Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
May 20, 2005NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the BackBy Andrew DobbsWell, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today. Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would be running for the US Senate. Langevin, one of Congress' few disabled members (he is a quadripeligic), was leading Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chaffee by several points and looked to beat him in 2006, adding yet another D to the Senate. But Langevin had one problem-- he is a pro-life Democrat and Chaffee is a pro-abortion rights Republican. What to do? NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, sprang into action and ran Langevin out of the race by getting a bunch of out-of-staters to start raising money for potential primary opponents. Langevin dropped out in favor of two pro-abortion rights Democrats-- Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse. Neither are doing as well as Langevin in the statewide polls, but NARAL seemed to get what it wanted, a Democratic nominee who would fight for access to abortion. Now, as my one-time roommate Ezra Klein points out, NARAL has greeted this opportunity to knock off a Republican by endorsing Lincoln Chaffee for reelection. Chaffee is indeed pro-choice, one of the country's last prominent liberal Republicans, but he is a Republican no less. The first vote he cast this year was for Bill "James Dobson is My Homeboy" Frist as Senate Majority Leader. Langevin's first vote was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. It seems as though NARAL could realize that their causes are better served by ANYONE other than Chaffee, and now that they have two Democrats on their side in the race, why wouldn't they wait to support the eventual nominee? It is truly confounding. As a Democrat, I am angered and as someone who is pro-life I am appalled. Jim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to, and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus. While they are unlikely to turn our party pro-life, they would send a clear message to anti-abortion voters who agree with us on other issues that it is okay to vote for us-- we aren't beholden to any special interest. Now NARAL has not only demonstrated to anyone paying attention that our party is hostile to pro-life candidates, but has abandoned us in favor of a Fristian Republican. It's a lose-lose situation for Democrats. For those who support access to abortion NARAL is still the nation's primary advocate for their cause, but it lost a bit of credibility today. It is time for us to realize that all the petty differences in the world are meaningless-- in a partisan age, partisan politics must be played. Here's hoping Langevin shows them up by reentering the race, winning the nomination and taking out Chaffee (or possibly the right-winger that beats Chaffee in the primary). We need him in the US Senate. Posted by Andrew Dobbs at May 20, 2005 03:51 PM | TrackBack
Comments
I would have been appalled if NARAL had supported a pro-life candidate. As it is, they simply did what they're chartered to do - support pro-choice legislators, and pro-choice legislation. NARAL is an issues organization, not a wing of the Democratic party. Posted by: Brew at May 20, 2005 04:41 PMYou're mad at NARAL for not supporting an anti-choice candidate. Um, hello? Are you just really confused here? Posted by: John at May 20, 2005 06:07 PMI think the whole thread is pretty amusing. Kos & most of the posters on his site constantly demean the DLC, Blue Dog Dems and anyone who doesn't fit their progressive/liberal mold. Many have advocated throwing those Dems out of the party, voting for third parties, etc - basically, putting their left-wing ideology over party. Chet Edwards may not vote the way they want him to on some GOP-sponsored bills, but he's a reliable vote for a Dem Speaker who would never let those kind of bills show up on the floor. Now, NARAL makes a similar stance of ideology above politic and they're wrong? Please - NARAL has made their agenda very clear: to support pro-choice candidates, not pro-choice Dems. It's nice that Kos & his posters have found a new target beyond the normal evils of non-progressives, but the hypocrisy is sickening. Personally, I do disagree with NARAL & think their move was short-sighted, but I don't advocate running conservative Dems out of the party. Posted by: noonespecial at May 20, 2005 06:26 PMJim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to The man is a pro abortion criminalization nut job. He would support laws that would kill my wife and daughter, screw him. , and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus. Bob Casey is going to lose, because the moderate center won't go out for him, and the wingnuts will continue to vote for Senator "A frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex." There are issues that Democrats can take conservative positions on in Pennsylvania, like Guns, where they can pick up votes. Abortion is not one of them. As an aside, having lived both in Texas and Pennsylvania, why is it that while guns are big in both, in Texas, people just want to shoot stuff, and seem to be constantly wacking themselves by accident, while in Pennsylvania, it seems to be the classic "responsible sportsman" behavior. People who are big on guns in Pennsylvania hunt and eat what they hunt, and people who are big on guns in Texas want to use high powered weapons on oil drums and paper targets (not counting the internet hunting). Posted by: Matthew Saroff at May 20, 2005 07:12 PMNo wonder I don't take the "major" left bloggers seriously. They are so full of self-importance, they don't even take the time to use any sense at all. NARAL isn't a part of the Democratic Party, and it can endorse whoever it wants. Lincoln Chafee isn't a fascist, by the way, and as long as he is in the Senate, and he will be re-elected, Democrats are going to need his help on so many issues. Perhaps someday he will be so disgusted with the Republican Party he will bail ala Jeffords. Posted by: Susan Nunes at May 20, 2005 11:44 PMWait a minute, you used to room with Ezra?!? I'm so jealous. Posted by: Cincinnatus at May 21, 2005 12:06 AMAndrew, did you really expect NARAL to endorse someone who would criminalize abortion? NARAL is not, I repeat, NOT associated with the Democratic Party. The same thing goes for Planned Parenthood, TARAL, etc. They are friendly towards Dems because of the pro-choice plank in our platform, and our party (generally) tends to try and avoid oppressing women by interfering with their right to choose. I applaud anyone who does not interfere with my reproductive rights. Posted by: Andrea Meyer at May 21, 2005 01:41 AMYou all are missing the point-- Langevin is not running anymore. Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse are both pro-abortion rights and will vote for Democratic leadership, which will protect those rights. Lincoln Chaffee is also pro-abortion rights, but will vote for pro-life leadership. NARAL should endorse the candidate that will be best for their cause, and there is not a single Republican who can claim that mantle. Bob Casey is leading in all of the polls, and I have never decried the DLC or the Blue Dogs-- I agree with them on a lot of things. And Ezra and I shared a room for a while in Vermont when we were both working for Dean. Posted by: Andrew Dobbs at May 21, 2005 04:29 PMYou're all missing Andrew's point a bit here I think-- he's not saying NARAL should have endorsed Langevin. But he IS saying that they are being a typical problematic inside-the-beltway interest group that misses the big picture, in so far as they've handled this situation with Chafee. And as someone who is looking at it from the ground up in Rhode Island, I'm with him on that. The fact is, its not that NARAL made noises they'd support Chafee over Langevin in the end and were set to help the only other candidate in the race then, Matt Brown (Sheldon Whitehouse was going to stay out of it and back Langevin, and maybe run for Govenor). Its that they did so in a rather manipulative way to force Langevin out by making it clear that they'd create such a nasty primary that either guy would be bruised and financially drained coming out into the fall campaign (we have a late primary in early September, though there is FINALLY talk of changing that afoot). That has resonance since its what happenned last time, when Langevin's also-pro-life-predecessor Rep. Bob Weygand got crushed by Chafee after he and pro-choice former Lt. Governor Richard Licht duked it out rather bitterly. This was power politics at its most successful being played, with noise aimed at the national party over Langevin and Casey, Hollywood celebs fundraising for Brown, and so forth--- and yet then they turn around and endorse Chafee, the guy who has only met 1 Bush nominee he couldn't vote for!!! And moreover, I think the big problem that the folks at Kos latch onto, is that in this case they are taking power to decide for ourselves away from the people at the grassroots. Langevin is a liberal populist who happens to part company on this ONE ISSUE, albeit a big issue that does make me uncomfortable; and its overall a pro-choice state, albeit heavily Catholic and thus with good chunk of its overwhelming Democratic majority consisting of anti-choice Democrats; but still, people here really do LOVE him! In 2000, when he ran for his House seat (representing half the state), he did so not only replacing a fellow pro-lifer, but in a primary where he was against 3 other credible candidates that were pro-choice (including one supported with tons of funds by EMILYs LIST). Lots of people who are pro-choice voted for Langevin, and still do vote for him. The point is, that's a debate we should be having. And likewise with the matter of whether Chafee's votes on judges and empowering Frist/Dobson are utterly damning to his pro-choice stance across the board otherwise. I happen to personally think that even Langevin, who is wrong on the issue and individual votes but would have been against Bush's extremist judges like Harry Reid, would have been better for choice on this count, and that either Brown or Whitehouse now DEFINITELY is better by far. But still, I don't expect NARAL or anyone else in the pro-choice movement to utterly ditch one of the few remaining supportive Republicans. However, I WOULD have liked it if, all things being equal in those things balancing out to me-- and especially being equal now that you have two pro-choicers on the Democratic side-- they'd have kept neutral on this one. I mean, seriously, Chafee might be someoene they still want to represent pro-choice Republicans, but personally, as someone who does give a huge damn about protecting choice, I think that shouldn't be enough to give him the endorsement. We do live in day and age of partisan poltiics where the GOP has gone off the deep end, and that is something that liberal interest groups are being rather slow to factor into their still doing politics-as-usual. I've got no problem with them supportign a pro-choice REpublican to keep those folks alive, so long as they actually GET something in return. With Chafee, all you get is a vote on everything but the stuff that matters the MOST, and someone who is frankly a wimp in standing up for himself effectively. The Bolton nomination fight shows how he has a powerful possible role to play on the Foreign Relations Committee-- why not use his swing vote, for instance, to join with Dems in doing something about international family planning policies and other ridiculouslness--and also how feckless he is with it (and how frankly, his status in the GOP yet as a known contrarian makes him completely able to be railroaded as such by his leadership). In that regard, then, he's actually worse again than Langevin, who on birth control, sex ed. and stem cell research (especially the latter, given its PERSONAL relevance for him) is not only on the right side, but AGGRESSIVELY so. A good analogy is Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of upstate NY, who is pretty conservative overall but is a dedicated environmentalist and every cycle since 2000 has gotten an aggressive primary challenge sponsored by Club for Growth. Now, I've got no problem wiht LCV et. al. going gangbusters for Boehlert, but its because he is in such danger and actually gets them something in his role as House Science Committee Chairman (indeed, the very thing that most infuriates the far right about him and motivates them to come back just as strong each cycle). Chafee, on the other hand, has done squat to really and effectively push back against his party's extremist tendencies, with the sole exception of his deciding committee vote on Clear Skies (a big part, btw, of why Senator Inhofe is reportedly among those encouraging Steve Laffey to challenge him in a primary)-- certainly he hasn't done anything useful on choice, and more generally he has bowed to leadership on major opportunities to stand up like judicial nominees, the Bolton nomination (and Gonzales for that matter), and the sham medicare prescription drug bill (he voted against all progressively-oriented "poison pill" amendments Dems tried to attach and against the last ditch attempt to effectively filibuster it that failed by ONE VOTE, then voted against the bill on the floor!). Like I said, I WANT there to be pro-choice Republicans around with influence and want NARAL and other groups to support them if justifiable, but I DON'T think that an utter wimp like Chafee justifies that support, let alone trying to bolster him with such early involvement the way things have gone down. That's the sort of me-first, Beltway-focused mentality that has been killing progressives for a while and dragging down the Democratic Party as it caters to that tendency rather than forging a broader progressive brand that incorporates ALL of those usually-allied groups' issues. AND its also allowed the GOP to grow even more to the right and grow more powerful, by showing its members in Congress, that they can buy off organized progressive opposition outside of the Democratic Pary infrastructure. By allying on a few issues and in return getting a scorecard designed in their favor (for instance, NARAL giving Chafee a 100% rating, because the one judicial nominee whose cloture vote they've put on the scorecard coincidentally is the only one he voted against), while all the while generally advancing a conservative agenda and power which detracts from the number of GOP moderates and makes said groups get even more defensive of them, folks like Chafee get off easy yet in the end screw themselves and the progressive agenda elements they support. Meanwhile, the GOP and its affiliated groups go around picking off moderate Democrats left and right with absolutely no compunction regardless of their particular stances, and indeed with occasional inadvertent help from those same DC-based interest groups (via stuff like expending energy against people like Langevin). I fervently support the work NARAL does, and its BECAUSE I want them to be more effective in it and BECAUSE I fully grasp the argument that is behind their involvement in the RI Senate race, that I'm so pissed at them right now. But if NARAL is deciding none of the above matters enough to not support their friendly-yet-feckless incumbent out of political calculation, and to send both money and an endorsement his way to bolster his own campaign's notion that he's a sensible progressive (and thus undercut Brown or Whitehouse's ability to broadcast a sensible critique that hits home), then they are in a sense just trying to run the table for him. I'm against Chafee BECAUSE I care about choice and a broader range of progressive concerns, and would have accepted Langevin because I think that he balances out Chafee on the issue when all is said and done (and yes, as Andrew points out, would have demonstrated overall that people who are pro-life have a home in the party). Yet at the end of the day, the "official" voice of the pro-choice movement has decided to manipulate things in favor of politics-as-usual. First they support Brown as the pro-choice option and put him up to go around getting press literally saying (I was there when he said it on one occasion) that he doesn't want anti-choice people in his party, and then after Langevin doesn't run they turn around and dictate support for Chafee anyway, without even giving anyone else a real chance or letting us here in RI filter it all out, and that's just ridiculous, pompous, and short-sighted. Sorry for the long comments before-- its just that as someone here in RI, I always think that a bit of education on the things at play might be worth putting out there, and I would expect the same from any of you if I ever comment on something Texas-related (for instance, the most recent post on my blog deals with the sexy-cheerleading ban). But just realized I had a few individualized points to respond to as well as the broader stuff: Andrew-- sorry to break it to you, but Langevin isn't getting back in and probably shouldn't politically. If he does so now, then he's giving up a safe seat and flip-flopping in a huge way that is simply not in character for him. He never actually considered running for Senate this time around seriously until Kennedy suggested it when he took his name out of hte running in December, and then the polls showing him clobbering Chafee came out in January and got everyone in the state and national parties pushing for him to jump in. And while he very definitely was going to run, it was his weakness in not wanting to give up his safe seat (which he really could have for life if he wants) for such a big risk that NARAL et. al. played on by making a national issue out of it and stumping for Matt Brown. It was very known that Langevin put off announcing his plans even as he put everything into place to run for Senate (and indeed as others laid plans; Charlie Fogarty, the Lt. Governor who had been planning to run for Governor and now publicly has made that path known, was going to step aside in favor of Whitehouse, and went to DC to let Patrick Kennedy introduce him to contacts that could help him put together a campaign for Langevin's open House seat), because he wanted to see how the abortion issue played out and how Brown did in the money department during the first quarter. Once he knew that Brown was going to do quite well, and that the national heat would be on, he bailed, and he's not going to interject himself back in. Besides which, he and Patrick Kennedy are Sheldon Whitehouse's co-chairs as an attempt to rally consensus behind him in the party, so as to avoid a bloody fight; so its not exactly looking good for him to bail on that exactly...
Andrea: You are right that NARAL is in no way a part of the Democratic Party nor ought it to be-- but aside from points about how it ought to handle things to their most effective strategy, that really does not matter in a couple of big ways in reality. First of course is public perception, wherein the pro-choice movement institutionally and the Democratic Party HAVE been joined by the way they typically interact the last couple of decades, under the lines I mentioned in my other comment. Second, and even more important and relevant to this situation, is that this same trend has sadly fed into the same deterioration of state parties that Dean is trying to counter, and in its place put state parties that basically ARE an amalgamation of progressive advocacy groups. Here in Rhode Island, because of traditional dominance and high ability to rely on such strong groups (particularly organized labor), the state Democratic Party existed only on paper as an organization until a few years ago, in the person of a Chairman and executive committee. That the current Chairman, Bill Lynch, maintains office space adjacent to Patrick Kennedy's for the party and hired an Executive Director in 2003 (as well as bringing on board a couple of paid field staff and a handful of other folks on a volunteer basis, and has also actually started having an internship program, and generally taking us young 'uns quite seriously/lending a huge hand) is rather revolutionary in the scheme of the last several decades. But in the meanwhile, its basically a fact that in our present case, gropus like the state NOW affiliate (the most organized women's-rights-oriented group locally, headed by an awesome woman named Melody Drnach) basically comprise the institutional Democratic Party. And its the same nationwide-- think of Ohio, where the Kerry-Edwards campaign was on its own aside from the national America Coming Together infrastructure (an amalgamation of interest groups) because the state Democratic Party was in shambles. The question for NARAL should be- will Chafee vote against any Supreme Court nominee who is pro-life? I would guess from his recent behavior that he would not. It would be pretty ironic if NARAL endorced Chafee only to have him vote FOR a Supreme Court nominee who ends up turning over Roe v. Wade. These are not normal times- normally NARAL should endorce the pro choice candidate no matter which party- but these are not normal times. They need to look at the big picture and see that Chafee is a huge wimp and that when the rubber hits the road he does not stand up for moderate values. How many of Bush's judges has he voted against? Posted by: Paida at May 21, 2005 06:15 PMThe other side of this whole thing is why now? Why did NARAL endorce so early? Did they endorce candidates nationally? It would be interesting to know what kind of personal connections there are between NARAL and Chafee's people. I mean NARAL endorcing a guy who voted for Dobson puppet Frist- come on people....... you really think that guy is committed to choice? Where have you all been? We need that Senate seat- we need it bad! If they get this filabuster thing- good-bye Roe v Wade Chafee or no Chafee. I was very upset that Reid became minority leader since his is pro-life- but I have to say now I really think Dascle losing was the best thing that ever happened to us. I worship Reid now. If a candidate is pro-choice, but doesn't have any balls- it doesn't matter. Posted by: paida at May 21, 2005 06:25 PM
Post a comment
|
About Us
About/Contact
Advertising Policies
Donate
Archives
June 2005
May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003
Recent Entries
Staples to Announce for Ag Commissioner
Democrats Vindicated By Legislative Session The Dots Are Now Connected Combs Announces Run Changes in my life, BOR Chris Bell in Austin Last Week The Da Vinci Code and Christianity in America Update on the Pending KBH Announcement Challenge to Keel and Kinky Thoughts Deep Throat Revealed! KBH To Declare for Governor? Republican Legislators Unable to Say the "P" Word Editorial Boards Across the State Hammer the Lege The "Do Nothing" Legislature End of Session Notes Our Dumb Legislature Gay Foster Care Ban Stripped From CPS Bill Run-off Notes Justifying Abortion All your media are belong to Chris Bell
Categories
2004: Dem Convention (79)
2004: Presidential Election (570) 2008: Presidential Election (8) About Burnt Orange (128) Around Campus (144) Austin City Limits (142) Axis of Idiots (29) Blogs and Blogging (136) BOR Humor (63) BOR Sports (59) Budget (16) Burnt Orange Endorsements (14) Congress (41) Crime and Punishment (2) Dallas City Limits (102) Elsewhere in Texas (17) Get into the Action! (5) GLBT (151) Houston City Limits (30) International (96) Intraparty (39) National Politics (508) Oh, you know, other stuff. (31) Politics for Dummies (11) Pop Culture (65) Redistricting (255) Social Security (30) Texas Lege (129) Texas Politics (693) That Liberal Media (2) The Economy, Stupid (15) The Stars At Night Are Big And Bright (1)
BOR Edu.
University of Texas
University Democrats
BOR News
The Daily Texan
The Statesman The Chronicle
BOR Politics
DNC
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass DSCC DSCC Blog: From the Roots DCCC DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder Texas Dems Travis County Dems U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos State Rep. Dawnna Dukes State Rep. Elliott Naishtat State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez State Rep. Mark Strama
Linked to BOR!
Alexa Rating
Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem Technoranti Link Cosmos Blogstreet Blogback
Polling
American Research Group
Annenberg Election Survey Gallup Polling Report Rasmussen Reports Survey USA Zogby
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers DFW Bogs DMN Blog In the Pink Texas Inside the Texas Capitol The Lasso Pol State TX Archives Quorum Report Daily Buzz George Strong Political Analysis Texas Law Blog Texas Monthly Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
100 Monkeys Typing
Alandwilliams.com Alt 7 Annatopia Appalachia Alumni Association Barefoot and Naked BAN News Betamax Guillotine Blue Texas Border Ass News The Daily DeLay The Daily Texican Dos Centavos Drive Democracy Easter Lemming Esoterically Get Donkey Greg's Opinion Half the Sins of Mankind Jim Hightower Houtopia Hugo Zoom Latinos for Texas Off the Kuff Ones and Zeros Panhandle Truth Squad Aaron Peña's Blog People's Republic of Seabrook Pink Dome The Red State Rhetoric & Rhythm Rio Grande Valley Politics Save Texas Reps Skeptical Notion Something's Got to Break Southpaw Stout Dem Blog The Scarlet Left Tex Prodigy ToT View From the Left Yellow Doggeral Democrat
TX GOP Blogs
Beldar Blog
Blogs of War Boots and Sabers Dallas Arena Jessica's Well Lone Star Times Publius TX Safety for Dummies The Sake of Arguement Slightly Rough
Daily Reads
&c.
ABC's The Note Atrios BOP News Daily Kos Media Matters MyDD NBC's First Read Political State Report Political Animal Political Wire Talking Points Memo CBS Washington Wrap Wonkette Matthew Yglesias
College Blogs
CDA Blog
Get More Ass (Brown) Dem Apples (Harvard) KU Dems U-Delaware Dems UNO Dems Stanford Dems
GLBT Blogs
American Blog
BlogActive Boi From Troy Margaret Cho Downtown Lad Gay Patriot Raw Story Stonewall Dems Andrew Sullivan
More Reads
Living Indefinitely
Blogroll Burnt Orange!
BOR Webrings
< ? Texas Blogs # >
<< ? austinbloggers # >> « ? MT blog # » « ? MT # » « ? Verbosity # »
Election Returns
CNN 1998 Returns
CNN 2000 Returns CNN 2002 Returns CNN 2004 Returns state elections 1992-2005 bexar county elections collin county elections dallas county elections denton county elections el paso county elections fort bend county elections galveston county elections harris county elections jefferson county elections tarrant county elections travis county elections
Texas Media
abilene
abilene reporter news alpine alpine avalanche amarillo amarillo globe news austin austin american statesman austin chronicle daily texan online keye news (cbs) kut (npr) kvue news (abc) kxan news (nbc) news 8 austin beaumont beaumont enterprise brownsville brownsville herald college station the battalion (texas a&m) corpus christi corpus christi caller times kris news (fox) kztv news (cbs) crawford crawford lone star iconoclast dallas-fort worth dallas morning news dallas observer dallas voice fort worth star-telegram kdfw news (fox) kera (npr) ktvt news (cbs) nbc5 news wfaa news (abc) del rio del rio news herald el paso el paso times kdbc news (cbs) kfox news (fox) ktsm (nbc) kvia news (abc) galveston galveston county daily news harlingen valley morning star houston houston chronicle houston press khou news (cbs) kprc news (nbc) ktrk news (abc) laredo laredo morning times lockhart lockhart post-register lubbock lubbock avalanche journal lufkin lufkin daily news marshall marshall news messenger mcallen the monitor midland - odessa midland reporter telegram odessa american san antonio san antonio express-news seguin seguin gazette-enterprise texarkana texarkana gazette tyler tyler morning telegraph victoria victoria advocate waco kxxv news (abc) kwtx news (cbs) waco tribune-herald weslaco krgv news (nbc) statewide texas cable news texas triangle
World News
ABC News All Africa News Arab News Atlanta Constitution-Journal News.com Australia BBC News Bloomberg Boston Globe CBS News Chicago Tribune Christian Science Monitor CNN Denver Post FOX News Google News The Guardian Inside China Today International Herald Tribune Japan Times LA Times Mexico Daily Miami Herald MSNBC New Orleans Times-Picayune New York Times El Pais (Spanish) Salon San Francisco Chronicle Seattle Post-Intelligencer Slate Times of India Toronto Star Wall Street Journal Washington Post
Powered by
Movable Type 3.15 |