MyDD :: What evidence is there that Marshall Wittman is a Democrat?

What evidence is there that Marshall Wittman is a Democrat?

by Alice Marshall, Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:50:34 AM EST

(I think there's a good deal of value in welcoming defectors from the GOP and the Christian Right in particular into the Democratic fold. But there are some interesting questions raised here about just how 'in the fold' Wittman really is. Promoted from the diaries -- Scott)

When Marshall Wittman gets an opinion column published, we are asked ot believe that he represents a Democratic point of view for no reason save that he is on the staff of the Democratic Leadership Council. Has there ever been any evidence that he is a Democrat?

Is Wittman a member of his local Democratic Committee? If not, why not? Does he consider himself above the grubby work of GOTV?

Has Wittman every raised a dime for a Democratic candidate at any level? Any at all? A search on Open Secrets turned up nothing. It seems no political candidate of any kind has merited a donation.

His blog is named for a Republican and links to only two Democratic blogs. (I consider Talking Points Memo a news blog and have serious doubts as to whether either the DLC or PPI should be considered Democratic.) He does not link to Kicking Ass or any other official Democratic blog.

Is Wittman registered to vote as a Democrat? Here in Virginia we do not register by party, but Maryland and DC both maintain registration by partisan affiliation. Does anyone know? Does Wittman vote in Democratic primaries? Because if you do not know enough about he Democratic party to have an opinion as to who we should nominate, I am a little at loss to know why we should take you seriously in any internal discussion about the direction of the party. So, does Wittman vote in Democratic primaries?

If someone is a Democrat, there should be evidence to support that fact. Voting history, political donations, fundraising, volunteering, are all ways to indicate party loyalty. I am unaware the Wittman does any of these things.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

He's not. (none / 0)

He's "doing time" with the Democrats so he can point to having been in both camps, as part of a bid for "third party" credentials should his wet dream of an independent, centrist presidential candidate ever materialize.

Then he thinks he'll be first in the consultancy chow line.

by Kagro X on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 10:19:53 PM EST

Bull Moose (3.00 / 1)

It was a actually a third party formed by progressive Republicans in 1912.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 10:24:47 PM EST

Re: Bull Moose (3.00 / 1)

I know it was, but T. Roosevelt was a Republican President. (actually the Bullmouse party probably elected Wilson.)

I am just saying that Wittman is not a Democrat and we should not let him get away with saying that he is one.

I should emphasize that this is not a question of ideology. I would not question his partisan allegiance if he contributed money to Democrats, hosted the occassional fundraiser, and linked to the Democratic National Committee. But he does none of those things and I think we should call him on it early and often.

by Alice Marshall on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 12:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's why the DLC loves him (3.00 / 2)

The DLC is determined to move the Democratic Party into Whitman and Zell Miller's corner with Joe Lieberman. Check out any of the Whitman articles featured in Blueprint Magazine.

This is an article Whitman wrote about how to win back the heartland. A few excerpts:

Like the liberal hawks who fashioned America's winning Cold War strategy, today's Democrats must demonstrate that they are tough enough to wage an aggressive war on Muslim extremism, and smart enough to enlist influential allies and international institutions in that fight. Annual surveys by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations make clear that most Americans are instinctive internationalists. They agree with Democratic arguments that the United States should lead the wider democratic community and not go it alone in the world.

But Democrats must also recognize the limits of multilateralism. The quest for consensus often dilutes the international community's will to act, as we've seen in the Darfur region of Sudan.

That is a recipe for a fifty year war in the Middle East. The only difference between Hillary and Cheney would be a soft commitment to unilateralism by Hillary.

Democrats understand that spreading economic and political freedom in the greater Middle East is essential to breaking the deadly nexus between corrupt, repressive governments and Islamic extremism.

Ooops. Better make that a hundred year war. Jesus Christ couldn't bring peace to the Middle East. I don't know why Hillary or Wes Clark think they can do it.

Of course we have to defeat our internal enemies first. Take it away Marshall Whitmann:

So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left.

Take that Christine Cegalis! You too Steve Young! Progressives? We don't need no stinkin' progressives!

Next up: How to win back Values Voters:

But since most voters don't neatly compartmentalize their ethical and economic concerns, simply turning up the volume on anti-business and class warfare themes isn't likely to change their minds. And heartland voters aren't likely to miss the unflattering implication that they're too dim to realize where their best interests lie.

