Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Eight reasons to dump Larry Summers"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:04 PM
Original message
"Eight reasons to dump Larry Summers"


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4548.shtml

Eight reasons to dump Larry Summers
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Apr 3, 2009, 00:26

I mentioned in my article Bankrupting the world that Tim Geithner was just the face, the voice, behind the PPPIP giveaway to America’s top commercial banks to restore what amounts to $200 trillion in their cumulative derivative debt. I can say today that it’s even more apparent that Larry Summers is the corrupt brain behind the give-away and should go.

First, Summers and his backers persuaded Obama they had the best way to solve the worst financial crisis in history, that is, hand the keys to the banking system to a gang of hedge fund thieves. Nevertheless, a number of “real” economists, like professor and noted author James Galbraith (son of FDR’s economic adviser John Galbraith), and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, warned that the bailout schemes would make things go from bad to worse.

They argued that to save the US banking system, it needed reorganization under bankruptcy protection, a view, as I mentioned, shared by Lyndon LaRouche as well. Additionally, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, who heads the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, reiterated even more resolutely in a speech in New York City that the current system had to be reorganized in a Glass-Steagall framework, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Apparently, Summer’s notorious ego blew and his penchant for job-losing got the better of him. He actually had the chutzpah to tell President Obama he wasn’t going to continue working in the same arena with Volcker. In the army, you get shot for that or spend a long time looking at brick walls. Yet the novice president, perhaps intimidated or brainwashed, feeling he needed Summers and Geithner to make things happen, quietly charged Volcker instead to head a tax-code review to close corporate loopholes, and streamline tax laws to generate revenue.

This was announced by OMB Director Peter Orszag, who said the review had a December 4 deadline, and the code, some 96 years old, needed simplifying to reduce tax evasion and what he termed “corporate welfare.” This is like being two touchdowns behind in the fourth quarter and you put your second-string quarterback in because the first one isn’t hacking it and is having a fit on the sidelines. Not good.

It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that as soon as Volcker butted heads with Summers, first over timing of regulatory reform, second, over the larger question of bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act, there would be major conflict. After all, Summers spent all of 1999 wrecking the act as Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary, replacing it with his fellow free-marketer friends’ Gramm-Leach-Bileley Act. The latter killed the parts of The Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited commercial banks from getting into the mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations game.

The Gramm-Leach-Bileley Act also split supervision of banking conglomerates among a host of different government agencies, creating an oversight disaster. The Glass-Steagall Act would have allowed Congress to simply break down the US’s five largest banking conglomerates into their smaller components, and to determine which were solvent enough to continue, and which were too broke to live. So a lot was on the table. Yet, Obama, like a Manchurian Candidate gave the nod to Summers, not Volcker to proceed with “Summers plan.”

Second, consider Summers infamous comments at the World Bank. In December of 1999, Summers as Chief Economist for the World Bank wrote in a memo that bore his signature and was leaked to the press that though free-trade wouldn’t much benefit the environment in developing countries, there was a clear economic logic in dumping toxic waste in them. This gives you a sense of the man’s character, or lack of it.

Summers actually wrote, “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage countries is impeccable and we should face up to that . . . I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are also vastly under-polluted.” I wonder how that would have sat with President Obama’s late father who was Kenyan. It’s patronizing beyond insult. And if that’s how Summers calculates human value, we are in big trouble.

Third, back in 1998, Summers testified in Congress against regulating the derivatives market. He actually said we could trust Wall Street. “The parties to these kinds of contracts,” Summers pronounced, “are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies and most of which are already subject to basic safety and soundness regulation under existing banking and securities laws.” Is this our Wall Streeters he’s talking about? Bernie Madoff? Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein? AIG FC’s, Joseph Cassano? You’re kidding?

Summers ladled even more praise on over-the-counter derivatives, blocking all moves to regulate them right up through 2000. He waxed patriotic, calling them “an important component of the American capital markets and a powerful symbol of the kind of innovation and technology that has made the American financial system as strong as it is today.” And as strong as it is today, as I write, April Fool’s Day, 2009. Of course, after he retired from the Treasury, he took a high level management position at D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund famous for its omerta (Mafia for code of silence).

