Skip to main content

    The previous three installments of this ongoing project (here, here, and here) took a look at the ongoing Chris Christie saga in New Jersey, whereby the Great 'Moderate' Hope of the Republican Party for 2016 and the White House got in trouble over a bridge too near.

     Revelations that approach lanes to the George Washington Bridge were closed as an apparent act of political retribution (and possibly as a message over financing for a development project)  have since expanded into a number of investigations and reports throwing light into some pretty dark places for Christie and his administration. And yet, while the allegations are disturbing, more disturbing is the way in which so little about Christie's real character is a surprise. How is it that so many like Chris Christie seem to rise and thrive in America these days?

      Follow me past the Orange Omnilepticon for a quick recap and discussion of what the Christie Mystery says about the current State of the Union.

          The Mystery of Chris Christie is simple: how did someone whose increasingly obvious character flaws, documented bad behavior, partisanship, and questionable judgement pass himself off for so long as a centrist, can-do champion of bi-partisanship governing, a regular guy who'd be a great choice to be president? Part 1 of this series touched on just a few of the things that should have raised warning flags about Christie's fitness to hold office; this diary by middlegirl details how his very first successful run for office was fueled in part by smears and a dishonest media campaign.

The Problem of the Press
     The story in Part 1 is about the failure of the media to perform the functions a supposedly free press needs to do to in a viable democracy: inform an engaged voting public, challenge the government as needed, and provide context and background in a manner which at the very least attempts some objectivity. Instead we get horse race reporting where the focus is on who is winning and who is losing. We get trivialization of important matters, where complex issues are reduced to sound bites without any background or context, reporting a mile wide and an inch deep. We get stenography, where reporters repeat back what they're told uncritically in exchange for access. We get narratives, where once an 'official' version of events gets established in the press, anything that doesn't fit it gets omitted from coverage. (Benghazi! IRS scandal!) We get false equivalence, where no distinctions are made between one side or another - just uncritical equal time for every side without regard to actual facts. (Example: "Some say Earth is round; others disagree.)

          Except, of course, IOKIYAR and things like this happen. (Or don't happen - h/t to Digby for noting it.) It's not surprising when you look at the whole picture. Contributing to these failures of the press is the existence of "the mighty Wurlitzer" - a combination of dedicated right-wing 'news' networks, talk radio, newspapers, radio stations, think tank propaganda mills, astroturf groups with dark money, etc. that is constantly working to shape narratives it favors and suppress those it doesn't - and attack its designated enemies - which includes the 'liberal media'. Conservatives have deliberately built a vast messaging machine, and they know how to use it.

     They work at framing issues to control the Overton Window - the things that actually get discussed and considered in political debate as 'reasonable' while excluding everything else. (Example: until Occupy Wall Street forced the issue, inequality got damned little attention from the press.) What happens when someone relies on FOX for news exclusively? It's not just the predictable spin on issues; it's also the things that disappear.

Given the statistics about Fox’s conservative influence and the way it misleads its viewers, I think it is fair to classify much of what it does as propaganda. My liberal cynicism seemed to render me immune to that — their O’Reilly-style hectoring eliciting a few laughs, but doing little to change my worldview. But Fox, as I came to discover, indulges in another form of opinion creation. Let’s call this the propaganda of ignorance. By choosing which stories to cover, and, perhaps more important, which stories to ignore, Fox is able to advance its political agenda in a much more subtle and insidious way.

I think that some of my fascination with the news comes from a basic fearfulness, a neurotic belief that the world is a threatening place, but that if I know enough about what is going on, I will be able to avoid the most horrific of disasters.

But now I was aware of Fox’s role as a purveyor, not only of right-wing information but of right-wing ignorance, and I began to examine my mind for things that I hadn’t gotten any information about in the past month. The most notable items that were missing, I realized, were people from other countries and poverty. Aside from the times when picturesque destruction video was available, there was essentially no coverage of foreign affairs. On the poverty side, programs like food stamps and welfare were generally referred to as handouts, and the only time poor people were mentioned was when they were a source of malfeasance. One prominent “Fox & Friends” story, for example, cited a woman who, because of a computer glitch, managed to buy $700 worth of food on a food stamp debit card with a balance of $.47.

emphasis added

     What they can't control, they work hard to suppress by attacking  other media outlets and their sources. Not that they have to work too hard at it - the rest of the media, as Kos notes, can't be bothered to do real reporting and/or fact checking. It's gotten to the point where people get more accurate information from comedy shows than supposed news organizations. (H/T to BruinKid)

       It is a phenomenon exacerbated by the consolidation and corporatization of the press. When a news organization is only one element in a corporate empire, its survival depends on ROI and the bottom line. At which point, the choice between telling people what they need to know versus what they want to hear (or others want them to be told)… becomes no choice at all. (The mission statement of Charles P. Pierce is a refreshing blast of fresh air.) It's rather difficult for the 'free press' to do its job in supporting democracy when the bottom line rules all.

