Brooks: McCain is an Unprincipled Sellout
I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood the progressive blogosphere convention that everything David Brooks writes must be read in the most ungenerous way possible. Certainly, though, if you apply that method to Brooks’ column from yesterday the widespread derision with which it was greeted on liberal blogs is warranted. But I thought it was a pretty good column. Recall that Brooks has historically been a big McCain fan. Back during the 2000 campaign, he was one of the relatively small number of decidedly conservative journalists to fall for McMania. And while lots of writers have gushed with praise for McCain over the years, Brooks was something more like an important ideologist of McCainism, someone who both praised McCain and also helped shape the higher rationale for his political ambitions. McCain, Brooks thought, was an ideal political vessel for ideas that Brooks thought were important. Brooks thought, in other words, that McCain was substantially different from and better than your average politician.
Brooks’ column from yesterday, meanwhile, is about how Brooks no longer thinks that’s true. It argues that McCain, like everyone else, turns out to be happy to put his personal ambition ahead of his ideals and principles. And it argues that McCain doesn’t have any special qualities whereby his ambition is best served through honorable methods. He’s a typical pol pulling the typical stuff. Now if you’re a conservative, as Brooks is, you’re still going to look at the situation and decide that in a Presidential election you should vote for the conservative candidate — typical pol though he may be. But the main theme of McCain campaign is that he isn’t like that that he “puts country first” as witnessed by his wartime service — we’re supposed to believe that he’s a much, much, much better and more elevated kind of political leader than your average politician. And Brooks is saying that’s not true. He’s not saying it the way I would say it, but I think it’s all the more valuable for coming from a conservative McCain fan and for being written with the “more in sadness than in anger” tone you would expect from a conservative McCain fan.
54 Responses to “Brooks: McCain is an Unprincipled Sellout”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Recall that Brooks has historically been a big Brooks fan.”
this, while undeniably true, is probably not what you meant.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am
and as for the “progressive blogosphere convention”, it is easily explained by the fact that brook is a writer of uncommon slipperiness and dishonesty. when you are dealing with a vicious right-wing hack who has perfected a facade of genial, centrist reasonability, interpretive charity is not a prudent approach.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I was going to point to the same thing as the Kid, and note that that’s one of the reasons why Brooks is so annoying and can’t be read as honest. More substantively, the fact that he liked his imagined idea of McCainism so much (war as a way to get meaning, an unpleasant sort of communitarianism, opposition to full equality for women, etc.) is pretty damning in itself. And he’s surely earned the right to be read uncharitably by his constant falsehoods- the fact that he consistently resorts to lies when he thinks they fit his narrative (salad bar at applebees, etc.) rather than just find something true that would likely work as well shows that he can’t be trusted.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
How can you not read brooks uncharitably when he blames McCain’s turn to the dark side on silly things like Obama not agreeing to town hall meetings? I read the column as another in a long line of conservative (and far too often, progressive) columnists making excuses for McCain’s behavior - that even though he’s behaving badly, it’s everyone else’s fault and not reflective of the TRUE McCain. I can see where you are coming from, but I’m not so sure Brooks deserves the benefit of the doubt.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Actually I thought Brooks’ main point was that John McCain really had been Jesus before now, but the election and the electorate forced him to do exactly what every one of his Republican predecessors have done for 40 odd years.
I am so frigging tired of this “buh John McCain used to be Jesus” nonsense. God I hate these people.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Recall that Brooks has historically been a big Brooks fan.
Truer words were never mistyped.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
One forms one’s opinion of writer’s over time. Over time, Brooks has proved himself to be a shallow, dimwitted, lying twit, whose class anxieties lead to extra-annoying efforts to prove that he isn’t shallow nor dimwitted. So I don’t read him generously.
I don’t read Andrew Sullivan generously either, for very similar reasons.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Keep shooting for a New York Times column Matt. They have lots of proof readers. Fact checkers? Not so much.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:54 am
David Brooks is an elitist fuckhead (well, he is). That’s where I start. And John McCain–he with the double digit number of expensive homes, a trophy wife he once called a “trollop” and a “cunt,” and many years in the U.S. Senate–is the elitist fuckhead’s elitist fuckhead. I think we all know where Brooks’ loyalties lie. Stop overthinking this, Matthew.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
You have got to be kidding me, Yglesias.
He’s a Republican hack with the same sort of reputation for “maverick-ness” that McCain has. You can reliably count on at least one column a week that is intended to further the interests of the Republican party–often using talking points that we’ll all see elsewhere later on in the week–while it pretends to be the sober analysis of an independent observer. If you understand people’s frustration with McCain’s reputation, you should understand people’s similar frustration with Brooks’s reputation.
Relatedly, no one in the media treats him as a “decidedly conservative journalist.” Rather than recognizing him as a neocon and a Red, he’s treated as just another member of the Blue state family, and given a certain deference or leeway by Blues because of that. However you order having a man outside the tent pissing in or a man inside the tent pissing out, surely worse than both is having a man inside the tent pissing in. Yet that’s what Brooks is allowed to do.
His feints to the center (as you, at least, see in this column), or toward acknowledging any merit in what might be called Blue values, are just that: feints. It would be nice if someone called him on that in the major media, but there seems to faint hope of that. If it then falls to the progressive blogosphere (yourself, obv., excepted) to treat him skeptically, then I’m glad that the blogosphere is doing it.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Kid Bitzer is right. Brooks has a sly way of putting out a fair amount of amusing or interesting stuff, but at the key moments he comes through with sly, fluent, perfectly-timed Republican spin. His job seems to be to confuse, split off, or demoralize weak Democrats and uncertain moderates who are suckers for a arguably-sophisticated, arguably-thoughtful presentation.
If he could have put a better spin on what McCain’s doing, he would have. He doesn’t have anything at all to work with. That’s the same reason why McCain himself has taken the low road. He can run as a Republican and he can’t really run as himself, so he’s running a negative campaign.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Well I’m tired of hearing from the hard left that McCain is and always has been as bad as/worse than Bush. It’s simply not a true statement, you just can’t see it as such through those blue-tinted glasses you’ve got on.
I’ve come through the wilderness. I was raised Republican but even by 2000 (age 17) I was starting to resist the extreme elements. McCain isn’t an ideological purist and never has been, which is why people get confused when he pushes comprehensive immigration reform one minute and war in Iraq for 100 years the next. He has consistently been seen by extremes on both sides as too far to the opposite side.
McCain was never Jesus, but as a Senator he was clearly one of the more moderate and sane Republicans. The only candidate who could have drawn even with Obama in this year of huge party shifts.
Pre-January, I told my wife that the two candidates I wanted to be nominated were Obama and McCain, because both seemed as if they would govern as centrists and help bridge partisan divide. Obama has been consistently moving center with the closing of the primaries; McCain started racing hard right so he could win the nomination battle and hasn’t stopped yet. He sold out his publicly stated principles, whether or not they were his “true” ones.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Well I’m tired of hearing from the hard left that McCain is and always has been as bad as/worse than Bush. It’s simply not a true statement, you just can’t see it as such through those blue-tinted glasses you’ve got on.
Really? Please name, then, ONE example where McCain’s present policy position differs significantly from Bush-GOP orthodoxy.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Correction: “can’t run as a Republican [because Bush has ruined the brand]
August 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am
So what. So fucking what. Either Brooks is a sycophant apologist (he is) or WATB that his McCain man worship is not properly reciprocated.
We know what type of man John McCain is; let us just leave it at that.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
John Emerson: Brooks has a sly way of putting out a fair amount of amusing or interesting stuff, but at the key moments he comes through with sly, fluent, perfectly-timed Republican spin.
Damn. Maybe I’ve been so disappointed with this blog as of late because Matt is a mirror image of this.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I couldn’t agree more with SomeCallMeTim (comment 10). Brooks somehow earned the reputation of “the conservative that liberals love”, yet his columns are partisan drivel, and this one is no exception. Notice the loss of agency in all these sentences: “McCain hasn’t been able to run the campaign he envisioned. He and his staff have been given an education by events…McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them [!!!!]“.
So you see McCain had *no choice* but to slander and slime his opponent- it’s Obama’s fault, and the media’s, and possibly the public’s for not paying proper attention to the laughable “poverty tour” of a man who had never in his life lifted a finger for the poor. McCain is a man of principle, so when he acts unprincipled, it’s somebody else’s fault. Get it?
Of course, even the spin is based on revisionist history. John “The American President Americans have been Waiting for” McCain has been adapting Mark Penn’s playbook since the campaign began.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
James Gary:
you’re not real swift are you?
try reading again. you just agreed with AndrewN without realizing it.
dumbass.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Several commenters quote Matt’s post:
But as of now, Matt’s post actually reads:
Here we see the first impacts of Matt’s move. At the Atlantic site, I don’t recall any of his typos being corrected, even when they had the effect of changing the meaning of his post 180 degrees.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
you’re not real swift are you? try reading again. you just agreed with AndrewN without realizing it. dumbass.
You might actually be right. On re-reading AndrewN’s original post, I realize I can’t actually figure out what his position is. Thanks for pointing that out with such patronizing nastiness, asshole.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
don’t worry, james g, you were almost there.
andrew was claiming that mccain has *now* become indistinguishable from bush, but before this season he was really different, really mavericky.
you called bullshit on mccain’s being mavericky, but you made the mistake of focusing on the present time period, where you agree with andrew, instead of the past, where andrew is wrong.
if your question had referred to “previous policy position” instead of “present policy position”, then your debate would have been accurately engaged.
and then we could have pointed out to andrew that for a long time now, mccain has had one of the hardest-right voting records in the senate. and when it comes to foreign affairs, he has a record of wanting all wars, all the time. those are not new features of his dash for the right; that’s how mccain has always been.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Really? Please name, then, ONE example where McCain’s present policy position differs significantly from Bush-GOP orthodoxy.
Torture. Campaign finance laws. Immigration. There’s THREE. Since the election he’s moved to the right on these. He was to the right of Bush on Iraq.
Brooks is just saying what some of us were saying about Obama after the wiretapping compromise. He needs to compromise to win. It’s Brooks way of admitting McCain has descended to what Bush did to him in 2000.
Brooks commits massive sins of ommission on a weekly basis. He just blatantly ignores inconvenient facts or competing theories. It’s good for one-upmanship, but not honest or “honorable.”
August 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
And I guess that demonstrates the difference between Brooks and me. Even though I once liked and would have considered voting for McCain in the past, I’m not kidding myself about him.
What McCain has done over the past six months is to sell out completely to Rove’s GOP. It’s sad in a way, yes. I thought he was better than that. But he isn’t. Or his desire for power corrupted his better self. I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter WHY. Everything McCain has done is McCain’s responsibility. The buck stops here, right? If for whatever reason you can make a convincing case that McCain isn’t in control of his campaign, that ought to be an instant disqualification right there.
Yeah, James, you just keep wearing those blue-tinted glasses. They’re awesome on you.
Look, the only reason left to vote for McCain for an independent who wants to do so is to basically hope that the past six months have been one big lie to appease the Republican base; you would have to trust that McCain would betray all of them to govern as a centrist. Does that seem like a basis for voting?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Yes McCain is awful as far as foreign policy/warmongering goes. And I suppose that if that is your defining issue then you can’t stand the man and never have been able to.
My defining issues are immigration and torture, the two areas where McCain (at least as recently as 2006) was a warrior for justice. That’s why I never gave any of the other Republican candidates a second glance.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Or his desire for power corrupted his better self. ”
i guess senator mccain would rather lose his soul than lose an election.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
PeterK: “Torture. Campaign finance laws. Immigration. There’s THREE.”
AndrewN: “My defining issues are immigration and torture, the two areas where McCain (at least as recently as 2006) was a warrior for justice.”
McCain anti-torture? Not so much:
Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid.
Not to mention his silence when Bush used a signing statement to declare he was not bound by the strictures of the 2005 McCain Amendment on torture. McCain got the bill, both of ‘em got the sweet picture in the Rose Garden, and Bush got to blithely say “Oh and by the way, I’m going to ignore this whenever I feel like it, John ol’ pal ol’ sock, but you just keep your mouth shut about that and we’ll all be buddies.”
August 20th, 2008 at 11:32 am
the only reason left to vote for McCain for an independent who wants to do so is to basically hope that the past six months have been one big lie
And this is exactly what the Media (and Brooks) regularly tells moderate voters.
Just one example:
McCain on Saturday: I am pro-life and I will be a pro-life president.
George Will on Sunday: McCain won’t govern as a pro-life president.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Unfortunately, Matt, you’re probably too similar to Brooks in background, education, culture, etc. to be able to fully perceive his awfulness. Your politics are different and better than his, but in many others ways there’s a ton of overlap.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I see that DrBB is incapable of distinguishing between past and present as well.
the rest of you are incapable of looking back at more than a few years.
McCain was nowhere near as militaristic in the 80’s and much of the 90’s.
but one thing I’ve noticed about the blogosphere is that nothing pre-2002 or so exists.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Most commenters seem focused on how awful David Brooks may or may not be. Isn’t the more important development, though, that the Brooks column is a sign of some serious weakening in journalistic respect for McCain? If even Brooks is starting to buy into the idea that McCain is acting like an ordinary hack, I suspect it means a lot of people in the press are seeing that, and may be willing to float the idea more publicly, particularly as McCain’s chances of winning appear to be rising.
Now if only Obama would actively make use of this development.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Nathan: The challenge was this, as quoted by PeterK: “Please name, then, ONE example where McCain’s present policy position differs significantly from Bush-GOP orthodoxy.”
I presumed that the posts responding to that challenge were naming, as requested, “present” positions. Torture was named twice in that context. Your own post said “at least as recently as 2006.” In fact, the signing statement gimp-out occurred in 2005. So my citation is valid. But it’s a quibble–I take it we both agree that whatever his previous principles were, he’s pretty well blown it now.
I take your point that he didn’t used to be so bad. I also take it, then, that we agree this is one area where his present positions betray the former ones.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
DrBB:
1. you’re confusing me with someone else.
2. PeterK misread AndrewM.
I haven’t seen anyone dispute that McCain is pandering now (and 2005-2006 isn’t really the “past”)
August 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’m new to the site. Some funny stuff here. How do virtuous Democrats that never lie, distort or deceive compete with those vile evil mudslinging Republicans?
The Obama people should read the Brooks piece. If what you’re doing isn’t working, try something else. Find something that will work. Otherwise you lose.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Brook’s argument is not that McCain sold out, but that he was somehow “compelled” by events to run the down-and-dirty campaign that he’s now running. That, to put it bluntly, is a load of BS. McCain was under no compulsion to cast away what little honor he had left to follow the Rovian low road. It’s clear from McCain’s own behavior and statements that he has no respect for Obama and could scarcely believe he was running behind in the polls. If Brooks had made the case that McCain consciously chose to run the campaign he’s now running, then I might be able to see where he was acting as little more than an apologist for McCain’s actions. As it stands, he remains a McCain apologist.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I made this comment somewhere else yesterday — Brooks writes of “McCain… going places other Republicans don’t go, saying things politicians don’t say.” So Brooks claims as a Republican but not as a politician at all.
I definitely read the column as an extended whine against the media and blogosphere forcing Saint John to act like a damned dirty politician.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
sorry … claims McCain as a Republican but not as a politician at all. Note the use of the word ‘other’ only once in that Brooks sentence.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Dr.BB:
Nathan: The challenge was this, as quoted by PeterK: “Please name, then, ONE example where McCain’s present policy position differs significantly from Bush-GOP orthodoxy.”
McCain said about torture “It’s about us, not them” and said they should follow Army manual. Republicans hate him b/c of campaign finance reform and immigration. Sure his election positions are more conservative and Bush-like, but some conservatives are saying it’s just election pandering - and they might be right. Your freakin morons are so LITERAL. Not very reality-based.
I think Obama is way better but at least let us get an accurate read of the field.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Well, McCain was pretty militaristic in the 90s, news, apparently to those claiming that we’re all unaware of what happened before 2002. And McCain initially came out against torture, but when he had the chance to actually do anything about it, he backed down completely. I’m not inclined to interpret that kind of chain of events favorably, but I suppose there are other ways to look at it. As far as immigration goes, by some theories, yes, getting rid of immigrants is the far right position. But in actuality, that is not where American business interests lie. And guess who really determines policy for the Republican party? This is truly not an issue where you can fairly say where the hard right position lies. As for campaign finance reform? Yes, McCain bucked Republican leadership on this one. But I don’t give McCain any credit as an actual reformer. He was one of the original Keating 5 and still relies most heavily on actual lobbyists for advice and in running his campaign.
There is only one reason why McCain got a reputation as a ‘moderate’. That is because he is not a party loyalist. He doesn’t respect the hierarchical nature of the Republican party. And this has gotten him in a lot of trouble with the Republican leadership in the past. And the media has spent a lot of time covering these spats. The error was in concluding that this makes him a moderate. But in the same way that a communist group splitting into two separate communist group in a huge food fight over some asinine disagreement, McCain’s disagreements with the Republican party leadership do not make him a moderate. Yeah, he’s publicly disagreed with them on some issues. But he’s still been one of the more conservative Senators in Congress over the course of his tenure. The only reason people think otherwise is because the media isn’t really interested in the substantive impact of a politicians actions, only the noise he makes when producing easily reported sound bites.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
They might be. Maybe. That’s not a risk I’m willing to even consider taking though. Even without the pandering to the right, I would probably still be planning to vote for Obama for his sanity on foreign policy and, to be blunt, youth and intelligence.
I am not your enemy. I may not share all of the “progressive” policy positions, but at this point I sure have a lot more in common with the Dems than the GOP. And the Dems win (enabling progressive policies to be enacted) by courting voters like me, not by turning them away for impurity of thought.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
McCain’s backing down on torture is one of the primary reasons that I’ve soured on him. And if you really think that hard right immigration policy is ambiguous, you need to listen to some more Rush. How many Republican candidates for President espoused comprehensive immigration reform (or really any kind of reform short of “get rid of them”) during the primary?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“I am not your enemy. I may not share all of the “progressive” policy positions, but at this point I sure have a lot more in common with the Dems than the GOP.”
I can feel the pain of libertarians. Obama talks pro-business and nonpartisan, but liberatarians fear he will just be another creature of the Democratic Party - something Brooks says is true by the way - meanwhile the Republicans’ track record is so bad. I mean so bad in so many different ways. It’s impressive how bad it is and McCain is a Republican and is running as a Republican no matter how many smart things he said in the past.
Brooks is losing his faith, something he gave Obamabots a hard time about not so long ago. And I feel about as bad about Brooks losing his faith as I did for Hillary losing the primary.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
AndrewN, I respect where you’re coming from and I don’t want to piss you off. I hope there will be more voters who position is theoretically aligned with Republicans, but who recognize that the Republicans are not currently aligning with a reasonable version of those positions. Yeah, if you comment on progessive sites, you’ll get people disagreeing with you b/c they do disagree with you. But we shouldn’t let this obscure the fact that McCain is a dangerous candidate.
On the other hand, I will disagree with you on immigration. Yeah, if you use Rush as the defining element of hard right Republicanism then the immigration issue is well defined. But I maintain that the Republican party is fundamentally a coalition of fiscal conservatives and cultural conservatives. And the talk radio types align with the cultural conservatives when there is a conflict between the two, but the actual policy making parts of the Republican party align with the fiscal side of things. McCain is pretty cultural conservative himself, but I think his fiscal conservatism trumps his cultural conservatism.
But let me also put in a completely different way: you say that immigration shows that McCain is not a hardcore rightist. Thing is, I could care less if he’s an extremist on immigration. Fully embracing that position would kill a national politicians and nothing like that is going to get through Congress. But the extremist positions that McCain holds on fiscal policy, on the other hand, terrify me as a progressive. I could easily see Congress performing a hidden gutting of social security and passing tax breaks for the wealthy. And destroying our economy with huge deficits. I don’t honestly know if McCain has always been an extremist in terms of his tax policy, but that’s the part of his domestic policy that scares me the most, so that’s one of the most important issues for me in ranking him as at least more conservative than average.
And I also maintain that my story of how McCain came to be identified as a moderate is fundamentally correct.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
If I wanted everyone to agree with me automatically I’d post…well actually I don’t know where I’d post. I wouldn’t enjoy it anyway.
I won’t disagree with your account of how McCain came to be known as a moderate–I don’t know enough about the history to do so plus it sounds reasonable. I’m willing to admit that the “maverick McCain” may simply be a construct in my head concocted by a politician who is, if nothing else, extremely adept at media relations. Maybe that guy never existed. But that guy is how McCain portrayed himself over the years. Whether or not it was genuine or just an act, he’s betrayed that image and thus lost the votes of many.
I’m not as closely aligned theoretically with the Republicans as you might think. Whatever that means. Theoretically as in, if they didn’t just say they were small government but actually were small government? Yeah, maybe. But they aren’t and haven’t been for…well not in my lifetime, anyway.
Even had the “maverick McCain” in all his glory run for office, I don’t think I would have voted for him. The combination of the great appeal of Obama and the heavy damage wrought to the nation by the GOP would probably have determined by vote anyway. But I would have looked hard at him had he not “sold his soul.”
In the end, I guess it doesn’t really matter. All of it is in the past, and even if we disagree on whether McCain in the past was a crazy or a moderate, it’s clear who he has aligned himself with now.
The GOP has almost certainly lost my vote for a very long time. I just wonder when they are going to wake up and realize they are falling apart. Because I find myself so often in the center, I want two strong parties to exist.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Well, let me just say that being a ‘maverick’ is as much about resisting authority as anything else. I think it’s not a bad way to describe McCain (at least during some stages of his career), it’s just that maverick does not equal moderate.
As to the other issues, it is a shame what the Republican party is in its current state. I am hoping it falls apart as a political force and a new, better party emerges in it’s place. Two mediocre parties would be a big improvement on one mediocre party plus one terrible party. Unfortunately, even if they lose this election, I don’t see the party falling apart quite yet. Despite everything, they still get a decent amount of support, as disappointing as that is.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Brooks: to set off little blog scandals.
Because a scandal can’t just be a scandal, no no, its all the blogs fault.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:54 am
viagra
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Sorry. Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.
I am from Uganda and bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap airline tickets and car rentals tickets cheap airline tickets texas htm germany cheap tickets to france one way airline flights.”
With best wishes ;-), Tamson.