Fourth, Summers backed the awful Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the flip-side of Glass-Steagall. The CFM ACT stopped the highly effective government regulatory agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC), from any oversight over trade of financial derivatives. As of 2000, they could not touch a one. So the door was wide open to disaster, again thanks to Summers.

Fifth, Summers ganged up with ex-Fed Chairman Greenspan and Enron’s corpse, “Kenny boy” Lay. This was during the California energy crisis of 2000 when the boyz beat up on then Governor Grey Davis, lecturing Davis that the reason for their energy crisis was excessive government regulation. Believe that? Summers even browbeat Davis into additional deregulation of California’s utilities and even relaxing California’s environmental standards in order to “reassure the markets.” Reassure them, that is, that they were going to make a bundle bankrupting California.

Sixth, Summers proclaimed in a New York Times Op-Ed “we’re all Friedmanites.” This was on the death of radical libertarian economist Milton Friedman, in which Summers confessed Friedman was “his hero,” “The Great Liberator,” and that “any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites,” adding that the old free-marketer made enormous contributions to monetary policy, and even greater contributions “in convincing people of the importance of allowing free markets to operate unencumbered.” That concept is in total contradiction to Obama’s platform of regulating markets to keep them safe and healthy for all concerned.

Seventh, economists and Democrats like Peter DeFazio (D.–Or.) stated President Obama was “ill-advised by Larry Summers.” In January 2009, as the administration tried to pass its stimulus bill, DeFazio, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman, and economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that more of the stimulus money should be spent on infrastructure projects. But Summers favored more tax cuts.

DeFazio said, “Larry Summers HATES infrastructure.” After all, what did infrastructure ever do for him, except get him to work, pump water and power into his home, and build the city he made his fortune in? So, if he hates infrastructure, he doesn’t want a consumer driven recovery. He thinks we need an investment and productivity driven recovery (read financial give-away to banks recovery) for this county. Good luck.

But this is the Summers who has the ear of President Obama who ran on the need to overhaul infrastructure and reregulate the nation’s financial and banking system. Who’s on first? I thought it was Obama, who wants to push through a major social agenda and be known as the president who built a cross-country, high-speed, maglev transportation system and also led the US out of the biggest economic crisis ever. You have to put your foot down, Mr. President.

Eighth, Summers fired a derivatives whistleblower at Harvard. After suffering Enron’s collapse, Iris Mack, a derivatives researcher, sought a quieter life. Mack joined Harvard Management Co., a privatized company which managed the university’s endowment fund in 2002. To her surprise, she found the Harvard endowment fund was not so staid. In fact, it was involved in the same speculative trading as her former employer, Enron. Worse, after she spoke up about it to Harvard President Larry Summers’ chief of staff, Marne Levine, she was fired four months later for raising the subject. No academic freedom in finance, I guess.

Mack eventually sued (and won out of court) saying she was “shocked at the inexperience of her co-workers,” some not even licensed securities dealers. “The group I was working for had no background whatsoever to be working on ,” she told the Harvard Crimson. Traders were also using discredited variants of Black-Scholes statistical modeling, now acknowledged as having been at the heart of the 1998 collapse of Long Term Capital Management.

Bottom line: “When the bottom fell out” in 2007, Harvard’s endowment went with it. Her former boss, Jeffrey Larson, lost $350 million of Harvard’s cash in a hedge fund he’d started in 2005. Overall, the endowment plunged 22 percent in four months, with a projected collapse of 30 percent for the year. Iris Mack adds, “I’m not trying to pretend I’m omniscient or anything, but a lot of people who were quantitative traders . . . we knew a lot of those models were just that: guestimates . . . I wasn’t crazy, I knew what I was talking about. But maybe if more and more people had spoken up, the economy wouldn’t be the way it is now.” How prescient!

And so it goes. There is also the terrible story about what Summers did to the Russian economy in 1999, but let’s save that for another day and hope he doesn’t do it to America in 2009. If you’re not convinced this guy’s not only a free-market loose-cannon, dangerous to and heedless of anyone around him, read as well Debra Hanania-Freeman’s President Obama Must Dump Summers To Save His Presidency at LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Summers should not be advising Obama. Summers should be looking for new employment. It’s that simple. Sack him, President Obama. And give America, yourself and your vision a chance to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. More than Summers - Geithner too.
Conflict of interest has taken a whole new meaning, rebranding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. ....and so why did Obama adopt the Summers' plan for the Grand Looting of America ?

Was it naivete, calculation, ignorance, a sense of hopelessness, or as some believe, part of a grand plan for achieving economic justice that has as its prerequislte the impoverishment of most Americans.

I am reminded of the general in Vietnam who said "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Could it have been fear? Bill Black suggests that the admin. is terrified...
...Americans won't be able to handle the truth (should it be exposed) ~ that they'll "run for the exits."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. That is what I want to know, badly.
I think it's stupid, but beyond that I really want to know what is in his mind. I have not been able to think of a good explanation except that he's smarter than I am and knows more than I do and knows that what he's doing is right. The only trouble is that I find it very hard to buy that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. One reason to ignore this particular article:
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 05:38 PM by Occam Bandage
"LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. that was the weirdest easter egg thingy to insert...
the entire list given is accurate.

But :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asphalt.jungle Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. is it getting that desperate that we're now posting the thoughts of 9/11 truthers?
this is Jerry Mazza the 9/11 truther.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2547.shtml

he has a wild imagination and is piecing together anecdotal information like he was actually there. yeah you were in the discussions with that novice manchurian candidate president, fuck off really. hey if you're going to rant might as well do it for the wall street journal opinion section.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. A LaRouchie and a Troofer? Man, this is real quality analysis.
Obama better listen up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Doesn't change the fact that those are actual Summers quotes.
And the context really isn't twisted that much.

I didn't know shit about LaRouchie or whatever his name is but I recognized everything he said about Summers.

I guess we have better harbingers of truth RE: Summers but doesn't change the fact that the author is pretty accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yep. Summers regularly produces terrible-sounding quotes.
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 05:59 PM by Occam Bandage
The dude slaughters sacred cows for fun. It's like he's made it his life's goal to ensure that he says things to make himself absolutely unacceptable to everyone on Earth. There are plenty of reasons to dislike him, and I've read many bad (and a few good) things about him from trustworthy sources.

I just think that articles written by LaRouche fans / conspiracy theorists aren't worth reading, even if the time of day actually is approximately what their stopped clocks are showing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
31. So should I repackage those historical quotes and facts about Summers & remove the LaRouche
crap?

Summers' philosophical outlook and economic engineering is there for all to see.

They are consistent with the timbre of those quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. I came across a 1993 article about taxing derivatives....
the reasons were to hopefully control some of the speculation and generate revenue for the government.

Another aspect, and maybe a more important one, was that capital was being used for speculative reasons and therefore diverting investments in producing goods and other areas where the ROI was lower, but perhaps more beneficial to our society.

That was LaRouche back in 1993.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. What is anecdotal about Summers and Geithner helping to engineer this collapse?
Really, I can see supporting Obama, but then don't complain about the lack of oversight of the Bush administration. I don't understand why he chose these guys to correct what they firmly believed in and what led to this disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not to mention he an unapologetic Social Darwinist.
Not uncommon for neoliberal swine.

KnR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Obama is not "ill-advised" or "hampered by poor subordinates"
This is who and what Obama is. He is a committed corporatist, and whether he really believes that unchecked neo-feudalism can actually function or whether he's playing games for personal advancement really is a moot point. He is going along with this reckless and foolhardy selfishness, and IT'S NOT WORKING.

By the fundamental metric of politics, this course of action simply WON'T WORK. The idea of salaaming to unregulated private financial entities invites repeated blow-ups of the cynical greedfests that are exploited by the big boys. This is nothing more than a replay of the S&L crisis of the 80s writ large, and it is the creature of market worship and Reaganite deregulation.

It's sickening to constantly hear how nothing is President Obama's fault. He's sucking up to Big Money, Medicine Incorporated, and Religion Incorporated, and he's doing it HIMSELF; it's not the occasional mistake of wayward subordinates who are somehow betraying him with their flat-footedness or faulty assumptions, it's HIM TOO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. WTF? "He is a committed corporatist"?? lol! At least Barack never worked for a hedge fund, eh?
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 06:21 PM by ClarkUSA

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I agree that he does appear to be "sucking up to Big Money, Medicine Incorporated,...
...and Religion Incorporated."