      It's even more difficult when the competition doesn't give a damn about objectivity at all, just winning the news at all costs. The problem of power is recapped below; it's worth noting that the power of the press IS a form of power, and that power can be used for good or ill. In the hands of a high SDO personality like this man with more than a little paranoia, we're not talking about a free press any more; we're talking about a weaponized propaganda machine. One of the problems the founding fathers missed while setting up a republic was that they didn't anticipate how the world would change with media empires in the information age.

      The Courtier Press is worth special mention - those members of the 4th Estate who have been subsumed by their erstwhile natural prey into a kind of symbiosis, where in exchange for parroting the views of the rich and powerful and giving short shrift to those who oppose them, they consider themselves privileged members of the Established Order. Access to power is worth gold in the information age - even if it too often proves to be Fools Gold. Press and Pundits alike know the rules of courtiers - step over the line into actual journalism, and prepare to become an unperson. (Example: Mann and Ornstein.)

    Christie's downfall may have one redeeming feature - it's revealing (or should) how feckless the press and punditry has become. Here's courtier David Brooks on NPR's All Things Considered on Friday:

...Nonetheless, if it does turn out to be true that he did know about the lane closing, it is actually kind of hard for me to see Christie running for president. He was OK that he's a bit of a bully.

It's OK because people wanted maybe to send a message to Washington that we need to send a bully to Washington, but a duplicitous bully who lied, really, about the central claim of that news conference, that's tough to run on, especially with so many other candidates in the field.

...And in Republican circles, I was having a conversation with somebody a couple hours ago, saying who can really stand up stature to stature with Hillary Clinton and the only name that was coming to mind was Governor Christie.
emphasis added

        It's awfully hard to read this without getting the impression that David Brooks (and who knows how many others in the press) think there's nothing about being a thug that should disqualify someone from political office - if anything they seem to respect/revere them. That is, until something comes up that they can't reconcile with their 'man crush' feelings. They were okay with Christie going to Washington because he might be able to beat Hillary Clinton (Strong Leader!) and that was all that mattered - as long as he wasn't caught out lying.

      See, that's the thing about authoritarian followers - slavish adulation of their leaders, so long as they don't let them down or otherwise do something they can't deny to themselves is a betrayal. Sara Robinson notes this is one of the few ways to get authoritarian followers to break free, the realization that they're being victimized by their leaders. It doesn't mean they won't turn to others just as bad, but it does create an opening for a real learning experience.

       Paul Krugman for one, is a rare bit of fresh air on this.

Chris Christie’s political success in New Jersey was based on the perception that his personal style — which involved lots of yelling at people — was a sign of his governing effectiveness. This perception may have flourished most easily in a state whose informal motto is “You got a problem with that?”

But what some of us suspected all along was that Christie didn’t yell at people because he was a get-results kind of guy; he yelled at people because he had anger management issues. And his office’s bizarre screed against David Wildstein, his former ally now turned enemy, confirms that diagnosis.

John Peter Zenger weeps. And a press that has made itself irrelevant wonders why they are now being treated like the enemy. That's the problem with sucking up to authoritarian leaders - the moment you annoy them, you're expendable and to hell with freedom of the press.
The Problem of Power - Part 1

      It is the nature of power that it attracts those least fit to wield it or to be trusted with it. The founding fathers attempts to temper power with a government divided into mutually competing/cooperating branches was intended to provide enough checks and balances to prevent any one branch or any one person from becoming paramount. Government of, by and for the people - not merely the powerful; a republic, "if you can keep it."

       Part 2 of this series looked at research dealing with one of the more troubling aspects of human nature: authoritarianism. There is a certain mindset that is predisposed to desire 'strong leadership' because of a generally fearful and mistrustful attitude towards the world. These people are natural followers. At an instinctive level they desire an authority to submit to which promises to keep them safe, authority they support aggressively, and a world view that doesn't do nuance. You are either for them, or against them; their world is defined in large part by who their enemies are, and what frightens them. Facts and reason are not what moves them; they go with their gut.

