounds on these issues that can be bought and paid for. If you have the money . . .

Does anybody remember whether Kerry wrote a letter of complaint to the DOJ about the swift boat ads? I thought he did.

Can you folks tell me where you stand FISA and the military commissions act? Where do you stand on illegal wiretapping prior to the attack on our homeland in 2001?

Where do you stand on loyalty oaths and people being arrested for wearing t-shirts that don't comply with the political leanings of a party?

Where do you stand torture, lying and obstruction of justice? Where do you stand on the proper use, care and development of our military and their families?

Where do you stand on the right of the police to break down your door and take you away without a warrant and hold you for 72 hours?

These are real questions of liberty and Constitutional issues that should be discussed here. I'll be combing the site for real examples of stories of liberty and humanity.

Thank you.

Eh, GK and Ben Franklen:

a.) #2GK: No, we can't agree to any such thing.

b.) #14 BF: You are mistaken as to the views of "you liberals".

I am a liberal, heck, even a leftist, and a democrat.
(Heck, Danziger claims he's a liberal: sez right there: "Armed Liberal"!)

I believe in a comment to an earlier thread, I even laid claim to:
"rootless cosmpolitanism",
"bourgeois bohemianism" and
even to possibly qualifying as a "beatnik" ("Beard? Check! Black clothes? Charlie Parker recordings? Check! Ginsberg, Snyder, McClure on bookshelf? Check! Bongos? (Well, congas...) Check!" )

but rejected "leftist hipster" as too silly.

1. I'm damn near a First Amendment absolutist. (ACLU card? Check!)Content-based speech codes are, largely, illegal junk.Americans have the right not to be assaulted, or terrorized; they don't have much of any right not to be offended.

2. Environmentalism, as I understand it, (Sierra Club card? Check!) has primarily to do with holding you accountable for what you want to call the "externalities" of your use of your property rights, which incidentally impinge, without compensation, on my rights. Your right to do something with, or on, your property, in my view is absolute only as long as you are able to confine all the effects of what you do, 100% of the time with absolute certainty, to your property for an indefinite period of time.

National health care? You think the health-care system in this country ain't broken? Frankly, post-drug-resistant malaria, drug-resistant TB, MARS, and AIDS, I'm coming around to the view that a civil state needs to provide a minimum standard of health care, the way that civil government needs to provide a sewer system; the cost to responsible citizens of letting the irresponsible, or just plain stupid, do whatever they want, and letting chips fall as they may, in a modern urban society, is just too high in comparison to putting a minimum standard in place. Tell me, do you regard mandated immunization as creeping fascism? Know anyone who had polio? What does that person think?

Amusing yourselves in semi-public by beating up on "liberal leftist" straw boogie-men is kind of like a public romantic infatuation with a blow-up doll; while I don't think it should be illegal, ('cause I'm a liberal) it's kind of creepy.

Obligatory rules-keeping post, feel free to ignore if you're not cited.

#26:

Your post is entirely off topic, and an attempt to distract from the topic. As author of this post, I'm obligated (as I understand the commenting rules at WoC) to object and warn you to stay on topic, please.

#22:

Although I am in fact opposed to Obama's election, this is not an anti-Obama post, so much as it is directed at the entire political class. You'll note that I was corrected for being unfair to Bush, above; so be at peace. Oh, and please also stay on topic.

whoops: that "MARS" is supposed to be "MRSA". Gol-durned spell-check!

What #14 said!

Um, wow...look, it's Grim's thread, but I'm more disinterested in discussing the deep eeeevils of "the liberals" or "the neocons" than you could possibly imagine, and if it were my thread I'd be yanking chains hard.

I agree with Grim that this is a badly played hand by Obama, and the whole 'millions of letters to shut down the station showing it' creeps me out regardless if it;s coming from Obama, the Clintons, or the Phelps family. It's flatly wrong. And the reality is that the courts aren't free (or Mr. Gould-Saltman would have to revert to being a musician), and the threat of using them is a real threat regardless of whether one wins of loses.

There are doubtless fun debates to be had on all these things (I myself can hardly wait to play ping-pong with Denni), but can we please get back to the freaking point?

A.L.

I would also say to #14 that he should(if he hasn't already) read some of the philosopher Eric Voegelin, who traces the Gnostic tradition of possession of "the word" or ultimate truth, from the time of Christ to modern day society in which he concludes by saying that: "The end result of progressive politics is totalitarianism."

AL:

Sorry; I tend to just eyeskip past the "liberals are evil" rhetoric. We get it so often at BlackFive that I don't even see it anymore. :)

I hate McCain-Feingold, too. In fact, the thing I hate most about McCain is that he is the first word in "McCain-Feingold".

But how does McCain-Feingold relate to what Obama is doing?

BTW, some Hillary PUMAs claim that Obama has already tried to crush all dissent in the Democratic Party; We Will Not Be Silenced.

