The Political Voices of Women » GOP

Social Security, Dead Peasants and Debating the Budget in the Age of Plutonomy – Part 1

Pamela Lyn — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:31:45 +0000

“Once upon a time, a whole lot of just plain Americans woke up to realize the economic system was working against them. They had believed in it; they worked hard to make it work for them. They knew its shortcomings but saw in it the way to a decent return for their labor and a better future for their families.

Then, one day, calamity struck: The system turned on them. And they discovered that they had been betrayed, bamboozled, by the people at the top. But they didn’t hang their heads and turn tail, like a dog whipped by its master. They organized and fought back — millions of them in a grass roots movement for democracy. What they did became known as the Populist Moment, an extraordinary time in our country’s history.

But, the flimflam gang returned with a vengeance in our time — the monied interests and political mercenaries who connived to bring on a calamity that lost eleven million Americans their jobs, robbed people of their homes and pensions, and brought the world’s economy crashing down.”

– Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal, April 30, 2010

The Republicans have regained control of the Congress.

The main stream media is preaching that the midterm elections were a rejection of the Democrats’ “liberal agenda” and a mandate for a return to .conservatism.

The Tea Party has announced that they are here and ready to take over ( even if they have to exercise their “second amendment” rights)

Sarah Palin has proclaimed a “new morning in America.”

Liberal Democrats are being blamed for all of the above (even though the Blue Dogs fared much worse on election day than their progressives counterparts)

While The blogosphere is being blamed for everything else; from being overly critical of the White House; to spreading misinformation; and even hoarding the world’s supply of popcorn.

It’s also now obvious to almost everyone that the “monied interests and political mercenaries” are running the show. Equally obvious is the fact that health care reform, government regulation ( banking industry, EPA), Social Security and Medicare are at the very top of their hit lists.

And, if it’s not true that the plutocrats are calling the shots, it certainly appears that way.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Eggen reported on the influence of “outside entities” on the budget process this past Wednesday. He wrote:

    “The leaders of President Obama’s deficit commission sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle Wednesday for proposing broad cuts to federal programs.

    But the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has also come under attack for its unusual approach to staffing: Many of its employees aren’t employed by the panel at all.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors’ organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission’s two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.

    Bruce Reed, the panel’s executive director, defended the staffing arrangement as fiscally responsible and said the staff includes a broad range of views. Other staffers paid by outside entities include an analyst from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and a Clinton administration official who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    “We’ve got wonks from across the spectrum who have been working on this issue for years,” Reed said. “Every possible voice from left, right or center has a voice on the commission.”

    But Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the commission’s staffing structure is “unprecedented” and casts further doubt on its fairness.

    “Taxpayers fund the commission and they should work independently of Washington lobbyists and power brokers,” Kennelly said. “This is the type of shenanigans that average Americans are so upset about right now – that money talks and everyone else is left out”

If you ask the average American citizen, “who in Washington do you trust to reform Social Security?”, you would probably receive the answer, “no one.” And they would have more than a few reasons for feeling that way. It is very hard for most Americans, myself included, to understand why an “entitlement program” which is funded by a clearly designated tax (FICA) is always one of the first programs that gets offered up on the political sacrificial alter when the discussion involves federal budget cuts.

Don’t get me wrong, the budget deficit must be addressed and Social Security can not be treated as a sacred cow. The current US federal budget is unsustainable. However, the American public deserves an honest deficit reduction debate that does not treat them like children that need to be shielded from the ugly truth or play on their fears of ending life old and destitute. The American public also needs to feel our tax dollars have purchased a seat at the table, that someone is representing our interests in the great budget debate,

As Alexander Bolton reported in his article “Social Security reforms could be bombshell for House GOP”

“Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, leading some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.

While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.

“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Soon-to-be-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is on record supporting similar changes to Social Security, as is Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and rising intellectual star of the House Republican Conference.”

Yes, Social Security and Medicare are the infamous “third rail of U.S. politics” and any discussion of reforming these two programs has been known to be hazardous to political health. Why? Because both Republicans and Democrats have a lot of explaining to do to the American people, especially to the baby-boomers who believe that they have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all of their working lives.

In a post for MotherJones.com, “The Truth About the Trust Fund “ Kevin Drum wrote:

“Back in 1983, we made a deal. The deal was this: for 30 years poor people would overpay their taxes, building up the trust fund and helping lower the taxes of the rich. For the next 30 years, rich people would overpay their taxes, drawing down the trust fund and helping lower the taxes of the poor. Well, the first 30 years are about up. And now the rich are complaining about the deal that Alan Greenspan cut back in 1983.

As it happens, I agree that it was a bad deal. If it were up to me, I’d fund Social Security out of current taxes and leave it at that. But it doesn’t matter. Once the deal is made, you can’t stop halfway through and toss it out. The rich got their subsidy for 30 years, and soon it’s going to be time to raise their taxes and use it to subsidize the poor. Any other option would be an unconscionable fraud”

And a columnist Jay Bookman points out, it is very important to remember 1983. Bookman writes:

“Note the year 1983. That year, a commission appointed by President Ronald Reagan recommended significant increases in Social Security payroll taxes in order to make the program actuarially sound. The idea, embraced by Congress, was that the additional revenue would be used to build a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund so that when the Baby Boom generation began to reach retirement age, the money would be there.

Today, that surplus would amount to $2.5 trillion. But notice that word “would.” For more than 25 years, while working people were told that they were paying extra taxes to ensure their retirement security, that surplus tax revenue was actually being siphoned off to run general government operations. In effect, higher Social Security taxes were being used to offset revenue that had been lost to the government when Reagan cut income and corporate taxes, disguising the true fiscal impact of those cuts.

Today, technically, a surplus of $2.5 trillion now sits in the trust fund, ready to be used for Social Security. In reality, the trust fund contains government IOUs that taxpayers today and tomorrow will have to redeem, probably through payeing higher taxes. So here’s the question now before the body politic:

Will taxpayers — and politicians — honor the $2.5 trillion debt that is owed to Social Security and those who paid into it? Or, will they breach that trust by claiming that the debt is too big to be repaid in its entirety, and that benefit cuts will be required?”

Americans want to know:

Is there a Social Security Trust Fund or not? And if there is, where did the money go?

The following is a video clip of Congressman Dennis Kucinich discussing the Deficit Committee’s proposed changes to the social security program with Ed Schultz during a recent appearance on The Ed Show.

Well I think that this is as good a place as any to conclude part one of this series.

Talk to you soon

—-
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation blog

Tweet This Post

Ignorance Is No Excuse

Pamela Lyn — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:07:35 +0000

Christine O’Donnell ignorant of the Constitution …

Tell me that this is a SNL skit. Of course, it probably will be this Saturday.

Amazing women like Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm are probably rolling in their graves. I can also imagine that even Elizabeth Dole & Kay Bailey Hutchinson are hanging their heads.

I have now watched this clip several times and each time I tell myself that this just can’t be real. Not only was Ms. O’Donnell unfamiliar with the first amendment but then she proceeded to act obtuse when she was provided with correct information. Not even the audience’s laughter seemed to phase her. Did she believe that they were laughing with her?

As the saying goes, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

Women, from all backgrounds and political persuasions have worked too hard and waited too long to be taken seriously. Now along comes Ms. O’Donnell who quite frankly has embarrassed us all.

Tweet This Post

Radical Evangelicals an American version of the Taliban?

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:44:33 +0000

Is the RADICAL Evangelical Right the American version of the Taliban?

BlogHer contributing editor Mata posted on this today – Is it a joke, or is it hatred disguised in Biblical language?

She quotes Frank Schaeffer who appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Here is a video clip (you need to get about 50 seconds in)…

This is beyond disturbing, it’s down right scary.

I’m interested in knowing what others in this community think about this extreme hatred toward our president. Is it going too far? Let us know what you think in comments.

Tweet This Post

When Michelle Malkin is Right, She’s Right

Pamela Lyn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:31:15 +0000

Before the post begins, I’d like to send wishes: to our readers in the US, Happy Veterans Day; to Canada and Australia, Happy Remembrance Day; and to every one else, Happy Armistice Day.

Now to the post —

Ok readers, you can get up off the floor now.

I haven’t suddenly lost my mind. But you know that I have to call them like I see them, even when it gets me into big trouble. So here goes.

In a recent interview with FoxNews on the topic of the tragedy at Ft. Hood, Ms Malkin stated:

“I don’t think that we have to play games with the rush to judgment anymore. I think that the bigger problem for the American government and their culture post 9/11 is that there are too many people still doing the rush to white-wash.“

She later states: “the red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.”

Friends, when Michelle is right, she’s right. Sadly, the rest of her argument misses the point and her statement is a few years too late.

During the rest of the interview, Ms Malkin blames the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood on “the military’s worship of the “false god of diversity” which, in her opinion, was placed before national security.

First of all, that is an insult to the military and all of the servicemen and women whom Michelle Malkin constantly criticizes liberals for not supporting. Shame on her,

Second, I submit that it wasn’t the military’s worship of diversity but rather the Bush administration’s rush to war with an all-volunteer military and a “see no evil” recruitment policy that opened the door to disaster.

In an April, 2008 post, I referenced a December 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle which raised very serious questions about the military’s recruitment policy. In his article, “US is recruiting misfits for army: felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks“, reporter Nick Turse wrote:

“After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military’s achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.

But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military — that ‘co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology’ that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

In 2004, the Pentagon published a ‘Moral Waiver Study,’ whose seemingly benign goal was ‘to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success.’ That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was ‘a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ‘serious criminal misconduct’ in their background’ — a category that included ‘aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.’ From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of ‘recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.’ In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, ‘the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.’

One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been ‘a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.’ “

In that same post I mentioned, Paula Zahn’s 2007 report on “Gangs in the Military“. If you missed it, here’s an excerpt from the show transcript:

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): No one knows for sure just how many gang members are in the military. By some estimations, it’s less than 1 percent of all military personnel, hardly an epidemic, but enough to prompt the FBI to issue this report.

(voice-over): Gang members at military installations from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, and murder. According to this 2007 internal FBI document, the report found that gang activity in the U.S. — quote — “is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military men training gangsters on how to use weapons.

GUTIERREZ: An issue law enforcement is taking seriously.

Al Valdez (ph) is a former detective. He trains police around the country on gangs in the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s not illegal to be a gang member in the United States. And it’s a protected right. In fact, the head of Army Recruitment Command correctly states that. What happens is, they bring that gangster mentality within the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When these cats come back from — these gang members come back from Iraq, we are going to have some hell on these streets, because these dudes are coming back with training that’s on another level.

So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said “IF”.

Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration’s rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a “traitor”, “a coward” and “an enemy sympathizer.”

Yes, when Michelle Malkin is right, she’s partially right. “The red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.“

The Illusion of An All Volunteer Army

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

Tweet This Post

This Is Our Brain on Fear

Pamela Lyn — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:47:31 +0000

If you were raised in the United States, you can probably recall the PSA with the image of an egg frying and the saying, “This is your brain on drugs”. Well the current political climate in America indicates that our collective brain is well on its way to being just as fried.

In an article for Alternet, Tammy Ganeva outlined the, “10 of the Most Obscenely Stupid Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories and Attacks Against the President.”

Janet Shan of The Hinterland Gazette posted a story, “Capt Connie Rhodes Files Lawsuit to Fight Deployment to Afghanistan, Disputes the Legitimacy of Barack Obama’s Presidency.”

Stacy Morrow posted a story for MSNBC informing us that the Arlington Independent School District which passed on showing President Obama’s address to school children plans to bus (yes, bus) some of those children to Texas Stadium on September 21st to hear former President George W. Bush.

What do these stories have in common?

They are all describing the insanity that has gripped this country. A form of mental illness so severe that it prompted Rep. Congressman Joe Wilson (SC) to shout “You Lie” at President Obama during the latter’s address to Congress.

Friends this isn’t Sparta, this is madness

Like an addict hooked on crack, it seems that a large portion of American society is hooked on fear. And now that fear is turning to disrespect, race baiting and worst of all, religious zealotry that twists the gospel of Jesus Christ from a message of love into a sermon of hate.

What bible is this man reading? Certainly not the same one that I am because in my bible Matthew 22:36-40 reads:

³⁶“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” ³⁷Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Pastor Steven Anderson needs to rethink his religion. A lot of people do.

We also need to rethink our political conversation. Yes, the blogosphere has had a lot of fun pointing out the hypocrisy and absurdities coming from both of the major political camps. In fact, some blogs/bloggers have become famous and infamous for their flaming conversations. But is this really who we want to be as a society?

It would be easy to say that this is all the result of the American public having had their fears manipulated for the past 8 years. I’m sure that eight years of: environmentalists being portrayed as kooks; war veterans being portrayed as cowards; twisted stories about weapons of mass destruction; politically timed and motivated terror alerts; anti-war dissent being labeled as of being un-American; the suspension of habeas corpus; mass wire-tapping by the telecoms; et. al. had their effect. But I suspect that the current outpouring of venom is something that has always been hidden in the dark recesses of our national soul like some dormant parasite just waiting to be fed.

In the months ahead, health care reform may or may not pass. The economy may continue to improve or it may worsen. And political candidates may or may not be re-elected. But many of the words of hate spoken over the past months will be remembered for a very long time.

America, this is our brain on fear. Consider this an intervention. Now get help!

Dispelling the Myths about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:12:33 +0000

As the nation deals with the ongoing foreclosure crisis, Republicans and conservative thinkers have increasingly blamed the situation on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Not only is this tactic a smokescreen for the real problems that we face, but it is also patently false.

CRA requires banks with branches in disadvantaged communities stop discriminatory practices called redlining. Redlining means that no matter what the credit worthiness of a borrow is, if he or she lives within certain boundaries, banks summarily dismissed their loan applications. While redlining is technically illegal, banks continued to practice it anyway. CRA said that if you want to do business in a community, you need to find ways to responsibly invest in it. One way to do so is to find credit-worthy borrowers and provide them with mortgages. This worked very well for over 30 years.

Although the Act’s critics claim otherwise, CRA does NOT mandate that banks lend to disadvantaged borrowers who are not credit-worthy, nor did it lead to banks lowering their underwriting standards to comply with the law. According to an independent study of 2006 mortgage loan data conducted by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley LLP, CRA actually deterred banks from engaging in the kinds of risky and subprime lending that brought on the foreclosure crisis. Specifically, the findings show that:

1. CRA banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;
2. The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;
3. CRA banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolios; and
4. Foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan statistical areas with greater concentrations of bank branches.

Whether one agrees with CRA’s mandate that banks responsibly serve the communities in which they accept deposits or not, the data shows that CRA actually deterred irresponsible lending. Further, the Treasury Department and the FDIC have emphatically stated that CRA is in no way responsible for the situation we are in today.

Instead of blaming CRA, we should extend CRA provisions to the independent mortgage companies and bank affiliates from which at least 75% of subprime loans originated. To continue to mislead the public on the benefits of CRA is not only immoral, but it would lead us into situation in which more – not less – of the irresponsible lending that created our current meltdown takes place.

Tweet This Post

A Few Weeks in Castle Rock

Pamela Lyn — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:11 +0000

Every four years the United States sadly seems to take on the personae of Stephen King’s fictional town of Castle Rock, Maine. Never has this been more true than in the past few weeks.

You remember Castle Rock, Maine the location for the book and movie “Needful Things.” One by one, the people of Castle Rock obtained their heart’s desires for little more than a promise to carry out a few mischievous pranks for an elderly gentleman named Leland Gaunt.

When the citizens of Castle Rock newly opened store named Needful Things, “they are all greeted by the seemingly kind old man, Leland Gaunt, and they all ignore the sign hanging in his shop, “Caveat emptor” (“Let the buyer beware”). One person after another buys the treasures he has in stock, paying surprisingly low prices and performing small “favors” (pranks) at his request. The person doing a prank usually knows the target, but has no real quarrel or relationship with him/her. Little by little, the pranks worsen existing grudges between the townspeople until they start turning violently against each other or themselves. ” – Wikipedia

Well the past few weeks political campaigning in the US has reminded me of the scene in which teenager Brian Rusk threw a barnyard full of turkey feces all over freshly washed sheets that were drying on Wilma Jerzyck’s line. Of course, Wilma was certain that her imagined nemesis Nettie Cobb had done it and tragedy ensued.

Here’s McCain spokesperson Michael Goldfarb throwing his own load of turkey poop during an interview with CNN Reporter Rick Sanchez.

McCain Spokesperson tries to claim that Barack Obama has antisemitic associates

url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioJlOjA45fk

And how about this little practical joke being played by North Carolina’s Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole on her Democratic opponent Kay Hagan.

Elizabeth Dole Accuses Kay Hagan of Being \"Non-Christian\"

url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EfvTIJU5bU

And in the following video, McCain supporter Charles David Ficken attends an Obama rally in Raleigh, North Carolina with a 10-foot tall picture of Barack Obama in East African attire, shouting the United States doesn’t need a “Muslim-leaning” person for president.

McCain Supporter Attends Obama Rally With the Message That America is Not Ready for a\"Muslim\" President
url: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1463341016/bctid1890029878

In a recent poll of Texas residents, 23% believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Leland Gaunt would certainly be proud.

Now if you haven’t read the book or seen the movie “Needful Things”, I’m not going to give away the ending. However, I will leave you with this sentence from Wikipedia’s description of the movie:

“Those who have survived the entire harrowing ordeal find themselves
facing an uncertain future in what is left of Castle Rock.”

Happy Halloween!

Tweet This Post

Hypocrisy in the McCain Campaign – Are They Sexist?

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:44:51 +0000

Who is calling Sarah Palin a Diva? Are they being sexist?

What do you think? Is Sarah Palin a diva? Is the McCain campaign guilty of sexism?

From ABC News…

Aides to Sen. John McCain anonymously attacked Palin in several reports today, criticizing the Alaska governor for diverting from the McCain campaign’s message, suggesting Palin was unhappy with certain campaign aides and accusing her of thinking more about her political future than about the success of the McCain-Palin ticket.

In an interview with CNN today, one McCain adviser anonymously called Palin “a diva” and said “she is playing for her own future” political prospects.

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” the advisor told CNN. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

Tweet This Post

Republican Corruption: Sen. Ted Stevens Found Guilty

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:14:07 +0000

Republican Corruption: Sen. Ted Stevens Found Guilty on 7 Counts

From USA Today…

Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty Monday on seven counts of concealing more than $250,000 in gifts from wealthy friends — becoming the fifth U.S. senator ever to be convicted of a crime.

The verdict comes about a week before Alaska’s voters will decide whether to re-elect the Republican senator to an eighth term and at a time when his party is fighting to stem its losses in a tough year.

How does this conviction affect the McCain/Palin campaign? Isn’t it a little odd that Sen. Stevens can still be elected to the Senate, but as a convicted felon, he can’t vote? Let me know what you think in comments.

Tweet This Post

SNL Video – George Bush Endorses John McCain

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:18:48 +0000

We are only days away from the most scary important presidential election of our lives. And, it’s getting more and more ugly with each passing day. So…For the sake of my sanity, and yours, let’s have a little chuckle.

Saturday Night Live Video – George Bush Endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin

Tweet This Post