Comfort Zones
A couple of days ago, Noam Scheiber noted that it seems strange for John McCain to be so eager to talk about Iraq considering that Iraq is a horribly unpopular fiasco, the issue on which he’s most closely associated with the horribly unpopular incumbent Republican administration. Noam thought it might reflect a baseline lack of adequate cynicism on McCain’s part:
My hunch is that McCain really wants to debate Iraq–he really, truly thinks it’s the most important issue facing the country, and thinks he can persuade people on the merits–and so his political advisers are doing the best they can with it. I guess I respect that on some level. And, politically, it does reinforce his truth-teller, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war” image. But, assuming Obama is able to establish a minimum level of national security credibility, which I think he will, McCain may be making a strategic mistake.
I mean, I suppose McCain does think that stuff, but honestly what else is he supposed to talk about? I don’t think it would serve the candidate well to talk about issues he doesn’t care about or doesn’t know anything about. And as best I can tell, that’s, um, all the issues. But even though a clear majority of the American people recognizes that endless war in Iraq is a bad idea, a large swathe of elites agree with McCain’s view that there’s no number of American deaths that would be too many to try to spare elites from the embarrassment of admitting that Iraq’s been a failure. This doesn’t seem all that promising to me as a campaign strategy, but it’s more promising than tired health care mumbo jumbo that McCain himself doesn’t seem interested in.
47 Responses to “Comfort Zones”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 31st, 2008 at 11:13 am
I think you’re missing the movement here to change the public’s view of Iraq over the next six months. Few U.S. casualities, no major upheavals, talk of troop drawdowns- by November it will all look like victory even though the place likely remains a festering sore.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Yup.
The rest of John McCain’s platform is notably less popular than his Iraq positions. Further, he’s a very good messenger for his crazy Iraq policy, and an insanely bad messenger for his crazy economics policy and his crazy health care policy.
While I think Obama is right to be going toe-to-toe with McCain on foreign policy and Iraq, especially right off the bat in the GE race, one of the things I’m watching for in this campaign is how and when Obama will pivot to domestic policy. I think it’s at that point in the race, after having established his ability to match McCain vote-for-vote on foreign policy, that Obama will put the election away.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
What’s stranger still than his insistence on making his campaign about Iraq, and little else, is that he seems continually to demonstrate that he doesn’t have a grasp of the details on what is supposed to be one issue on which he is the expert. Sunni v. Shia, all-quiet-in-Mosul, troops down to pre-surge levels — it’s stunning that these mistakes seem to pop up almost daily, and disappointing that they’re not given more coverage than they are.
McCain’s much-ridiculed “2013″ speech, I think, succinctly expresses the core problem of his campaign. He has a clear vision of the goals, but not the foggiest idea how to get there. What remains to be seen how far he can go with bumper-sticker slogans like, “we will never surrender,” without being loudly challenged to see if there’s actually any substance behind it.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“I don’t think it would serve the candidate well to talk about issues he doesn’t care about or doesn’t know anything about. And as best I can tell, that’s, um, all the issues.”
This is really silly of Matt. A guy who’s been around as long as McCain has certainly knows quite a lot about the issues. You may not agree with his take on the issues, but he knows what he’s talking about. Matt goes from occasional respect for McCain to occasional complete disrespect, like that statement. It’s bizarre.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This is fucking insane. John McCain has negative national security credibility. He supported the brutal and unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq. He is unfit to hold meetings on the planning of a discussion of Iraq, never mind controlling our policy towards them. Anyone as insane as John McCain should not hold any office of public trust.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
This is really silly of Matt. A guy who’s been around as long as McCain has certainly knows quite a lot about the issues
You would think, but the evidence (even by his own admission) indicates otherwise.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
What confuses Matt is that any politician – of any party – might consider a principle to be more important than a poll.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
What confuses Matt is that any politician – of any party – might consider a principle to be more important than a poll.
There’s a difference between standing firm on principle and driving off a cliff.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“You would think, but the evidence (even by his own admission) indicates otherwise.”
I assume you’re referring to a statement I’m sure McCain wishes he never made:
“The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,” he said. “But I would like to have someone I’m close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel”
That quote gets cut off after “understood” by most people. He was with an economist when he said that, and was comparing his knowledge to the economists, which clearly isn’t as deep. He knows quite a bit about economics. A little bit of humility is never bad, and realizing a relative weakness will help him improve that weakness.
To say that that statement justifies the “he doesn’t know anything about any issue” line is still silly. Even if granted that he may not be Ben Bernanke, that’s still only one issue.
Liberals probably shouldn’t try the tactic that McCain is stupid-it worked OK (not well enough though) against Bush, but it won’t fly against McCain.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
John McCain has no credibility on national security: just go back and see his past statements on Iraq and you realize that he was just as wrong as Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Zarco, at this late date even you have to admit that Bush is a moron. As for McCain, it isn’t that he’s stupid – it’s that he is consistently wrong. He was wrong about Vietnam, he was wrong about Keating, he was wrong about Iraq. Though, to be honest, much of that might be because he really isn’t that bright.
In any case, the man has all the national security credentials of my pet goat. Wait, no, my pet goat wouldn’t start a war against a nation that is no possible threat to our national security.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Zarco, this isn’t calling McCain stupid– it’s calling him uninterested and uninformed about the specifics of policy issues… which, as far as we can tell, is true. You haven’t offered evidence to the contrary; we’re just pointing out the obvious.
With many of the issues he stands on when it comes to ingratiating himself with conservatives, it’s clear he just doesn’t care– abortion and taxation are two of these, but he hasn’t shown any interest in health care either, except to give a boilerplate “tax credits!” pander.
You can tell about Iraq, however, that the issue is very, very importance to him, just in the wrong ways.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“But even though a clear majority of the American people recognizes that endless war in Iraq is a bad idea, a large swathe of elites agree with McCain’s view that there’s no number of American deaths that would be too many to try to spare elites from the embarrassment of admitting that Iraq’s been a failure.”
Including the elites of the Democratic Party, whose congressional wing still refuses to seriously confront Bush over war funding.
Remember the fundamental equation:
GOPers = Dems = Republicrats = AIPAC whores.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
John McCain is fundamentally for more war…that’s all…that’s his entire platform.
His worldview is such that he pretty much buys into the Bush idea that we need to use the military to take over the entire Middle East.
Bet that if McCain were ever president, he would invade Iran.
As for economics, McCain has said over and over again, in many different settings and contexts, that he doesn’t understand economics very well.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Wow, where must kafka be on the political spectrum to not see the gulf that is between the Dems and GOP on most issues.
Anyway, to Tyro and Not as stupid as Will Allen (I hope you don’t change your name to Not as stupid as Zarco), I think saying that someone who’s been in Congress for 26 years doesn’t know the issues is the same as calling him stupid.
He just doesn’t care about abortion? He has a zero rating from NARAL. He sure votes like he cares. If you’ve heard any of his speeches when he discussed human life, he’s just as passionate as when he defends the war.
Many on the right complain that McCain cares TOO much about things, this is where the stories of his temper come in. He’s not swearing at his colleagues (although he hasn’t done this in years, so he seems to have toned it down), because he’s ambivalent.
You say I haven’t given evidence of McCain being interested or informed about specific issues. He can go toe-to-toe with anyone about taxes, government spending, abortion, Social Security, foreign policy (we’ll exclude Iraq so y’all don’t yell at me), veterans benefits, and a whole host of issues.
Experience isn’t everything. But it sure does help.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Senator Osama appoints another Israel bashing fucktard to his team. David Bonior, during his tenure in the House of Representatives the worst such individual therein, surpassing even shithead James Moran, our crooked representative.
“Bonior Joins Obama Team as Latest Anti-Israel Campaign Official
By Israel Insider staff May 30, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story
Rep. David Bonior will be representing the Obama campaign at the Democratic National Committee meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C., according to an announcement by the Barack Obama campaign for president. As a Congressman, David Bonior was known for his strong opposition to pro-Israel policies, with editor [and Israel Insider columnist] Jonathan Tobin calling him “the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress.”
In a press release the Republican Jewish Coalition pointed to a disturbing pattern in Obama’s appointments: “Barack Obama’s path to strengthening ties with the Jewish community is severely blocked when appointing an anti-Israel figure like David Bonior. While in Congress, Bonior refused to stand by Israel after repeated terrorist attacks, was known as a stalwart opponent to Israel, and is now a representative for Barack Obama. Bonior’s appointment is the latest in a series that raises serious questions and doubts about Barack Obama’s positions and judgments on the Middle East.”
During his Congressional career, David Bonior repeatedly opposed pro-Israel legislation. In 1997, David Bonior was one of 15 Congressmen who signed a letter asking then-President Clinton to pressure Israelis into making concessions to the Palestinians. In 2002, David Bonior was one of only 21 Congressmen who opposed H.R. 392, which publicly affirmed Congress’s support of Israel’s right to self-defense and called for the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. In 1990, David Bonior was one of only 34 Congressman to vote against a measure naming Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel. In 1989, Bonior was one of six House members to vote against a bill that prevented US funds from going to UN entities that granted the PLO membership. Throughout his career, Bonior repeatedly opposed US aid to Israel and supported arms sales to Arab states opposed to Israel’s existence.
In 2006, Bonior was appointed to manage the Jonathan Edward presidential campaign, sparking expressions of concern by American Jewish leaders.
The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, called it “disappointing” that Edwards “chose somebody whose position is at such variance from his, specifically on Israel.”
Mr. Hoenlein added, “People make decisions about candidates based on their assessments of the individual’s character, positions and judgment. One would have to think that Edwards anticipated and factored in the implication of his choice of Bonior.”
A former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Morris Amitay, said yesterday, “This seems like an odd choice for someone who is a presidential candidate, picking someone who was one of the least friendly congressmen toward Israel to manage his campaign. It says something about Edwards’ political judgment.”
The same would seem to apply to Obama, according to the RJC:
“The appointment of yet another anti-Israel advisor like David Bonior to represent Barack Obama speaks volumes to the Jewish community. The pattern, including Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Malley, continues with this appointment. It’s no wonder the Jewish community remains deeply skeptical and troubled by Barack Obama.”"
May 31st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
It’s no wonder the Jewish community remains deeply skeptical and troubled by Barack Obama.”
Obama vs. McCain last poll I saw was 61-32 for American Jews. I think if you define “Jewish community” to you and readers of Commentary and a vanishingly small slice of Jewry that holds a sort of mafia morality regarding Jews and focuses it’s energy on zionism there would be a point but there just aren’t enough of you to matter.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
They may have already arranged for a game-changing event
Hawkishness on Iraq has been the obvious political loser since the results of the 2006 election were tabulated. Dubya’s decision to break hawkish right at that point, and McCain’s eagerness to front his hawkish views now could indeed just be mule-headed, “straight talk” honesty. But it’s also possible, and I would argue much more likely, that they broke hawkish because they have events arranged that will soon make their present hawkishness seem firm and foresighted, rather than stupid and obstinate. War with Iran would seem to be the likely candidate for the game-changer they have in mind.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Zarco, McCain’s understanding of veterans issues is so poor that he used Obama’s support for giving veterans more benefits as a platform to attack Obama for not serving. It’s as if John McCain were running on a platform of “I was captured while bombing people who were no threat to our national security and therefore deserve to be president.” If it sounds stupid, that’s because it is.
Saying McCain can go toe to toe on other issues where he has shown no better aptitude than he has on foreign policy still isn’t the same as demonstrating that this is the case. You mention Social Security. Is he really competent here? Or does he, like George W. Bush and the rest of the Republican Party imagine that the three decades of overpayments by the working class should be rewarded with cuts to their benefits? Does he understand that, unlike the military, Social Security has a dedicated revenue stream? That no one claims there is a crisis in the military because it is overspending its income?
I would be surprised if he has that level of understanding of even one of the issues you suggested. He is not the appalling moron that George W. Bush is, but he is no better prepared for high office than Bush.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Zarco, McCain’s understanding of veterans issues is so poor that he used Obama’s support for giving veterans more benefits as a platform to attack Obama for not serving.”
I’m not sure why perceived poor understanding of veteran issues has to do with McCain ribbing Obama for not serving.
McCain understands veteran benefits better than Obama, better than Jim Webb, and better than anyone on this board. You don’t serve 22 years, get veteran benefits yourself and not understand the issue.
By the way, the current generals all support McCain’s bill, which appropriately would give a sliding scale of benefits to veterans based on length of duty. Webb’s bill (also loaded with lots of pork that has nothing to do with veterans) is the equivalent of giving the nice retirement pension and gold watch to a cop who served for one year.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“The appointment of yet another anti-Israel advisor like David Bonior to represent Barack Obama speaks volumes to the Jewish community. (SLC)
Don’t worry, little buddy. McCain just added Dr. Baruch Goldstein, Jr. to his foreign policy team. Like his dad a Brooklyn transplant and an MD he issued a press release saying: “Senator McCain believes as I do that the longer we let these filthy shvatz goyim Palestinian cockroaches live – the poison of Islamo-fascism will seep into all of our veins.”
May 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Zarco, your interpretation of Webb’s bill demonstrates how clueless you are. Four years of serving in George Bush’s war on the Iraqi people is harder than most people have to work to get to retirement. Did you really mean to denigrate the service of the soldiers in Iraq by comparing a tour of duty to a single year as a cop? Are you as out of touch as John McCain who thinks that a helicopter escort and a phalanx of marines guarding him means that downtown Baghdad is safe?
What we don’t need is something that punishes our soldiers for their service by telling them that the real rewards come only after several tours in the nightmare of Bush’s Iraq. And really? Pork? That’s the best you can do? After how many hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on murdering Iraqis?
Really, if John McCain had a real grasp of the issues he wouldn’t need to use his service as an attack against his opponent. He could lay out a rational reason why someone like, him who never needed any of the military benefits and has gold-plated medical insurance compliments of both his massive wealth and his position as a senator, opposes a modest benefits package and would rather individuals further risk their lives before they get something far less than his great wealth affords him.
But you still haven’t demonstrated that John McCain knows anything about, well, anything. Is this all you have? Argument by assertion? Oh wait, you also have “appeal to authority” when you say “all the current generals support McCain’s bill.” Of course, since you haven’t demonstrated that is true it is also “argument by assertion,” and then you say “well, you can’t serve 22 years without understanding veteran’s benefits.” Which is an unsupported assertion and a fairly stupid one – McCain’s great wealth and officer status means that he never needed those benefits (I mentioned this above) and has little reason to understand them.
So, where’s your actual substance? You haven’t provided any, and you haven’t provided McCain providing any. The obvious answer to why seems to be – neither of you knows much about the issues.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Not Will, John McCain gives a speech about something substantive nearly every day. Listen to one or two, then come back and tell me he has no grip on the issues. Would you like me to quote passages from a speech on federal judges, healthcare, or abortion specifically? Would that help? Read a text of his speech on economics from March 25th. Or try his healthcare speech from April 29th, or May 6th on judges. Examples of his detailed knowledge on issues are not hard to find.
This interchange is an example of a major difference between right and left. The right is able to understand that people with whom they disagree are neither evil nor stupid. They realize that they are patriots who love their country and want to do everything in their power to help her succeed. But they just disagree on how to get there.
The left often, not always but often, thinks the right is either a)retarded, b)evil, or c)conspiratorially trying to benefit a certain group with no mention that love of country and improving that country is remotely in their motives.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Re Trevor
There is no such person as Dr. Baruch Goldstein Jr. Apparently, this is an example of Mr. Trevors’ screen writing imagination. I certainly hope that his dialog for whatever movies or TV shows he writes for is better then the crap he contributes to this blog.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Zarco the difference between the left and the right is that the left actually takes into account reality. You, for example, want us to ignore McCain’s failure to grasp the fundamental issue of our time – whether Iraq posed a threat to our national security. Does that make you stupid? Evil? If neither how do you imagine that this reflects well on you or your chosen candidate?
Why don’t I go out and read speeches by John McCain? Because I’m not interested in wallowing in the spin of an out of touch old man trying to get a pass on his ignorance and inhumanity using words written by professional con-men.
There is an old saying “by their fruits you shall know them.” McCain’s words as written by his speech writers are not his fruits. His extemporaneous comments revealing a profound ignorance of our troop levels, our opposition, and other such basic issues regarding national security are. It isn’t a matter of my being an evil leftist and so maliciously denigrating honest disagreement – it is a matter of fact.
I’m still waiting for some evidence of his, or your, actual understanding of the issues. I gave an example using Social Security. If I’m wrong, point to a fact I’ve misstated. If not, try showing that McCain understands these simple truths.
Your support for McCain might be admirable if he were an admirable candidate. He is not one. He is a power hungry old man willing to send the military to murder innocents without ever once articulating a valid cause.
You want the left to stop denigrating the patriotism of those on the right? First, stop denigrating the patriotism of the left. Second, stop using “patriotism” to sell the slaughter of innocents. Third, stop using the power of the government to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. Oh, that’s right, if you did you would be leftists.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
zarco, if you really want to impress us, quote from one of those “substantive” speeches that you claim mccain gives and show us how he understands the issues: as far as i can tell, there is no evidence that he does, but you seem convinced otherwise, so it should be easy to demonstrate.
there is not one issue that i can say that mccain shows me that he has a grip on: you can’t be as consistently wrong as he is about everything and actually have a command of the facts. random chance, after all, would suggest that he be right 50% of the time….
May 31st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
It’s a fair point. McCain can either:
1. Argue on domestic issues that he himself doesn’t understand for a position that a majority of Americans don’t support.
OR
2. Argue on war-associated issues that he has a reputation for understanding, elide the position he’s supporting which is opposed by a majority of Americans, and attack his opponent for being “inexperienced” because he knows less than McCain’s reputation suggests McCain does.
Of course, the problem is McCain doesn’t actually seem to know much foreign policy, or even big-picture war stuff. So he’s going to have to try and shrink the “foreign policy” debate smaller and smaller until he’s arguing gotchas on tactical military and logistical details (which, ironically, he doesn’t have as much advantage as you’d expect he would because he’s navy and this operation doesn’t involve so much navy).
But basically his goal is to do the equivalent of shrinking the debate of “knowing important things” to “having been to Harvard,” and then trying to catch your opponent on a “but aha! They have never served ice cream sandwiches in the Lowell House Dining Hall!” kind of moment.
And, of course, the sad thing is that these ice cream sandwich moments are exactly the sort of thing our media falls for. The good news is that Obama seems to understand the game as well, and is trying to reveal the un-earned nature of McCain’s reputation by relentlessly nailing McCain on his many, many gaffes (which are surprisingly frequent and display a surprising level of ignorance). At best, this will reveal McCain for what he is, and at less-than-best, it will set up a situation where the media says, as McCain tries to play his “the kid doesn’t know anything hand,” a situation where the reporting is: “it’s a wash, they’ve both gaffed.”
But this shows what an incredibly weak hand McCain is playing. Nobody supports anything he proposes doing. It really is Obama’s election to lose.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Zarco, you’re on crack. When McCain gets asked on his policies, his positions quickly become incoherent.
On healthcare, he said to a WSJ reporter that his policy won’t undermine the employer-based system because he’s keeping one aspect of the tax credit. But the plan he actually put out months later is Bush’s plan, with a slightly more generous tax credit. That’s a plan to get rid of the employer tax credit and replace it with an individual credit. It’s clear not only in the mechanics of the plan’s actual details, but also in the plan’s rationale and internal logic!
On social security, in an interview with the WSJ, he said “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.” When they pointed out that his social security position on his website and in his policy papers didn’t support privatization, he said he’d change those papers (he hasn’t). But then, 2 months later, he was on Regis and said he didn’t support privatization. But he continued to say he did support private accounts (but didn’t mention he wanted to implement Bush’s plan).
And on spending, he says he’ll be fiscally responsible by cutting earmarks–somewhere like $100 billion in all. Aside from the fact that nobody else can find enough earmarks to add up to $100 billion, it’s abundantly clear that he doesn’t even know things are and aren’t earmarks, since in follow-up questions about specific earmarks (like Israel and vets), he said “oh, I didn’t mean those.” WTF?
These are not little nuances. These are CORE elements of his approach to dealing with incredibly important issues–healthcare, fiscal responsibility, and social security. And he’s utterly incoherent on them. This means either he doesn’t know what’s going on, or he doesn’t want people to know what he’s really going to do.
Either one is totally unacceptable for Mr. Straight Talk.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Not Will, John McCain gives a speech about something substantive nearly every day. Listen to one or two, then come back and tell me he has no grip on the issues
Unless he has speechwriters. In which case, listening to a speech can only show he’s capable of reading out loud.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:05 am
And last I heard, McCain’s economic adviser was not Al Greenspan (which these days would be bad enough), it was Phil Gramm.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
following up on Mike N, Zarko that would be THIS Phil Gramm
We learned earlier this week that Gramm was chiefly responsible for shaping John McCain’s housing policy in the midst of a mortgage crisis, despite the fact that Gramm was also serving as a lobbyist representing a foreign bank (UBS) that would make a fortune as a result of the awful policy.
In the new issue of Newsweek, Mark Hosenball writes :”UBS has recently written off huge losses in subprime-mortgage-based securities, and last week liberal bloggers noted that Gramm was a registered UBS lobbyist on mortgage-securities issues until at least December 2007.
NEWSWEEK has learned that UBS is also currently the focus of congressional and Justice Department investigations into schemes that allegedly enabled wealthy Americans to evade income taxes by stashing their money in overseas havens, according to several law-enforcement and banking officials in both the United States and Europe, who all asked for anonymity when discussing ongoing investigations. In April, UBS withdrew Gramm’s lobbying registration, but one of his former congressional aides, John Savercool, is still registered to lobby legislators for UBS on numerous issues, including a bill cosponsored by Sen. Barack Obama that would crack down on foreign tax havens. “UBS is treating these investigations with the utmost seriousness and has committed substantial resources to cooperate,” a UBS spokesman told NEWSWEEK, adding that Gramm was deregistered as a lobbyist because he spends less than 20 percent of his time on such activity. Hazelbaker said the McCain campaign “will not comment on the details … of ongoing investigations and legal charges not yet proved in court.””
March 1st, 2009 at 5:24 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:30 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:10 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra