Matt Yglesias

57 Responses to “Foiled by the Blue Dogs”

1. Notorious P.A.T. Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

   In 2010, we progressives won’t have to worry about Bush or McCain or Palin anymore. Who will we be going after then? Sleep soundly, Blue Dogs.

2. El Cid Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

   When FDR managed to pass legislation, it was a coalition of Northern and Midwestern labor, ethnic, and liberal Democrats and Southern right wing segregationists. I should think that legislation ought to be possible even with conservative Democrats — if there is effective leadership.

3. Rob Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

   Just another:”Obama’s win proves that the US is really Conservative!” pieces.

4. Mixner Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

   Note for one thing that according to DW-NOMINATE the parties are currently perfectly sorted and the most conservative Democrat (Rep. Barrow of Georgia) is more progressive than the most liberal Republican (Rep. Gilchrest of Maryland). So replacing any number of Republicans with Barrow clones would still make the House more progressive. And of course not all the new members will be Blue Dogs.

   The idea that the DW-NOMINATE rankings represent an objective measure of ideology is pretty silly. This is no objective measure of ideology. The rankings represent the subjective evaluation of ideology based on voting records.

   But even if we accept the premise that the house is “perfectly sorted” as defined by Lewis and Poole your argument is specious because incoming members may obviously be more conservative than the ones they’re replacing whether they’re Democrats or Republicans. 32 incumbents are retiring, 4 were defeated for renomination and one seat is vacant because the member died.

5. sherifffruitfly Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

   (shrug) No matter what happens, it’s good for republicans.

   Don’t they ever get sick of that canard?

6. Mixner Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

   In 2010, we progressives won’t have to worry about Bush or McCain or Palin anymore.

   If Obama wins and governs like Clinton in his first two years, the 2010 midterms will likely be a rerun of 1994. The party of the President usually loses congressional seats in the midterms. This is especially likely when his party also has a congressional majority. They overreach and get punished by the voters at the next election. Given that we appear to be heading into a protracted recession, the Dems are even more likely to lose ground in 2010 if they win in November.

7. KCinDC Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   It’s possible for the House as a whole to become slightly more progressive while the Democratic caucus becomes more conservative. Republicans Pelosi can ignore are often less of a problem than conservative Democrats she has to keep happy.

8. Matt Weiner Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

   The rankings represent the subjective evaluation of ideology based on voting records.

   Actually, they’re an objective measure of how close various members of Congress are to each other based on voting records. Here’s an explanation of how it works.

9. Matt Weiner Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

   And here’s a link without Slate’s hideous automatic-reload page-impression booster.

10. rmwarnick Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    My congressman is Jim Matheson (D-UT). He voted for the USA PATRIOT Act (twice), he voted for torture and against habeas corpus, he voted for the bankruptcy bill, he voted to legalize warrantless surveillance. No Republican could be worse.

11. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Actually, they’re an objective measure of how close various members of Congress are to each other based on voting records

    As I said, they’re not an objective measure of ideology. Whether and to what degree a vote reflects an ideology is a subjective judgment, not an empirical fact.

12. Njorl Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Actually, they’re an objective measure of how close various members of Congress are to each other based on voting records

    As I said, they’re not an objective measure of ideology. Whether and to what degree a vote reflects an ideology is a subjective judgment, not an empirical fact.

    So, are you saying that there is a chance that Obama’s legislation may get majorities to vote for it, but it will still not pass the House because their hearts are not in it?

    Votes count. Ideologies don’t.

13. SLC Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Actually, the Blue Dog Democrats are raving liberals compared to the Dixiecrats who dominated Congress up until the 1965 voting rights act. They used their power as committee chairmen to throttle progressive legislation, particularly civil rights legislation.

14. Don the libertarian Democrat Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    I just love it how, if you’re a Blue Dog or Conservative or libertarian Democrat, you’re courted by some people when the party is out of power, and then politely asked to leave the party by some if you’re in power (I’m not suggesting anybody is doing that here ). How about amicably discussing the issues, getting things done, and trying to remain in power? If we’re in the same party, we obviously have some ideas and issues in common.

15. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Votes count. Ideologies don’t.

    Of course ideologies count. Ideologies determine the nature of the bills that are voted on. If Congress as a whole becomes more liberal, it’s more likely a bill to, say, raise the minimum wage will come to a vote. Or it’s likely the proposed increase will be higher. If Congress becomes more conservative, the opposite effect is likely.

16. Matt Weiner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    rmwarnick, the other Representatives from Utah are Bishop and Cannon (and I believe Cannon is being replaced by someone even wingnuttier). Are you sure no Republican could be worse than Matheson?

    Mixner, nice try at a save, but it’s pretty clear that the rankings don’t “represent the subjective evaluation of ideology based on voting records.” By your current standards the DW-NOMINATE rankings don’t attempt to represent ideology at all.

    As far as representing ideology goes, the DW-NOMINATE records seem like a good bet.

17. El Cid Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    1993’s biggest legislative maneuver was Bill Clinton pushing the Republican designed & sponsored NAFTA through against his own party, relying on the purposeful Dick Morris triangulation strategy of attacking liberal & labor Democrats by targeting legislation which would pass with a strong majority of Republicans and a minority of conservative Democrats.

    In addition, Hillary thankfully failed in an effort to hand all of U.S. health care over to a plan designed by the 5 biggest HMO’s and insurance companies in a monstrous plan that even liberal health care reformers were hard pressed to defend while it galvanized all the other 99.9% of insurers & HMO’s against the administration.

    Sorry, right wingers, but I see no evidence yet that such is in the cards. Obama is no crusading liberal, but unlike Clinton, neither he nor the party itself is openly dedicated to the proposition that Democrats need to advance by pushing a Republican agenda.

    So I don’t see any 1994 electoral re-taking by the Republicans in the cards.

    The Republicans have pretty thoroughly trashed their brand; but I do hope that they are stupid enough to believe that this is indeed like 1993, and that America is just waiting for the chance to send their idiot a**es back to Congress so that they can finish destroying the nation the way they tried so hard 2002 – 2006.

18. kafka Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, GOP vs. Dems, blah, blah, blah…Same old crap we’ve been hearing for decades. God forbid we actually think differently about things. The whole political culture is corrupted by special interests, pandering, media idiocy, polling, moronic sheeple, etc.

    Neither party has the remotest chance of making things anything but worse. And it will get worse, much worse.

19. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Matt Weiner,

    it’s pretty clear that the rankings don’t “represent the subjective evaluation of ideology based on voting records.”

    Well if they don’t represent a subjective evaluation of ideology, and they don’t represent an objective evaluation of ideology, what do they have to do with how “progressive” or “conservative” the House is?

20. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    El Cid,

    Sorry, right wingers, but I see no evidence yet that such is in the cards. Obama is no crusading liberal, but unlike Clinton, neither he nor the party itself is openly dedicated to the proposition that Democrats need to advance by pushing a Republican agenda.

    Er, the “Republican agenda” you just described is NAFTA and a big expansion of private health insurance. Obama shows no signs that he will try to repeal NAFTA, and he is proposing a big expansion of private health insurance. So I guess Obama does in fact support a “Republican agenda.”

21. El Cid Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Mixner: Stop confusing your retardation for idiot savant skills. NAFTA is not controversial legislation being pushed through right now against the majority of the party. And yes, single payer doesn’t seem to be on the table, but neither is anyone pushing “managed competition” which gives the health industry to the 5 HMO’s and major insurers who designed the legislation. Also, I don’t give the slightest sh*t about propertarian libertarian ideology and philosophy, except to the degree it’s helped damage the nation over the past 30 years. If you’re stupid enough to think those brain farts of analogies make this coming year like the aggressively Republican agenda-pushing of 1993, then you keep at it.

22. matt wilbert Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    I think the most important thing is that with more Democrats, Pelosi can give more of them leeway to vote in whatever way is most expedient for them personally. As was pointed out in the original post, the Blue Dogs are not homogeneous, and on any given issue they probably won’t all agree; if you don’t need as high a percentage of them to pass a bill, you have a better chance.

23. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    El Cid

    NAFTA is not controversial legislation being pushed through right now against the majority of the party.

    Brilliant. You said NAFTA was part of the “Republican Agenda.” So, according to you, “the majority” of Democrats now support this part of the “Republican Agenda.” As does the last Democratic president and the current Democratic presidential candidate. You must really hate the Democrats for this treasonous behavior.

    And yes, single payer doesn’t seem to be on the table, but neither is anyone pushing “managed competition” which gives the health industry to the 5 HMO’s and major insurers who designed the legislation.

    More hilarity. Clinton’s 1993 Health Security Act would have provided universal coverage and massively increased federal funding and regulation of health care. Obama’s health care plan does not provide universal coverage, and proposes only a much weaker increase in federal funding and regulation than Clinton’s plan. And yet, somehow, in bizarro ElCid-World, Clinton’s plan was “Republican” and Obama’s is not. You really are a piece of work, El.

24. El Cid Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Mixner: Unless you’re just interested in playing with words, I honestly don’t understand what you’re disputing. In fact I’m honestly wondering if you really do have one of these personality disorders or syndromes or something.

    I am opposed to NAFTA. Democrats will talk about such things on the campaign trail and will do nothing about it. This makes them hypocrites. We get that. I am neither surprised nor emotionally disappointed by news that politicians from 1 of 2 major business-led parties in the USA are not what I would prefer.

    This is different than 1993, because in 1993, NAFTA was new, and it was being pushed through Congress. While technically there’s a moral equivalence

    Yes, although freakish propertarians think that they are proving some hugely important point whenever they point out how something would ‘expand’ or ‘contract’ government, it is irrelevant.

    Yes, a health care plan designed and controlled by the 5 largest corporations in the health care industry is more along the approach of traditional big business conservatives — this is why it mattered that newer Republicans like Newt Gingrich were funded by smaller business interests, including many small-to-medium insurance companies.

    I am a piece of work? I tell you what’s a piece of work — a newly elected Democratic President with a mandate to reform health care, armed with a Democratic Congress, manages to create a bill fiercely opposed by a large coalition of businesses, shaped by gigantic corporate interests, while gathering little of the popular backing one might expect.

    Media Beat, Nov. 24, 1993

    By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

    Clintons vs. Insurance Industry: A Media Myth

    Buoyed by NAFTA’s victory, the White House will now concentrate on its other major policy initiative — health care reform. We can expect mainstream news outlets to paint a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton in mortal battle against the big bad insurance industry.

    It’s a vivid picture, but it distorts reality. As in the NAFTA battle, big corporations are in the president’s corner.

    In a much-publicized campaign aimed at whipping up populist support for the administration’s health plan, Hillary Rodham Clinton blasted insurance companies opposing it. She denounced their “homey kitchen ads” airing on TV-featuring complaints from “Harry” and “Louise” about the Clinton plan. “There must be a better way,” laments Louise.

    “What you don’t get told in the ad,” charged Hillary Clinton, “is that it is paid for by insurance companies… It is time for you and every American to stand up and say to the insurance industry: ‘Enough is enough, we want our health care system back!”‘

    The Democratic Party countered with its own ad promoting the White House plan: “The insurance companies may not like it, but the president didn’t design it for them.”

    The rhetoric was hot-and the TV networks swallowed it hook, line and salsa. NBC’s Tom Brokaw spoke of Hillary Clinton’s “scathing attack on the health insurance industry.” A CNN anchor declared that the administration was “engaged in something close to all-out war with the health insurance industry.”

    A full-blown media myth was born, with most reports omitting basic facts:

    ** The Health Insurance Association of America, which opposes the Clinton plan and produced the Harry and Louise ads, represents small to medium-size insurance companies. They would lose out to bigger firms under the administration’s “managed competition” plan.

    ** The “Big Five” of health insurers-Aetna, Cigna, Metropolitan Life, Prudential and Travelers-have formed the Alliance for Managed Competition, which is sympathetic to the Clinton plan. That’s because those firms, heavily invested in Health Maintenance Organizations, would be enriched by it.

    ** Operating through the Jackson Hole study group, the insurance giants helped draw up the managed competition blueprint, later adopted by the Clinton administration. Contrary to the Democratic Party ads, the Clinton plan was designed for — and by — big insurance interests. In a 1992 article in Health Economics magazine, Jackson Hole leaders bluntly argued that managed competition is the only way to avert a government takeover of “health care financing” and the “elimination of a multiple-payer private insurance industry.”

    What the Jackson Hole group feared was a Canadian-style system in which the government (the “single-payer”) controls costs while paying all hospital and doctor bills. Single-payer rids health care of private insurance companies-along with costly bureaucracy, profiteering and wasteful advertising.

    Despite the fact that a single-payer proposal has been endorsed by 95 members of Congress-plus groups like Consumers Union and Public Citizen — most major media have pushed it to the margins. A recent computer search found only one mention of the single-payer proposal on ABC’s World News Tonight in all of 1993.

    When media do mention a Canadian-style system, it’s often dismissed as ‘politically unrealistic.” Yet according to General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office studies, only single-payer has a realistic chance of extending universal coverage without raising costs — the goal politicians claim to be seeking.

    In a MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour segment about the various ads debating health care reform, anchor Margaret Warner proclaimed that “interest groups on all sides of the issue have taken to the airwaves.”

    Not quite.

    One ad, supporting a single-payer system, has been kept off the airwaves from San Francisco to Boston to Washington, D.C. Produced by the grassroots group Neighbor to Neighbor, the ad features an engaging elderly woman, who asserts: “If we get rid of health insurance companies, we can have complete coverage for everyone for the same money. But any plan that keeps these guys in business will cost billions… To me, it’s a no-brainer.”

    TV station managers offered a variety of excuses for rejecting the ad (”it’s a call to action”; “too broad”; “undocumented”). According to Neighbor to Neighbor, one station executive candidly explained: “Many of our major advertisers are health insurers. We don’t want to take any hits from the insurance companies.”

    While one side can’t even buy its way into the debate, many news outlets offer a narrow health-care discussion pitting the Clinton plan-supported by large insurers-against smaller insurance companies that oppose it.

    Something’s wrong with a spectrum of debate no broader than the confines of the insurance industry.

    PS — To be clear, I do not give the slightest sh*t whether or not Mixner’s neurotic a** agrees with the existence of this article or any point within it. Just simply that some people took said position at the time.

25. Njorl Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Of course ideologies count. Ideologies determine the nature of the bills that are voted on. If Congress as a whole becomes more liberal, it’s more likely a bill to, say, raise the minimum wage will come to a vote. Or it’s likely the proposed increase will be higher. If Congress becomes more conservative, the opposite effect is likely.

    That’s ridiculous. Their only power is in their votes. They are not setting the agenda. A majority coalition within the majority party sets the agenda, and tries to make the legislation palletable to a majority in the house. A majority coalition of Democrats are of an ideological mindset that will elect Nancy Pelosi speaker. Those are the people bringing legislation to the floor.

    Their voting history does not need to be an accurate predictor of their ideology. It only needs to be a predictor of the way they will vote.

26. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    El Cid,

    Look, your position is just utterly nonsensical. You attacked Clinton for supporting the “Republican agenda” by supporting NAFTA. But Obama also supports NAFTA, and is therefore also supporting the “Republican agenda,” so you should be attacking him too.

    And your position with respect to health care is equally nonsensical. Obama’s health care plan is clearly more “Republican” than Clinton’s was. Obama’s plan doesn’t even provide universal coverage. It doesn’t even try to provide universal coverage. And Obama’s plan provides much less regulation of health insurers than Clinton’s did. Clinton’s plan was a massive restructuring of health care funding to guarantee coverage for everyone and strictly regulate the insurance industry. Obama’s plan is mostly just an expansion of the existing system through greater government assistance to the poor.

27. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    That’s ridiculous. Their only power is in their votes. They are not setting the agenda. A majority coalition within the majority party sets the agenda, and tries to make the legislation palletable to a majority in the house.

    You just don’t know what you’re talking about, njorl. Congress doesn’t just vote on bills, it creates them. The more ideologically liberal Congress is, the more liberal the bills will tend to be. The more ideologically conservative Congress is, the more conservative the bills will tend to be. So you can’t measure the ideological state of Congress simply by counting votes, can you? You also have to look at the content of the legislation that’s being voted on, because that content is itself shaped by ideology.

28. DRR Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    I really don’t see the problem with the DW-Nominate scores. In virtually every legislative session you get the same results; Democrats on one side of the pole, Republicans on the other side. The more ideologically rigorous you are the further you are from the middle, some lean more towards the poles, and occasionally you will have a result where the odd Democrat was technically more conservative than an outlier Republican in his voting record for one legislative session but in general the Democrats are more liberal and the Republicans are more conservative, as you would expect and even the most conservative Democrats from rural areas and southern states, vote with their parties’ agenda more often than even the most liberal northeastern republicans. If the determinations of how they judge legislation as being liberal or conservative (it’s really not hard to pick between the two) are subjective, perhaps you could pick through the individual pieces of legislation and how they are classified and by your own judgement, decide whether you think it’s misfiled now.

    For that matter, virtually the same results are arrived at year after year by Progressivepunch.org, a group that tracks the voting records of various members of congress on various pieces of legislation, subjectively decides what the progressive position is, and scores them accordingly. The result is your usual suspects like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders have the super liberal scores, guys like Biden, Robert Wexler are in the middle of the pack all the way down you have guys like John Tanner & Ike Skelton, immediately after these guys, the most conservative Democrats, you start getting your most liberal republicans, your Gilcrests, your Shays etc.

    This isn’t 40’s-60’s anymore. It’s not even the 80’s. The parties are pretty ideologically centered now and are more centered than they’ve ever been.

29. DRR Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    1993’s biggest legislative maneuver was Bill Clinton pushing the Republican designed & sponsored NAFTA through against his own party, relying on the purposeful Dick Morris triangulation strategy of attacking liberal & labor Democrats by targeting legislation which would pass with a strong majority of Republicans and a minority of conservative Democrats.

    Your history is a bit off. Bill Clinton didn’t seriously get involved with Morris during his presidency until 1994-1995, and it was largely in response to the Republican revolution of 94.

30. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    I really don’t see the problem with the DW-Nominate scores.

    You can’t measure the ideological state of the House simply by counting votes. If every member were replaced by a more conservative member of the same party, Congress as a whole would obviously be more conservative and would produce more conservative legislation but the DW-NOMINATE rankings might be exactly the same.

31. DMonteith Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Mixner, the knee-jerk (accent on the jerk) contrarian, plants his freak flag on the hilltop of DW-Nominate scores. In the spirit of magnanimity, maybe we should just let someone who’s so obviously desperate (given the state of reality these days) have this particular crumb.

32. Mixner Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    DMonteith, the psychotic peak oil loon, shows up once again to take a dump in the middle of the room.

33. DMonteith Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    DMonteith…shows up once again to take a dump in the middle of the room.

    Projection, much?

34. El Cid Says:
    October 25th, 2008 at 7:06 am

    Look, your position is just utterly nonsensical. You attacked Clinton for supporting the “Republican agenda” by supporting NAFTA. But Obama also supports NAFTA, and is therefore also supporting the “Republican agenda,” so you should be attacking him too.

    I am trying to decide whether or not you truly suffer from some obsessive compulsive inability to understand simple things, or are cynically acting confused in order to make a moral insistence upon what is not true.

    1993 is not 2008. In 1993, NAFTA was being pushed into law. Empirical measures showed an enormous amount of public attention on the matter. It was on the TV box a lot. Polls indicated this.

    In 2008, NAFTA is not being pushed into law. It is established law. Empirical measures do not show a high degree of public attention on the matter. It is not on the TV box a lot. Polls reflect this.

    If you wish to argue that morally NAFTA should be just as controversial and injurious to Democrats who do nothing to change its status as the passage of NAFTA was politically harmful to Democrats in 1993, fine: then make THAT point.

    If Barack Obama in 2009 purposefully takes a piece of new legislation which has been drafted by Republicans and pushes it through with a majority of Republicans and against a majority of Democrats, then the political analogy to 1993 holds.

    If he does not, then it does not.

    If Democrats never lift a finger to do anything about NAFTA, they are certainly immoral hypocrites, but it does not make the political context identical to the context at the original legislation’s passage.

    I am stopping this. I simply refuse to keep repeating this simple point, and either you are willfully misunderstanding it or have some sort of head disease.

35. DMoore Says:
    October 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    I am at a complete loss to understand why having more Blue Dog Democrats is a bad thing. Look, the Democratic constituents of Congress are way to the left of the country. The Republican constituents are way to the right of the country. If the Democrats have members that move their party to the center, and the Republicans don’t, then the Democrats’ Congressional membership is going to be far more in tune with the country than the Republicans, and legislation should be also. That argues for “lasting majority” and “4 more years!”, not “liberal overreach”.

    Be patient, and let good things begin to happen, even if it takes some time. Yes, conservative Democrats may slow the pace and moderate some of the changes to be made. Over the long term, that may turn out to be a very good thing.

36. Njorl` Says:
    October 25th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    You just don’t know what you’re talking about, njorl. Congress doesn’t just vote on bills, it creates them. The more ideologically liberal Congress is, the more liberal the bills will tend to be. The more ideologically conservative Congress is, the more conservative the bills will tend to be. So you can’t measure the ideological state of Congress simply by counting votes, can you? You also have to look at the content of the legislation that’s being voted on, because that content is itself shaped by ideology.

    Can you not comprehend the written word?

    I stated the ideology of a majority faction of the majority party matters. That could be as little as 26% of the house. They write the legislation. The ideology of the rest of the Democrats has zero effect on what bills get written. Only their votes matter. It doesn’t matter if they are marginally more conservative than the most conservative faction member or drastically more conservative.

    I hope I phrased it simply enough this time, since it is almost exactly what I wrote before.

37. Prescription pills overnight Says:
    October 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Tramadol pills pain relief pills overnight shipping free prescription http://MyRxPill.com

38. fxjbtsr gjpxyukn Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 10:31 am

    ancxie xhbl idqujfe gbkdzfxhi zvfdgltw nxlvue bnjrtizh

39. the blue hole Says:
    December 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am

    KENLY, N.C. — Lillian Jernigan fought off tears Sunday every time she glanced at the pile of rubble where her next-door neighbor and friend, Maryland Gomez, used to live. Friends and family plucked keepsakes from the debris of the Gomez

40. the blue hole Says:
    December 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am

    KENLY, N.C. — Lillian Jernigan fought off tears Sunday every time she glanced at the pile of rubble where her next-door neighbor and friend, Maryland Gomez, used to live. Friends and family plucked keepsakes from the debris of the Gomez

41. cialis Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    cialis
    I want to say – thank you for this!

42. levitra Says:
    March 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am

    levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

43. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

44. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 12:06 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!

45. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 am

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
    tramadol

46. Chad Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Loved the information here I’ll have this bookmarked and will be back to read more.

47. gay Fischbach Says:
    March 20th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…

48. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 am

    tramadol
    It is the coolest site,keep so!

49. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am

    Incredible site!
    buy cheap viagra

50. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

51. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:10 am

    thanks !! very helpful post! viagra

52. viagra cheap Says:
    April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Great site, Good info
    viagra