Gotta protect those corporate contributions from MBNA. Wouldn't be prudent to depend on Democratic voters.

Ya gotta beat up on Hollywood!

And there's no reason why Democrats should be apologists for or defenders of a consumer culture that targets kids with insidious advertising campaigns and deluges popular entertainment with sex and violence. Why is it that progressives are willing to go after corporate cupidity everywhere but in the entertainment industry?

Time to borrow a few lines from Bill O'Reilly if we want to win!

They ought to be able to defend the establishment clause and religious liberty without getting in bed with the secular absolutists of the ACLU.

Believe it or not, this is what Marshall Whitmann calls a progressive platform:

They need to raid the red states, picking off enough to stop the Republican realignment dead in its tracks, and start building a new progressive majority.

So you tell me. Is there any difference bewteen the DLC and the RNC?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 01:07:57 AM EST

the moose (2.80 / 5)

Marshall Wittman is not a Democrat. He says as much in his blog. He is a McCain/Lieberman centrist, but he felt the Republican party left him as it became more corrupt and determined to redistribute wealth to the ultrarich in the late nineties and early 00s. He despises Rove, Delay, Norquist, Reed, Dobson, and the rest of that foul bunch that is the power center in the GOP right now.

He is to the right of just about all Democrats, including New Democrats -- but he is no Zell Miller.

I can't stand his praise for Gingrich and McCain either, but Wittman is nonetheless an important voice that deserves to be heard. He is a master strategist, and he deserves a good deal of the credit for the insainly good press coverage that the McCain 2000 campaign got. Face it, in order for the Democrats to retake congress and win the presidency with a sufficient margin to govern, we need to win the votes of the Marshall Wittmans of the world. His strategy on winning the independent vote deserves respect.

He is also valuable because reporters quote him all the time and the vast majority of the time he does a great job of spreading the democratic message. The fact that he is always labeled as a former republican adds a little sting to his zingers.

BTW, I don't buy all the flack that was given to him for what he said about Dean and Pelosi. He was right. The Rovian RNC did exactly what Wittman predicted, and it would have been a little bit helpful if Dean and Pelosi had thought about that before making their tactical errors. Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, damn near every dem trying to do anything in 08, folks like myself trying to help elect dems in deep red states, and a lot of others wanted to bang their heads against the wall because of Dean and Pelosi's comments too.

by rapid response on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 01:55:18 PM EST

Re: the moose (3.00 / 2)

Where to start on disagreeing?

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oxymoron (none / 0)

...McCain/Lieberman centrist...

Surely, you jest? McCain is to the right of Attila the Hun and Lieberman is the Faux News Channel "go to" token Democrat dubya enabler of the moment (What? Zell wasn't available for the most recent booking?). Centrists? Yeah, that's really funny. You were being ironic, right?

Those finicky independent voters really revere the powers that be right now:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 2-6, 2005. N=1,155 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

All Adults
Approve - 40%
Disapprove - 53%
Unsure - 7%

Republicans
Approve - 79%
Disapprove - 16%
Unsure - 5%

Democrats
Approve - 11%
Disapprove - 82%
Unsure - 7%

Independents
Approve - 35%
Disapprove - 55%
Unsure - 10%

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:43:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (3.00 / 3)

He is a McCain/Lieberman centrist, but he felt the Republican party left him as it became more corrupt and determined to redistribute wealth to the ultrarich in the late nineties and early 00s.... I can't stand his praise for Gingrich and McCain either,

McCain is no centrist. He is the third most conservative Senator, by DW-Nominate rank for the current Congress (just updated for votes through November 30). He was fourth most conservative in the previous, 108th Congress. Portraying McCain as a centrist is totally in line with praising the delusional politics of Newt Gingrich. Totally disconnected from reality.

Just like the implicit claim that Gingrich was not corrupt and determined to redistribute wealth to the ultrarich.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (none / 0)

Actually, since this has been frontpaged, I would like to clarify one sentence in this post.

He is to the right of just about all Democrats, including New Democrats -- but he is no Zell Miller.

Actually, this was innaccurate of me to say. He is to the right of most Democrats, but his views are actually in line with a lot of people in the conservative wing of the Democratic party.