Still, I wonder how many Americans even remember who Ayers was, or the circumstances around the issue. If there's no visceral emotional reaction to the name Ayers, I'm not sure the ad would be successful anyway.

Alchemist, many of us who are over 50 and grew up blue collar / union / Jacksonian Democrat remember him and his ilk quite well.

Obama wants to win the over-50 blue collar vote. This ad reminds they why he does not represent their values.

But how does McCain-Feingold relate to what Obama is doing?

Because it comes from the same root impulse, the desire of the political class to make the peasants stop being insulting. I am firmly convinced that McCain supported campaign finance "reform" primarily to get uppity citizens to stop hassling him. Which is precisely what Obama is doing here.

The left used strong coercive tactics in 2004 against two conservative movements. Vietnam War POW's and journalist Carlton Sherwood produced a documentary critical of Kerry's and VVAW's use of POWs for propaganda purposes, and the harm purportedly caused to the POWs (by their captors) as a result.

The documentary was to be aired on a number of Sinclair TV stations, and in a movie theater. Threats of lawsuits and FCC complaints completely suppressed it. The documentary was only available on the internet. Ultimately, AFTER THE ELECTION, lawsuits were filed in a clear attempt to frighten anyone who might, in the future, criticize the Democrat candidate.

Although the media narrative is that Kerry "waited to long" to respond to the Swift Boat vets (SBVT), in fact his campaign viciously attacked them within two weeks of them attracting attention. People involved in SBVT were also penalized with a number of frivolous lawsuits, all ultimately dismissed.

Also, the SBVT's initial attempt to reach the public was a press conference held before Kerry had clinched the nomination. It was a historic event, with almost all of Kerry's Vietnam superiors, and many of his comrades, proclaiming him unfit to be commander-in-chief. The Main Stream Media was well represented at the event, but it barely made the news. Most Americans never learned what had happened, and if they did read news reports, the historic core of the event was hardly covered.

Oops, sorry 'bout the triple post. My script blocker caused weirdness.

[Extra copies zapped. --NM]

Grim

I understand what it is your against. I do not think you have a case here. There are a couple of issues at stake. The crux is the money. One guy putting up the money only for the ads and no other money having come in PRIOR to the ad being run is where the violation can occur: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/011426.html

As I read your link, Robert M, that applies if and only if the AIP is found to be a PAC instead of a 501c4; but that requires the government ruling that it registered in the wrong category. In order to demonstrate that (again according to your link), they would need to show that they aren't spending the majority of their money on nonpolitical issues, as do NARAL and other 501c4s that do this kind of thing.

The link suggests that they have set aside money for such purposes, and so if they actually spend it, would be a legitimate 501c4. The article further suggests that they may have taken up that money purely and only to avoid being registered as a PAC, because they wanted to be able to spend more of their own money than the $5,000 limit that lays on PAC contributions.

As PD Shaw said in #24, there are workarounds in the law if you have the money. If you can afford to set aside 2.1X for X amount of ads, you get to do things that you and I aren't permitted to do. NARAL can afford that, and AIP apparently can afford that.

It was a historic event, with almost all of Kerry's Vietnam superiors, and many of his comrades, proclaiming him unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Are we going to dig this BS up again, or can we finally put it to rest?

Look, I don't like this move by Obama either. At the same time, I understand the campaigns frustration that people can say anything about him... "secret muslim", "anti-white" etc, or simply write entire books of misleading facts, and his only discourse is "These lies are untrue", and he says them again and again and again and by the 50th time people say "Geesh, it sounds so phony, he must really be a secret muslim".

And since these 527 are unknown organizations unrelated to the campaign, there is no easy way to discredit them without also highlighting the bogus attack. I think these campaigns get to the point where you say "look, if you're going attack my character with ticky-tack things completely unrelated to my campaigns while hiding behind a 527, I'm going to attack you're 527 status."

And yes, a 10-year old political affiliation to a nutcase who committed a crime 40 years ago is ticky-tack. I haven't seen any proof that this was more than two politicians working together. That's what politicians are supposed to do, right?

If Obama had committed similar crimes, if obama had shown any odes to Ayers, or any flashes of a similar nutjob idealogy, I would be more worried.

Robert M: The article you link (#39) is the same as the Huffington Post article I linked (#24). The issue according to that article is:

whether AIP, like the actual MCFL organization and the NARAL Pro-Choice America, actually engages in other activities besides independent spending in federal elections.

As Grim points out, money has been set aside for other activities. The writer's problem appears to be that this is a pretext: "In other words, the other activities are being set up to avoid being classified as a political committee."

I am as shocked by this as to learn that a taxpayer might fill out a 1040 in the manner most likely to avoid paying taxes.

Grim

The issue is are they going to spend the rest of the money. "Furthermore, the Court pointed out that 'should MCFL's independent spending become so extensive that the organization's major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified as a political committee,' subject to the restrictions and extensive reporting requirements the law applies to such entities." If they don't they've broken the law but the case wouldn't be decided until after the election.

So the bet is is AIP going to spend the money they have set aside. Given this is Harold Simmons of Swiftboat fame the Obama campaign is right to be proactive. If nothing else it forces AIP to go to court to prove they are complying w/ the law.

PD "Here's to a beautiful friendship."

Grim Are you the one whom always referenced VC? If so is she still posting?

Villainous Company? Yes, it's still around; and yes, Cassandra and I reference each other often. She's a very sharp lady, and always a pleasure to talk to about anything.

AIP's website lists several issues, like Second Amendment Rights, where it would be easy to spend money. They could burn through the excess pretty fast just paying lawyers' fees for all the opportunities opened up by Heller. I don't expect they'll have a hard time spending the cash if they set out to do so.

Robert M,

If the group writes a $3 million check tommorow (via their billionare supporter) to non-federal election campaign spending, everything would be OK? I believe that means the group could contribute the money to state and local campaigns, it could pay for legislative and regulatory lobbying.

Somehow I'm reminded of poll taxes Civil War conscription from the draft. Or Pay to Play.

Oops, I meant:

Somehow I'm reminded of poll taxes or Civil War commutations from the draft. Or Pay to Play.

Grim

I think that this falls more into what you are concerned about. I don't know who is in this hotel but you probably have to get by the Secret Service. That likely means if they don't want you taking pictures they let you know why sooner than this:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1

According to Ben Smith's blog , Obama's camp is premptively going after Stanley Kurtz, a writer for NRO who is investigating the Annenberg Challenge. I hope this doesn't become a pattern.

PS I hope I got the link right. This was my first try.

I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg here in Chicago on WGN radio, and mind you this is a highly respected radio journalist that has interviewed everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Jimmy Carter, old school journalist.

They have Kurtz on for a full 2 hours (who is here in Chicago, finally with access to the Ananburg documents). According to Rosenberg's producer (and again, this guy is anything but a Limbaughesque partisan hack), they called Obama's campaign to invite a spokesman for fair response. The person was invited to sit in for the full 2 hours.

The Obama spokesman responded by demanding the Station Manager's name, and then hanging up on Rosenberg's producer. Thousands of emails and phone calls suddenly appeared demanding Kurtz not be allowed on the air- up to and including Rosenberg be fired. Again- this is an old school, very respected journalist the likes of which are practically extinct on radio these days.

There are apparently talking points on Obama's website to call WGN and complain.

Now they are talking about the Ben Smith blog on the air, reading it realtime. God i love the future.

Ah, Milt Rosenberg. Dry, but interesting. Like a good martini. Definitely not a hack.

Link here for the next hour or so: WGN Radio

Caller after calling literally reading talking points "I disagree with giving Stanley Kurtz airtime...". Word for word.

Another caller word for word reading talking points. I've never heard anything like this. Needless to say the callers cant express any kind of thought beyond that when asked what they mean. I've really never heard anything like this.

Did you notice the number of dropped calls, as well? Hard to tell if that's just a lot of hang ups on hold, or a kind of denial of service attempt.

AL started a new entry about WGN. Maybe we should mosey on over there...

This actually sounds like a very old kind of politics.

I listened to it also (thanks for the link to the stream). That was... astonishing.

Sad to see the usual political hacks restorting to the ACLU method of silencing those they disagree with. Unfortunately our legal system has devalued Blackstone's principles so that libel and slander are meaningless.

Obama should be able to sue if he can prove that slander is involved just as he could be counter sued. But the main threat here is that if he will use such tactics now what will he do if he commands the machinery of the government?

Just as we have seen the Left use tactics that Gestapo would approve in dealing with those they do not approve of in the streets of Denver why are we to believe that Obama would respect the intentions of the Constitution? As he has said before such decisions are "above his pay grade."

Hey GK. You wrote:

"I think we can all agree that the left is no longer 'liberal' or 'progressive' according to the dictionary definitions of those words."

I think we have to consider what those words actually mean.

A liberal actually is someone who values freedom and liberty, in other words, minimum legislation that might constrict us (every piece of legislation constricts people in some way).

A progressive is someone who wants progress, to make things better. The person who wants to replace the complex IRS forms with a postcard form is progressive. The person who wants universal daycare for all ages (0-100) is progressive. The person who wants free harmonicas for all citizens is progressive. Who is progressive all depends on what you consider to be progress.

A conservative is someone who wants to conserve what is. Conserving the separation of church and state. Conserving the tyranny of church over state. A conservative in the USA and in Iran are two different creatures. The ultimate conservative is a radical environmentalist, who might be labeled as a "liberal", but is certainly not.

In political discourse, one should never pull out the dictionary; it makes us all illiterate!

Now there's a slogan with legs.

FREE HARMONICAS
NOT MUMIA

Progressives, unite!