        The leaders who they attract and put into power tend to rank high not only in authoritarian tendencies but also high Social Dominance Orientation. As Sara Robinson summarized the work of Bob Altemeyer and John W. Dean on this:

Leaders form just a small fraction of the group. Social scientists refer to this group as having a high "social dominance orientation (SDO)" -- a set of traits that can be readily identified with psychological testing. "These are people who seize every opportunity to lead, and who enjoy having power over others," says Dean -- and they have absolutely no qualms about objectifying people and breaking rules to advance their own ambitions. High-SDO personalities tend to emerge very early in life (which suggests at least some genetic predisposition): you probably remember a few from your own sandbox days, and almost certainly have known a few who've made your adult life a living hell as well.

High-SDO people are characterized by four core traits: they are dominating, opposed to equality, committed to expanding their own personal power, and amoral. These are usually accompanied by other unsavory traits, many of which render them patently unsuitable for leadership roles in a democracy.

     If that doesn't read like a thumbnail sketch of Chris Christie, what does? Christie is a member of a Republican party that has become not only increasingly conservative, but authoritarian; the party has deliberately pursued a strategy of appealing to authoritarian voters by looking for people angry/afraid on the basis of things like religion and race. (And if you didn't look at the lengthy profile of Roger Ailes linked above, take another look - and there's more here.)

     The problem of authoritarian leaders is that they thrive on fear and anger. They've deliberately stirred up division in America for political gain, and cultivated an atmosphere of perpetual threats that only 'strong leaders' can deal with. The paradox is, you need not be a natural authoritarian follower to fall for them, not if you ARE afraid and angry for whatever reason. (Noun - verb- 9-1-1 still sucks in a lot of people.) Actively opposing them has the paradoxical effect of reinforcing the aura of fear and anger they cultivate - and energizes their followers. Enemies to attack!

      As Part 2 went into some length about, Ronald Wilson Reagan's narrative that government wasn't the solution, it was the problem, set the stage for an America that stopped working for most of us, an America in which most of us are becoming poorer, less secure, and disengaged from the necessary work of governing ourselves. And thus the Christies among us have free reign. (Again, Pierce nails it.)

The Problem of Power - Part 2

        Reagan's trashing of the public sector and the very idea of a public is one of the more toxic legacies of modern conservatism - everyone for themselves, as David Frum inadvertently reveals while attempting to put Margaret Thatcher in context over her remark that there is no such thing as society. You're on your own, suckers; somehow the idea of people banding together to cope more effectively with an unfair universe has been tarred as weakness and irresponsibility.

      The cult of individualism, selfishness over all, has been glorified to toxic levels. The founding fathers knew about the choice of hanging together or hanging separately; they knew that slavishly following personal interests at the expense of common interests was a recipe for defeat in the long run. Further, that foundation of common interest has been used to enable individual freedom to an extent isolated individuals could never achieve on their own. Of course, it works just fine if you're a high SDO leader with the resources and followers to get what YOU what, and screw everyone else. And it works even better if your enemies/victims can't/won't work together to oppose you.

        It goes hand and hand with the glorification of the private sector as the source of all that is good in this world. Part 3 of this series looked at how it has become a de facto state religion in many regards. The fallacy of looking to market forces as the magical means of solving our problems ignores one thing: the business of business is about one thing: profit. Market forces have no inherent morality, no automatic balancing of interests, no regard for history or long term consequences. A diary by akadjian lists 25 Images of Markets "Regulating Themselves" which gives the lie to the mindless idolatry of the markets. If the founding fathers crafted our republic with an eye to avoiding the predatory inclinations of tyrants, and insisted on separation of church and state to preserve us from religious zealots as well, they did not do quite as well at protecting us from the corrupting power of wealth.

      As with authoritarian movements, the private sector has become a hot bed of high SDO types, especially in the financial sector with a rather nasty form of narcissism to boot. They don't need followers for their power - they make up for it with money. And in an America, in a world with vast concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, they can damn well buy what they want, including a government that serves them and no one else.

        This is part of the reason Christie was able to pass himself off as a bipartisan kind of guy, as opposed to 'values voters' social conservative types; he's coming from the financial wing of the party, an acolyte of the power of money that too many worship, on the Democratic side as well. As the spotlight on the Christie administration widens, it's becoming clear that his administration was focused on pay to play politics, as this example from Pooter03 shows.

      It's that soft bigotry of low expectations. Too many of us have gotten used to the idea that we should expect little or nothing from government, that there's little difference who gets elected from either party, if we even bother to vote at all. It's too easy to assume nothing we can do will make a difference, that our best hope is to be left alone - but we expect to be ripped off anyway. There's a distaste by too many people to even talk about politics, let alone get involved. After all, politicization is bad! (And just ask any bully - they'll tell you it's not their fault their victims are always provoking them by trying to stand up for themselves.) As Yeats put it,

...Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst  
Are full of passionate intensity.
       The antidote is simple. As Lois McMaster Bujold has put it, "The world is made by the people who show up for the job." We need to show up instead of leaving it to the Christies and those who back them. The final installment of this series will attempt to finally square this circle into submission with the power of fantasy, and also with a bit of exegis regarding a famous/notorious quote and what is (IMO) the source on which it is based.

       Stay Tuned!


Given the latest news about Chris Christie,

0%0 votes
4%3 votes
25%16 votes
17%11 votes
26%17 votes
19%12 votes
3%2 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes

| 63 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 0-)

    My apologies to anyone omitted from tags - there's so much that connects here, it's hard to keep track of it all. I hope to get the final installment of this case study wrapped real soon now - hope you've been finding it useful.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:36:03 AM PST

  •  Thanks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, xaxnar, Dirtandiron, Remediator

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:11:24 PM PST

    •  we need our fix? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, JVolvo

      Rachael made the point that Brigit didn't get a subpoena from justice, so she's only being investigated by the legislature - no wonder there is no conflict and the legislature can proceed as they were.

      I think it's because there isn't clear law that was broken in the Bridge thing, they need an actual law and some actual evidence, they don't proceed with suspicions, even very good suspicions.  Which the legislature may and likely will uncover, and if they don't, it won't be because of no wrong doing, it will be because of inadequate laws.  Under law a lot of abuse can occur that is supposed to be corrected by impeachment or the next election.  

      This isn't good news for the fat man.  Brigit is claiming the fifth, and that's good news for him, and he seems to thank her in code whenever he speaks. But the big story is that there is a clearly broken law in the Hoboken caper, and real evidence, and  all the info that is coming out about Sandy money is bolstering that case.  

      He may be able to avoid criminal liability in the bridge one, if his two firewalls stay silent. And that's why David hasn't been given immunity, he isn't being investigated either?  And the legislature can't, they don't have that authority?  

      I think David should be more forthcoming on his knowledge of improper use of the Sandy slush fund, and get justice interested? right not he's focused on the PA, but there must be overlap, Samson shows there is overlap.  

  •  Thanks for this great analysis, and also kudos (6+ / 0-)

    for this great poll.  I particularly appreciate polls that reveal subtle and important gradients of public opinion, such as you have here splitting 31% for "it ain't over until the other rats sing" across the spectrum through 31% for he's toast.  Well done.

    Last night Rachel Maddow called our attention to a little notice revelation earlier in the morning that Bridget Kelly's lawyer said she has not received a subpoena from the federal prosecutor. (But, they still used the overlapping subpoena claim as justification for not responding to the legislative subpoena.)

    What does this mean?  It may just be a delay, but the concern I developed yesterday morning is that it may reveal something far more important about the federal prosecutor's "theory of the case," which we should take not of.

    Rachel went so far as to note the obvious possibility that the potential of far more serious crimes of "extortion" and conspiracy to commit extortion implied by Hoboken case are for more serious than the "mere political shenanigans," of shutting down toll boths to punish a local mayor who didn't support Christie.  

    Some have asked, " is this even a crime?"  I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen enough on TV to recognize certain patterns.

    Christie was a top, and aggressive federal prosecutor who successfully indicted over 130 politicians, (I think.) I've noticed that every time he describes the Fort Lee lane diversions he uses the word "shenanigans,"  and adds by underlings, unknown to him.

    Why would this matter?  Could it be that this is a framing that might make it less interesting to a federal prosecutor, who hasn't even bothered to issue a subpoena yet, or maybe ever, to Bridget Kelly?  Unseemly, yes, worthy of a NJ Legislative impeachment? perhaps, but, maybe not as interesting to a federal prosecutor.

    If so, two implications leap out at me.  First, how crucial it is to maintain the legislative investigation against those suggesting that it be shut down and left to the federal prosecutor, as they have different agendas.

    Second, one alternative theory of the Fort Lee lane closures that seems more plausible to me is that the motivations for the lane closures was not retaliation against the Mayor, but rather pressure on the real estate developer in Fort Lee to hire Wolf and Samson to be their lobbyist, which I've learned is the new modern way to accept political gifts for graft and corruption rather than campaign donations which are examined, or direct payments that brought down McDonnell of Va.

    Third, I can imagine that this was organized by Port Authority Samson, with only the slightest wink or nod from Governor Christie because they had already set this up as the general strategy and system structure.

    So, by this theory, Governor Christie may not have been involved directly in the GWB affair, but could still be guilty of setting up the system that would work this way and do it automatically.  Those in the Governor's office, such as Bridget Kelly, would have know of Samson and Christie's tight relationship and how the system worked, and may have know also to keep the "hit" far enough from the Godfather, for plausible deniability.

    So the GWB would be a demonstration to the Fort Lee developer and others that if they want to be in the "Godfather's" territory they need to pay the "vig" to Samson's law firm.  Samson then uses that slush fund to hire all of Christie's other cronies between jobs and appointment.  

    By this theory, then the federal prosecutor should subpoena Bridget Kelly even if a GWB lane diversion to get back at a political enemy may seem too trivial for a federal prosecution.

    It is evidence of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to abuse power and government office and assets to support and operation a criminal syndicate.

    Focusing only on Hoboken is a single event which might be dropped for lack of a strong provable case would totally miss the big picture.

    P.S. I developed this theory in part in discussions with La Gitane, who I believe believes the same thing.  We've had so many comment discussions, I can't remember how much of this theory may have come from her and about a dozen other "Christie scandal addicts" who frequent both of our posts like JVolvo, RK2, AnnetteK, etc (just look at the 20 to 30 consistent rec'cers) who have been collective discussing this case, (or these cases.)

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:35:06 PM PST

    •  just read yours (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, HoundDog, Remediator, JVolvo

      I recently corresponded with my county DA about badly spent public money, very badly spent, and I provided a lot of documentation, but none of it rose to the level of criminal acts. I think that's what's going on with the bridge thing, no one can point to a clear broken law.  Matthews says that  RICCO ought to apply, they do act like a criminal family. The two sides met for an hour to discuss it (legislative side and justice side) and they came away mutually pleased.  but I don't think it was a decision to wait so that the legislature could have first bite, I think they have not recognized a specific law that was broken with evidence that could be used to prove it.  The legislature can censor, and they can uncover crimes, but this part is more likely to lead to impeachment and civil suits from those who were harmed, and the Hoboken one is more likely to lead to grand jury, charges, trials and convictions.

      •  That's what seems to be the modus operandi (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anna shane, Remediator, HoundDog, JVolvo

        It's not regarded as overt criminality per se by the participants - it's a culture of quid pro quo where everyone knows how the game is played (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?) and the only ones who don't realize what's going on are chumps. You want something, you've gotta give something, amirite? It's just how business is done.

        Ethics? Civic responsibility? The power of the purse isn't a public trust - it's how you reward your friends and share the wealth. See here and here for blatant examples.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:50:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  just not against the law (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxnar, HoundDog

          supposed to be handled by voters.  

          •  But, how truly sad. So there is a chance he could (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xaxnar, anna shane, JVolvo

            get away with this. I read one article last week saying because he's just been reelected he has four more years, and the legislator can't even start impeachment hearings for a year, that as long as he doesn't mind public criticism, he can just ride this out by refusing to admit anything and ignoring critics.

            It too the government 4 years to bring indictment against VA Governor McDonnell.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:02:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the plus side (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, xaxnar

              is that the longer he stays, the more gets exposed. Many would like him to go away quietly, not me. I want him to fight and to ruin the Republican chance of changing the subject.  Christie daily reminds us why we elected Obama, who isn't in it for his own personal gain, and who thinks before he speaks.  And Christie is the guy they had hoped would beat Hillary?  A manly man. This isn't sad, it's great.  Think of the chilling effect on future Christie's?

  •  Went with 'He's toast'. It's very difficult (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to believe that all of the people in Christie's orbit and influence betrayed him on lane closings and high-rise apartment deals and so forth.  Theoretically possible but statistically remote, IMO.  

    That spiteful nonsense about Wildstein's high school days was unbecoming of adulthood, let alone a leader of the free world.  What's next -- that Wildstein ate a boogger in third grade?  

    Any independents who were originally attracted to Christie as a gritty bipartisan now have leave to dismiss him as a corrupt bully.  

    I don't think a corrupt bully wins the 2016 election.  

    •  Let's hope not - but 2000 and 2004? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It can happen again.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:02:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site