Like it or not, there is still a large population of conservative Democrats, especially in the South. I'm most certainly not talking about Zell Miller here, I'm talking about the blue dogs. They're an important part of our coalition, and we need their votes to retake congress and win the presidency.

by rapid response on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (none / 0)

You are missing the point. Whitman uses his position as a Democrat to project himself into the media dialogue. But there's no actual evidence that he is a Democrat.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (3.00 / 1)

So-called moderates and independents, everyone claims, are the Rosetta stone of American politics... and if only Democrats had the support of moderates an independents... and if only Democrats were to listen to sage advise on how to obtain the support of moderates and independents, then all would be well and Democrats would start winning elections.

Everyone of those people offering such sage advise seem to forget that in 2004 Democrats won the independent and moderate vote:

Moreover, Republicans gained 5 House seats ONLY because of Delay's mid-term re-districting down in Texas.

If the only advise that these people have to offer is, "Democrats must modify their message to be more palatable to moderates and independents," than these people have absolutely nothing meaningful to offer and deserve to be ignore for their lack of imagination and mere regurgitation of false premises. For crying out loud, the only concrete and real solution to OUR current political situation is to come up with a competing infrastructure to the right-wing's media outlets, think thanks, the K street project and their hold of a handful of ideological billionaires that are willing to spend BIG TIME on creating that infrastructure. Until we, progressives and Democrats, come up with a similar infrastructure we'll be at a disadvantage... and, please, spare us all this bullshit of "moderating messages to appeal to moderates and independents," we already have their support.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (none / 0)

If only 21% of America is liberal, and 34% conservative, of course we have to win the moderate vote (by a lot), silly. We won it, but not by enough to make up for the difference between the sizes of our base.

by Geotpf on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:41:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the moose (3.00 / 1)

Right. Am of the camp that believes that the so-called moderate camp is in constant flux and that it can be won over by moving it to one's camp, and not by one moving one's camp towards it. What I mean is that those so-called moderate voters will gravitate towards the party that speaks consistently of its convictions (yes, the George Lakoff model). I don't think that anyone respects cosmetic efforts at moderation, which are ultimately seen as mere pandering.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. Wittman=witless (none / 0)

What evidence is there that Wittman is not a comepletely brain dead fool out to wreck the Democratic party's chances at making some meaningful statements and gaining electoral victory?

Short answer: None.

by mjshep on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 03:01:51 PM EST

If it's Monday (none / 0)

Whitman's a Dem. On alternate Tues & Thurs he's a Rep.

In other words, he's an opportunistic twit who has his niche in the useless bloviator circuit as "formerly of the other party". It appears to work for him, and make him lots of money.

Good gig if you can get it. However, his opinions are worth less than used toilet paper.

by ElitistJohn on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 01:49:47 AM EST

Never heard of the guy (none / 0)

But I would take umbrage at the accreditation of mccains coverage 2k with wittman. the primary season front loading affects both parties.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:21:15 AM EST

Marshall Whitman - Short Bio (none / 0)

Marshall Whitman is a former McCain advisor who for some reason jumped ship and was adopted by the DLC. He is a regular contributor to Blueprint Magazine and has his own blog Bullmoose.

I an not aware if there is anything aside from speculation about whether Whitman dumped McCain or McCain dumped Whitman. I suspectd Whitman became fed up with the Republican Party, their attacks on McCain during the 2000 primary. Instead of trying to reform the Republican Party, Whitman is now helping the DLC turn the Democratic Party into a Republican lite party.

I think it is fair to describe Whitman as a Lieberman-Andrew Sullivan-Republican lite Democrat, if that makes any sense. His blog idea is cute, but his political ideology is hackneyed, disjointed and counter-productive.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:40:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marshall Whitman - Short Bio (none / 0)

That sounds about right.

As a somewhat sane Republican frustrated with the hijacking of his former party I can accept him.

As a so-called Democrat providing advice for how Democrats should stand on issues and run their campaigns I think he should take a long walk off a short pier.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:22:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we should at least listen to him (2.00 / 1)

he has valuable things to say, even if you disagree with him. it doesn't really matter if what party he's in. and in on of his recent posts he talks about working for the campaing to elect the recently deceased Gene McCarthy.

maybe to liberal democrats Lieberman isn't a centrist, but to a conservative-leaning country he is. i have no love for the guy, but if we were smart, instead of shitting on him, all of us in the party would point out that the president can't seem to make his case without the help of a democrat, which should really tell voters something about who should be running this country.

republicans weild the control they do not because every repub senator and congressman agrees (there's a world of difference between Chris Shays and Sam Brownback) but because they have big goals in common, and those aren't cultural goals, they're economic and diplomatic.

we have big economic and diplomatic goals too, goals that will actually help working people and working/poor people and make the world safer for everyone, and to get enough congressman and senators to do something about it, we need to think big tent and not ideological purity, and that's what Bull Moose seems to extoll the most.

by jptormey on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:21:46 AM EST

Re: we should at least listen to him (3.00 / 1)

I dispute that the country is conservative leaning.

The RWNM story is that the country is conservative leaning. The framing of the political debate in the media is that the country is conservative leaning.

But I dispute that this indeed a fact.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we should at least listen to him (none / 0)

republicans control the white house, congress, and the senate. that sounds like a conservative slant to me. something in their message of the last twelve years has been hitting home with people. that doesn't mean they're right, but it means they they've used the media effectively. that the news has a rightward slant is just as ridiculous as the whole left-wing bias bullshit. they tell the story that will bring in the most viewers.

so, as was my point, if democrats want to succeed at a time when the republicans are showing the true motivations behind their recent accendancy, democrats should probably stop ripping each other apart and start telling people how they would do the big, important jobs differently, and use guys like Lieberman to their advantage instead of turning him into an open wound on the party.

by jptormey on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we should at least listen to him (3.00 / 0)

republicans control the white house, congress, and the senate. that sounds like a conservative slant to me.

That is the government not the country.

that the news has a rightward slant is just as ridiculous as the whole left-wing bias bullshit

That's not what I was trying to say.

but it means they they've used the media effectively... they tell the story that will bring in the most viewers.

That is much closer to what I was trying to say. The "theme of the day" is that the country is conservative because the Republicans have managed to get themselves control of the government and are better at controlling the "theme of the day." That doesn't mean it is fact. It just means they are using the media more effectively.

Take Social Security for instance... a very liberal program and the first place that the Republicans got shot down. Why? One because the Democrats and lefty organizations put up a good fight... but mainly... because the people LIKE Social Security. The people of this country LIKE liberal concepts of that sort. The vast majorioty of the population of this country is not nearly as conservative as we are made out to be.

Screw Lieberman.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 03:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Someone just sent me this (none / 0)

and it tages right on the point I was making so here...

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/articles/dec05_v7_n12/dec05_v7_n12_1.cfm

From Jim Hightower. I'd give just the link but it is a subscription site so I'll cut and paste a portion of the post that was emailed to me:

"...Are Americans really conservative?

The second thing I really, really want, Santa, is a Democratic party
that's not afraid of its own grassroots. The Washington cognoscenti
the pundits and the politicos-have decreed that America is a
center-right country. Thus, they intone sonorously and ceaselessly,
it is sheer folly for Democrats to base their appeal on anyone more
progressive than middle- of-the-road, party-switching, SUVdriving,
suburbanites whose chief concern is traffic gridlocks.

Astonishingly, party elders have bought this load of bunkum , in
large part because they mostly huddle with their consultants, big
campaign donors, and others who peddle the bunkum. If they were
instead to venture outside the Beltway, outside the safe pods of the
national fund-raising circuit, and outside the echo chambers of their
orchestrated "town meetings"-if they were to talk with and listen to
regular workaday people-they would be astonished to find a different
America than they think they're in. Contrary to the contrived wisdom
of the cognoscenti, the American majority is amazingly
progressiveSand pissed off.

How progressive? It doesn't get covered by the corporate media
(imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big
majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt,
tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist
gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional
leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent
polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation,
the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made
clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the
issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65% say the government should guarantee health insurance for
everyone-even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86% favor raising the minimum wage (including 79% of selfdescribed
"social conservatives").

3. 60% favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least
those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66% would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but
by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77% believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect
the environment.

6. 87% think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80%
(including 76% of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax
on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on
alternative fuels.

7. 69% agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S.
economy (78% of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22%
believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. 69% believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26% saying
it's headed in the right direction.

Americans might not call themselves progressive-but there they are.
On the populist, pocketbook issues that are rooted in our nation's
core values of fairness and justice, there's a progressive
super-majority. It flourishes in red states as well as blue, cutting
through the establishment's false dichotomy of liberal/conservative...

There's more but that is what I am trying to say.

Peace,

Andrew

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we listen to him shit on Democrats? (none / 0)

/ but if we were smart, instead of shitting on him, all of us in the party would point out that the president can't seem to make his case without the help of a democrat, which should really tell voters something about who should be running this country/

Does it work the other way around? How about if Whitman stops shitting on progressive Democrats?

Sorry. I guess he wouldn't be a good DLC Lieberman/Al From Dem if he did that.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Scott, thank you (3.00 / 1)

for promoting this. I want to emphasize that in this post my problem with Wittman is not his position on this or that issue. My problem is that he is presented as a Democratic voice when there is no evidence that he fulfills even the most trivial responsibilities of partisanship.

If he was out raising money for Liberman or other Democrats I disagreed with I would not call into question his party identity as a Democrat. If he worked a phone bank, or organized a phone bank for a Democrat in a primary that I did not support, I would not question his loyalty to the Democratic party itself.

So far as I can judge Wittman does nothing. I think it is past time we start calling him on it. At the very least he could link to Kicking Ass and the other official Democratic blogs.

by Alice Marshall on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:13:58 AM EST

He was Clean for Gene (none / 0)

Clean for Gene:

Later on in his political career, he became a gadfly who was somewhat embittered by his clashes with the establishment. But, the Moose always had a warm spot in his heart for Senator McCarthy and still does. Back when the Moose was young in '68, he went "clean for Gene" as a volunteer in the Waco campaign headquarters of the McCarthy Campaign. Needless to say, we did not sweep Central Texas that year, but the experience was one the Moose cherishes. As he used to say back in his Heritage Foundation days, he was the only employee who worked for that Senator McCarthy!

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:15:27 AM EST

Re: He was Clean for Gene (none / 0)

That is hardly in his favor.

by Alice Marshall on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He was Clean for Gene (none / 0)

I don't care, Johnson should have been torpedoed for Vietnam.

Tennesseans for Feingold

by ben114 on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is the Moose a Democrat? (3.00 / 1)

I don't care if he (or anyone else) is a Democrat or not. I DO care if he is for social security, medicare, universal health care, balanced budgets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and telling the truth to the American people, particularly when asking them to go to war. I also care if he is against torture, destroying the environment and insulting our allies.

The way to elect a progressive President is to concentrate on the policies where we agree.

The way to let Bush and Rove choose the next President is to set up purity tests for whom we will work with.

by xtalguy on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:12:09 PM EST

The problem with the DLC.... (none / 0)

...is that it operates exclusively within Republican frames. On EVERY issue.

And Marshall Wittman exemplifies this liability to the hilt. He HAS to be a Republican mole. I have NEVER heard him criticize Bush for anything of substance.

He's worse than useless.

Take Iraq. Wittman claims Democrats have to keep on "supporting" this Bush fiasco, dead troops be damned, because if they don't, they'll look "weak" on "national security". A REAL Democrat would set the record straight: The Iraq war has nothing to do with our national security -- if anything, it has weakened us politically, economically, AND militarily.

Republican-lite was permanently discredited as a sound electoral strategy for Dems in November of 2002. Tom Daschle didn't get the memo, and paid the price in 2004. Apparently Marshall Wittman wants to continue this tidal wave of success.

Mr. Wittman is a not a Democrat; he's a pug mole.

by Master Jack on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:03:54 PM EST

He endorsed Kerry-Edwards (none / 0)

That's good enough for me. GOTV and fund-raising is not a pre-requisite for expressing an opinion.

by EvanstonDem on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:35:59 PM EST

Hey, I support the Bull Moose view (none / 0)

I've just grown to believe that Wittman isn't looking long and hard enough at his beloved McCain and seeing what has really happened.

After watching McCain practically suck face and service Bush in 2004, I'm a long way from where I was on McCain in 2000.

McCain is just another corrupt political swine who wanted to play the "reform" card, because that always sells.

And now he's whoring himself to McJesus Solutions, Inc. in order to get out of the 2008 primaries.

I think Wittman is right about a lot of things.

And he is correct that the GOP shitting the bed this last year isn't enough for Dems to get into power.

I'd be a third party supporter in a heartbeat if I felt it wasn't just one more political scam.

In the case of John McCain, it's becoming clear that his recent political career is just one more political scam.

That's where I think Wittman needs to get a grip. Most politicians would sell crack to a kid on a playground if they thought it would help them get ahead.

John McCain is no better.

by jcjcjc on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:41:45 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.