There are many things he's getting so right ~ including a more inclusive worldview and a new energy paradigm ~ but you are right about those three areas. Wish I knew why he's doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Oy.
:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. exactly!! WTF is he (or geithner) doing in this administration????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. That's the trillion dollar question!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. There are much better choices than Summers. FIRE HIM, NOW! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Summers, Phil Gramm and the law NOT to regulate derivatives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5390809&mesg_id=5390809

Summers 1998 Senate appearance...

"We understood the seriousness of making this proposal. To question an independent agency's concept of its jurisdiction and then to propose legislation that would temporarily curtail that agency's ability to act is not something we do lightly. We concluded, however, that such legislation was necessary to avoid disruption and dislocation in the market while the underlying issues were being considered by Congress.


Congress in late 2000 did end up implementing the Summers approach, when Senator Phil Gramm, then the head of the Senate banking committee, used a back-room maneuver to slip into a must-pass spending bill a measure that prevented the CFTC or the SEC from regulating derivatives..."


The Summers Bubble

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_summers_bubble

"...But a sober look at history suggests the opposite; it is precisely Summers' record of service that is his biggest liability. On the critical economic issues he encountered as a Clinton administration official, Summers' expertise translated into consistent advocacy for policies that infected the financial system with deadly risk.

Recently, Summers has tilted toward progressive stances on several questions of economic policy. But when considered against the backdrop of his career, his pontifications are an unconvincing resumé point -- especially when many other economists got it right all along, without the benefits of hindsight.

On three major issues that have had special bearing on the recent crisis -- financial deregulation, asset bubbles, and government bailouts -- Summers flouted basic tenets of his profession, ignored warnings, and pursued a short-sighted strategy. A thorough review of this record undermines Summers' only serious claim to the Treasury: his much-hyped expertise..."


Thanks to chill wind for posting the above article.

:)







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R... Summers should be checked into a psychiatric hospital.
So should anyone who believes the insane shit he preaches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. Please someone send this to Obama in a way it will not be intercepted
by anyone in the Treasury Dept. To imagine that Obama would listen to Summer instead of Volker really makes one wonder what Obama is drinking. Why did he choose Geithner and Summer, and, even more importantly, why is he keeping them? Many of his choices show a novice approach. Obama is after all new to federal politics, maybe too new. I never could understand his not waiting 8 more years, so that he could gain stature, experience and the savvy needed to negotiate the perilous road of DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
23. The top 10 banks handle more than 80% of the countries M2 capital, Volkers plan would've killed us..
...because the retail capital markets would've died for a year.

On the flip side the current "fever" this market has now is still killing us...there's no credit flowing and the American consumer has no will to buy...not with jobs being lost at nearly 700k a month.

Like Bernanke said, wind them down slowly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
24. Yesterday on CNN, former GE CEO Jack Welch praised Obama's excellent "financial team."
Says something about Obama's choice of Geithner and Summers, doesn't it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
26. arne duncan Really Needs To Go Too
yesterday in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
27. Is this guy a Lyndon LaRoucher?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Unfortunately, it appears he is
Edited on Mon Apr-06-09 11:18 AM by brentspeak
I didn't catch the reference to LaRouche until others pointed it out, as the writer kind of snuck it in at the very end. It looks like he simply excerpted valid criticisms of Summers from other, more credible sources, and then used them to compile his own piece. The information on Summers isn't invalidated - this is just the same exact material pulled from the Nation, Rolling Stone, Salon, etc. - but it gets unintentionally discredited because the writer is a LaRouchite. I'll have to be more careful next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Posted this above and some of the ideas made sense to me...
I never understand why we throw every idea away just because we do not like the entire package. Then again there was a lot of money to be made in financial speculation and I could see why some people did not want this idea to gain traction.

:shrug:


I came across a 1993 article about taxing derivatives, the reasons were to hopefully control some of the speculation and generate revenue for the government.

Another aspect, and maybe a more important one, was that capital was being used for speculative reasons and therefore diverting investments in producing goods and other areas where the ROI was lower, but perhaps more beneficial to our society.

That was LaRouche back in 1993.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Yeppers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC