The Smokescreen
Steve Benen asks the question that’s occurred to every progressive over the years — what if liberal politicians lied and smeared as shamelessly as conservative ones do? Or, to put it another way, why don’t liberal politicians lie and smear that shamelessly. There are a lot of answers to that question, but one thing worth observing is that the process of turning politics into a senseless screaming match about bullshit is not an ideologically neutral development.
The default state of things in the world is for the levers of state to be dominated by the people who already possess social and economic power in order to protect and expand their sphere of privilege. The contention of progressive political reform is that it’s possible to organize, educate, and mobilize sufficient quantities of people to overcome the power of the few and instead implement policies that benefit the many. Clearly, a well-timed or well-placed smear or deception can serve those ends effectively. But a politics that’s dominated by bullshit and bullshit artists is, ultimately, not going to be conducive to progressive ends even if some folks with progressive instincts get really really good at flinging the BS.
Which is to say that of course effective progressive political leaders need to be — and, historically, have been — good at “playing the game” but they’ve also been good at cutting through the smokescreen and refocusing attention. That’s how Bill Clinton managed to survive and even thrive during impeachment. But though I wouldn’t have believed it at the time, the quality of the media ecosphere has actually gotten radically worse in the interim, such that prominent media figures now openly brag about how uninterested they are informing the public and how exciting they find it to wield arbitrary power in capricious and senseless ways. Which, I suppose, is to be expected. On an optimistic view, there’s be a pendulum that swings back from “terrible” to “good.” But more likely it’s a cycle — only a sociopath would look at campaign reporting as done from 1998-2002 and say to themselves “that’s a line of work I’d like to get into!” And so you get what we have.
61 Responses to “The Smokescreen”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Yep, just imagine how totally, totally *shocking* it would have been if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been “smeared” during the Democratic primary campaign…
Saint Barack’s supporters would never, never, NEVER have done something so nasty and unprincipled…
September 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
This is a terrific post.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“prominent media figures now openly brag about how uninterested they are informing the public and how exciting they find it to wield arbitrary power in capricious and senseless ways.”
Could you give some name and quotes for that?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
As a progressive, I would argue that Democrats routinely lie and demogogue policy debates — at least at a local level. Look at the Democrats’ reactions to Mayor Bloomberg’s very sensible Congestion Pricing proposal, or the development of a new campus for Columbia University, or support for non-partisan local elections, or mayoral control over the Department of Education, or many other topics that should be strongly supported by liberals. Our local democratic politicians are every bit as craven as the national Republicans.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“the quality of the media ecosphere has actually gotten radically worse”
This is just so bizarre.
Do you not have any history at all, Matthew? Presidential politics has had a crucial gutter/circus component for the duration of the Republic.
You just happen to like a politician who, in the style of Adlai Stevenson, seeks to float above the rough and tumble of electoral politics. And you are shocked, simply shocked, when the obvious problems ensue.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
If on the moral relativism-absolutism scale you believe in absolutes and not shades of gray, then, any means necessary to save souls/teach creationism/get conservative Christians elected is acceptable. It’s a war, and it’s about good versus evil. That’s why Carville’s “We’re Right and They’re Wrong” approach leads to more of a fighting stance.
If both saving your soul and achieving progress is more about process than position, more about attitude than belief, then you lose by winning ugly.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Oh, bullshit.
Obama’s problem is NOT that he is refusing to issue dishonest smears of McCain that duck the issues and simply press emotional hot buttons.
Obama’s problem is that he is refusing the TELL THE TRUTH about the Republicans. Because his criticisms would alienate some of his rich donors and would also apply to several Democratic leaders.
We all KNOW the major ways in which the Republican leaders have fucked this country over the past 8 years. Have screwed not only middle class Democrats but the Republican Middle Class as well.
What is so fucking hard? John McCain and Sarah Palin are REPUBLICAN leaders. That, by definition, makes them lying, deceitful, dishonest shitheads –because if they really gave a damm about this country, they would not be Republicans.
Yes , there are 50 million AMericans out there who have voted REpublican in the past and you want their support. But you get it by showing how they have been BETRAYED by the Republican leadership — NOT by trying to pose as a Republican leader yourself.
McCain has been a Republican SENATOR for 24 years. In that time, 3 Republican Presidents have PERSONALLY laid $8 TRILLION in debt onto the American people. Yet Obama can’t put him away.
Pathetic.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“But a politics that’s dominated by bullshit and bullshit artists is, ultimately, not going to be conducive to progressive ends”
I’d suggest reading about Arthur Fisher Bentley.
The contempt for electoral politics consistently shown by “professional liberals” like Matthew is the real impediment to progressive ends.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
What’s difficult about Leadership if you are honest with the people — instead of trying to run some con on them that your highly paid pollsters assure you will win?
——————
THIS is how I am going to make your life better.
THIS is what has gone wrong and which I will fix.
THIS is why you should support me — for YOUR benefit, not mine.
THIS is why you should hang those cocksuckers over there from a goddamm lamppost.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’m staggered by the assertion that “progressive” politicians – however you choose to define that term – do not lie and smear as much as their “conservative” brethren.
Any objective observer of the Clinton administration, or the Blair administration here in the UK, would have to call that claim entirely bogus. Clinton and Blair share many things, not least a prodigious political talent; but they are also among the most skilled, smooth and outright egregious liars to hold their offices in the last half century.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“If both saving your soul and achieving progress is more about process than position, more about attitude than belief, then you lose by winning ugly.”
Bingo!
“That’s why Carville’s “We’re Right and They’re Wrong” approach leads to more of a fighting stance.”
But you can’t take that approach when you’re running a post-partisan campaign…
September 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Matthew,
IN times past, someone with your instincts, talents and interests might have ended up in the media. Now, you and people like you, are ending up bloggers and writing in think tanks. On one hand, the talent pool is thinned. On the other hand, the media is clearly in such a downward spiral that it will either require a systemic shock to recover, or it will fail.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You know, I’m staying away from these posts on the election because, you know, what the point of my commenting on the election here?
But, really, it is just so f***ing hilarious to see liberals go in for the “woe is us, we’re just too gosh darned good people to beat those evil Republicans!”
I mean, any campaign that repeatedly told the lie that “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq as long as 100 years”, even after being repeatedly called on that lie by the media, ought to forfeit any claim to be lying less than the other side. But liberals are so invested in this idea that they are such good people – and conservatives are evil people – that they wouldn’t believe that they are no better than the other side no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them. As I’ve said many, many times (including on this very blog), there’s one main difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil. It is the basic defining difference between the two groups.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Petey (who was wrong about every single thing during the primary):
The contempt for electoral politics consistently shown by “professional liberals” like Matthew is the real impediment to progressive ends.
Well it depends what you mean by “electoral politics”. You can be tough and smart without being sleazy. Hillary was sleazy (not surprising given her husband). It didn’t work for here and, besides, it was unseemly.
McCain has just bent over and become and out-and-out whore for the conservative base. He’s desperate.
I think Democrats have been constantly demagoguing on Iraq and it seems to be working (we need need to spend our money on ‘merican firemen rather than dusky foreigners). But McCain has just become embarrassing and I think it will put off people.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“But, really, it is just so f***ing hilarious to see liberals go in for the “woe is us, we’re just too gosh darned good people to beat those evil Republicans!”
I think that’s always what the losing party says, no?
“They lie better than us. As good people, what can we do?”
September 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“As I’ve said many, many times (including on this very blog), there’s one main difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil. It is the basic defining difference between the two groups.”
Disagree.
It’s just a function of who is in power. The folks in power are less threatened by the folks out of power than vice versa. That’s why the “outs” see the “ins” as evil, while the “ins” see the “outs” as merely deluded.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“Well it depends what you mean by “electoral politics”
I mean what everyone else means by “electoral politics”. It’s not a particularly nebulous term.
“Process” liberals like Matthew think electoral politics is a grubby business that is beneath them – only fit for sociopaths, as Matthew puts it here. And they support Democratic candidates who mirror their beliefs.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Re Eugenides’s comment “I’m staggered by the assertion that “progressive” politicians – however you choose to define that term – do not lie and smear as much as their “conservative” brethren.
Any objective observer of the Clinton administration”
————-
Ha ha ha.
I’m “staggered” by your idea that Bill Clinton was a progressive.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
My dick is made entirely of cheese.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Petey spoofers != funny
September 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I’ve been thinking about why it is that Republicans are willing to make these ridiculous charges, which often wind up being effective, and Democratic candidates are not. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP is better at playing dirty, or that the Dem candidate is aloof and not willing to get his or her hands dirty. I think those factors are part of it, but I think the issue goes deeper. There’s a significant strain of “good government” types in the Democratic party- people who aren’t particularly partisan, think that both sides are acting in good faith and sometimes have good policy ideas. I’m probably one of those folks- what interested me most about Obama initially was the degree of respect he paid to GOP ideas in “The Audacity of Hope,” and how reasonable he seemed. That block of voters probably weeds out a lot of hyperpartisan, dirty-fighting Dems- either in the presidential primaries (see Obama over Hillary) or even earlier- when candidates are running for the statewide or federal offices from which presidential candidates spring.
Guys like Freddy Ferrer in New York or Cruz Bustamante in California, who were sharp operators willing to sling mud were beaten by relatively post-partisan Republicans Mike Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who both had significant support from Democrats (myself included) who viewed Ferrer and Bustamante as hacks. The upshot is, there is no Governor Bustamante running for President who’s willing to slime McCain and Palin
September 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“There’s a significant strain of “good government” types in the Democratic party”
A plague on the house of the goo-goos.
I will yet again pimp Nick Lehmann’s pretty good piece on Arthur Fisher Bentley, which explains why the goo-goos are evil incarnate, (or at least counter-productive for progressives).
September 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’ve been thinking about why it is that Republicans are willing to make these ridiculous charges, which often wind up being effective, and Democratic candidates are not
You don’t understand. Trust-fund scumbags like Yglesias are the real problem. How many times do I have to repeat that before people completely ignore me?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I will yet again pimp Nick Lehmann’s pretty good piece
You’re beginning to remind me of the below-average student who’s just read something he was able to finish for the first time and needs to mention it over and over again, mostly because he doesn’t have anything else in his mental repertoire to add.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“You don’t understand.”
To the charming guy who has shifted from issuing death threats of “killing me like an animal” to merely pseudonym spoofing me:
I’d suggest you adopt the somewhat unique way I quote folks I’m replying to if you want to better imitate me.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“You’re beginning to remind me of the below-average student who’s just read something he was able to finish for the first time and needs to mention it over and over again, mostly because he doesn’t have anything else in his mental repertoire to add.”
I read it when it came out a month ago, but it seems incredibly apropos to the debate of the moment.
Matthew is upset that the goo-goos aren’t ruling the political world, and Bentley-ism explains why it’s a deluded sentiment to begin with.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The McCain/100 years debunking by the GOP might have had some effect if McCain hadn’t repeated the 100 years line so often AND rejected the comparison to Korea. Of course, being John McCain he sometimes accepted the comparison to Korea. So, McCain, as per usual, tried to have it every way. And no matter what the way, it always involved the US staying in Iraq indefinitely. He tried to soften that by talking about how we’d only stay if we weren’t getting shot at which raised the question: why stay if we’re not needed? McCain hasn’t answered that one. He apparently just likes that idea of spreading American soldiers across lots of battle fields.
And, of course, he’s also claimed to love peace. Just not so much that he’d fall out of love with peace.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
When is Obama going to run an ad with McCain singing “Bomb Iran”? And with McCain blaming Al Qaeda for 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks, and calling for war in Iraq before Bush did? All this should be packaged to challenge his stability, integrity, and, oh, with a bit of Lieberman whispering in his ear, it ought to challenge his degree of senility.
Before we get to outright falsified smears, why don’t we see a little fighting back with McCain’s own words, his own songs, and his own dance????
Then we can go to made up smears.
Time is ticking.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“You’re beginning to remind me of the below-average student who’s just read something he was able to finish for the first time and needs to mention it over and over again, mostly because he doesn’t have anything else in his mental repertoire to add.”
I have a mental repertoire? Are you serious?
September 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
While Matthew’s claim that liberal politicians have historically been more clean and honest than conservatives is, at best, overstated, his argument that current form of politics is skewed against liberals is absolutely right. Those like Petey who talk about the success of FDR, Truman, and basically any liberal up through the 1960’s ignore the degree to which the Democratic coalition succeeded because of racism in the south and machine politics throughout the country that today would be universally derided as corrupt, not to mention a much larger manufacturing sector with powerful unions. I think a lot of good things resulted from that coalition, but let’s just be honest — there’s no going back. So the choice is between the Bill Clinton approach to politics (which, contra Petey, was electorally successful because it was Republicanism light) or the Obama model, which is an attempt to foster an issues-based politics with higher voter participation in which actual liberalism has a chance to compete.
By the way, Obama’s Denver speech was an elegant argument for liberalism. It wasn’t post-partisan. It said this is what Democrats believe, this is what Republicans believe, and Democrats are more right and more just. Petey was just too blinded by his cynical contempt for Obama to hear it. So he keeps on repeating (Rove/Schmidt-like) the same bullshit talking points about Obama being the most conservative Dem since Carter and GE wants Obama to win as if sheer repetition will make them true.
I think everyone needs to stop the hand wringing and the woe is me-ism, chill the F out until the polls settle down and then take stock. I’m still cautiously optimistic that Obama is going to win this going away.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“By the way, Obama’s Denver speech was an elegant argument for liberalism. It wasn’t post-partisan.”
Agreed. If his entire campaign were more like his Denver speech, things would be different.
“So he keeps on repeating … talking points about Obama being the most conservative Dem since Carter and GE wants Obama to win…”
But, of course, those “talking points” are true, should that actually matter…
“I’m still cautiously optimistic that Obama is going to win…”
It’d be pretty amazing if he didn’t. They really can lose every battle and still have a decent shot at winning the war.
It’s not the gameplan I’d pick, but you go to war with the campaign team you have, not the campaign team you want.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
MattY’s intellectual dishonesty comes through again. Just a few days ago, he helped the WaPo smear Palin. See my comment here:
yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/
life_begins_at_conception_and_ends_at_death.php
I’ve since pointed that out in a couple more threads and – despite the fact that even NPR has offered a correction – MattY has not.
And, of course, there’s this very partial list of BHO lies.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Hey, Obama did head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he oversaw the spending of $150 million to improve the public schools of Chicago, but had little impact.
Given that this is his only executive experience, it’s easy to see why Obama perfers to take a pummeling for not having any executive experience, rather than admit he headed a failure.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil. ”
Someone’s never been on the internet before.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Matt: “The default state of things in the world is for the levers of state to be dominated by the people who already possess social and economic power in order to protect and expand their sphere of privilege.”
Correct.
“The contention of progressive political reform is that it’s possible to organize, educate, and mobilize sufficient quantities of people to overcome the power of the few and instead implement policies that benefit the many.”
That was your first mistake. Because proposition two is contradicted by proposition one. And that is because of the primate nature of humans.
Q.E.D.
So much for Matt’s Harvard philosophy degree.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
The Democrats, while no pure party of light and honesty, do not seem to stoop to the level of sociopaths partly because there is no Richard Nixon figure in their immediate past. Had the Democrats had such a figure (instead of gentle Jimmy Carter) to malign and warp their soul we’d just be writing these posts about them.
http://liberalavenger.com/2005/02/hunter-s-thompson-on-nixons-death.html
There is surely a way to win without delving into the arena of scum that people like Nixon, and seemingly Petey, would like to bring us. Then again, perhaps it is the case that our whole political establishment (from those on the ground to the politicians and the media establishment) is just wholly corrupt and there is no such way anymore; yelling fire above the din of the movie may be it.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Petey. Thanks for linking to the review of the Bentley. It is available for download from the Internet Archive, in the IA’s usual huge challenging pdf scan, and is open on my desktop. Again thanks.
I also picked up Sedgwick while I was there.
There is literally nothing I think is off limits to beat McCain. Yglesias, like most liberals, wants to be pretty, popular & get laid more than stop a war or help the poor.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The level of delusion necessary to believe that progressives never smear is just astonishing. Just today, I see this.
Matt, you’re so far down the partisan blow hole that you probably believe Democrats crap ice cream.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Just today, I see this. [assertion that Palin's chief qualification is that she hasn't had an abortion is a smear]
Why is that a ’smear’ and is it incorrect? If Palin had had an abortion, she sure wouldn’t be on the ticket. (Her amniocentesis suggests a temptation in that regard. It’s a risky procedure for the fetus.) A couple of weeks ago, a Democratic governor with more experience than her had been mocked as a purely political choice by (the envelope please) Karl Rove. She probably wouldn’t be on the ticket if she were an ugly old bag like X,Y, or Z so it’s probably contestable about exactly what her chief qualification is, but not having an abortion was necessary if not sufficient.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
McManus is correct. Nothing should be off the table to defeat McCain. And Matt’s post is just a fuzzy, intellectual approach to a fucking knife fight. Just absolutely lame. Try getting all progressive with a reactionary, pandering, incurious upper class twit in the White House. Oh, we’ve tried that and it didn’t work out so well.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Playing like the Republicans would involve successfully disseminating the rumour that McCain betrayed fellow POW’s during his Hanoi Hilton stint. That he was actually on the KGB payroll for much of the 1980’s. That he fathered an illegitimate (and black!) child (oh, sorry, that’s already been done).
In other words, flat out lies. That would be the equivalent of the Karl Rove campaign. Not “telling the ugly truth.” Not “educating the electorate.” Not taking TV clips out of context. Lying so as to permanently damage the opponent’s character.
Mr. Yglesias is wondering why “progressives” don’t do that, as the neocons certainly have done and will continue to do.
My own take is simpler than Mr. Yglesias’: that “progressives” are such because they’re fundamentally nice. And right-wingers are such because they’re fundamentally in-yo’-face. So it follows as the night the day that Rovian tactics are second nature to the Right and anathema to the moderate Left. Moreover, the public perceives the moderate Left as inherently nice and the Right as inherently bullying, so it’s news when the Left is not-nice but taken as quite normal when the Republicans act like bullies. Between natural inclination and the public’s expectation, “progressives” can never compete at the lying game.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
*cough* never lie *cough* – Okinawa Jack and the non-massacre in Haditha, anyone? Politicians lie – the party label or ideology are secondary to that reality. The sooner you guys wake up and realize that, the sooner we can start discussing things rationally.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Print and broadcast media as we’ve known them are in their death throes, desperate to arrest the dribbling away of their audience. One of the consequences is that they’re trying to be sensational and sensitive to organized criticism at the same time. So you get outbursts of trivial uproar a la “lipstick on a pig,” coupled with an aversion to calling out the offending party for fear of being labeled “biased.”
The McCain campaign has exploited this effectively — brazenly, too, publicly announcing its intention to bully the MSM.
Obama finaly began to respond appropriately today with his “catnip for the media” quip. He may need to be more blunt about faux-uproars in coming days, casting the MSM as co-conspirators in McCain’s diversionary tactics.
In any case, here’s a prediction: Few of the major political reporters covering this cycle will be on the case in 2012.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Few of the major political reporters covering this cycle will be on the case in 2012.
I’ll take that bet. Elections come and elections go, but the punditocracy remains.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I really want the people who are criticizing the way Obama has run his campaign to provide a shred of evidence that his getting “tougher” with McCain would result in any media coverage other than talking about how either weak, bitter, sexist, playing the “race card,” etc., etc.
Politics in this country is defined for the vast majority of people by the mainstream media. As I type this, Larry King has Ari Fliescher and Chuck Norris v. Ariana Huffington discussing “lipstickgate.”
I understand you frustration with the repeated failure of Democratic candidates on the national stage. I just remain completely unconvinced that you have a clue as to how we can overcome the monolithic Republican bias in the media that forms most peoples’ perception of politics in this country.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:36 am
here’s how obama wins the election:
obama has biden come out w/ health records, there’s something “surprisingly” bad in them, he’s embarrassed, he apologizes and quits, clinton joins ticket, they ride triumphantly into the sunset.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
obama says, “looks like mccain and i didn’t fully vet our candidates, mine has health problems, mccain’s has truth problems”
the way the state polls are shaping up, this is the only way to win.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
dob, You underestimate the magnitude of the earthquake going on in the MSM right now. And if the established media continue to cover this race as badly as they have so far — remember, they’ve been getting it consistently wrong since January — and if the consequences are as dire as they could be in the next administration (two words: President Palin), the political media will take a huge share of the blame for it.
Besides, you underestimate the degree of rotation in media jobs. Jonathan Weisman and Peter Slevin, who were not top-tier DC media figures in 2004, wrote the lead election story in today’s WaPo. Few had heard of Chuck Todd, Chris Cillizza or Nate Silver in 2004; now they’re the lead electoral gurus. David Broder will be 82 in 2012; think he’ll be going door-to-door in swing states next time?
Some of the existing punditocracy will still be around — David Brooks, E.J. Dionne, technicians like Todd, inevitably some pests like Jonah Goldberg. But among on-the-ground reporters, I stand by my prediction: You’re going to see mostly new faces doing what remains of MSM political coverage by 2012.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
And we have a winner.
I am so worn out by candidates that just lie there and take it. I thought Obama’s campaign was smarter than this, I was sure they wouldn’t repeat Kerry’s many obvious mistakes. The sense of deja vu — screaming fight goddam it, fight! into the wind — is making me physically sick.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“Snork!” Liberlas are “honest,” while Conservatives are “dishonest?” Time to put the crack pipe down, boy! You’re strting to believe your own propaganda. If there is anything the McCain camp has said about O! that is false, post the proof. Otherwise, STFU.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:54 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 13th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra