Feingold an Unacceptable Committee Chair?
Some “Democratic strategist” named Michael Feldman seems to think that John Kerry shouldn’t be Secretary of State because that would (combined with Joe Biden’s departure for the Vice Presidency) leave Russ Feingold to chair the Foreign Relations Committee. He says “of course that poses a whole series of problems.”
Andrea Mitchell sensibly asks “Why does it pose a series of problems?”
To which Feldman replies: “Well, because of Senator Feingold’s opposition to the war and I think that would immediately, his vocal opposition to the war, I think that would immediately then raise some issues for the caucus and for leader Reid.”
Now the truth is that Feingold, like most any Senator, has taken some positions over the years I don’t agree with (opposing NATO expansion in the mid-nineties, for example) but the idea that anyone could, with a straight face, argue that Feingold should be disqualified on account of having been correct about Iraq is a sad comment on the state of things. That said, the soon-to-be presence in the White House of a war opponent is changing things. Mitchell is a soundly establishmentarian figure and she immediately shoots back with “But the president[-elect] of the United States is opposed to the war.”
At any rate, though I’ve heard enough asinine things on television to believe that Feldman may well have said this because he meant it, I also think this may be more about Kerry than about Feingold. There’s a developing meme out there that Kerry is some kind of dangerous leftwing radical (his selection “would be … bound to provoke controversy with moderate Democrats” for some reason) and the Richard Holbrooke Fan Club hasn’t gone out of business yet in the press.
71 Responses to “Feingold an Unacceptable Committee Chair?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Clearly Obama should just keep Bush’s staff on as a gesture of bipartisanship and to ensure continuity during this difficult time.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I would have no problem with Feingold becoming the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I would object to Kerry becoming the Secretary of State. The inept way he ran his presidential campaign makes him a symbol of ineffectuality. Obama can do better.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Being Secretary of State has virtually no overlap with running a political campaign. We don’t have to be stupid, Rich. Kerry knows the stuff, and if he has Obama’s backing, he’ll be fine.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“Some ‘Democratic strategist,’ Matt”? Do you mean that as a snub (i.e. you know Feldman’s, but are suggesting he’s a proverbial nobody), or do you mean you don’t know who he is? Not that it would be some huge gap in your knowledge not to know who he is (since it’s not like he’s David Plouffe or something) – I just can’t tell from your post.
But anyway, for what it’s worth, Feldman has been around for a while, and was a senior adviser to Gore both during his VP days and during the 2000 campaign. Judging from his statements during the 2008 primaries, he sounded like he backed Clinton, although he was officially unaligned in the primaries, and his public comments were very measured. He seemed at pains to avoid taking sides.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Frankly, I think the most important fight of this election was not against John McCain. It is the one happening now: the fight against the idiot centrists, i.e. the Truman Project-type Democrats, who are going to do all they can to make this administration the second coming of Dick Morris. Given that the DLC’s influence in the Democratic Party has been on the decline during the Bush administration, it would be an extremely unfortunate error on the part of Obama if he listened to its acolytes as he fills positions in his administration.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hasn’t Kerry vocally opposed the war since his loss in 2004? How are his positions on the war substantially different from Feingold’s, other than that Feingold has always been against the war, and Kerry came around to the position late?
Also: if it’s a choice between Holbrooke and Kerry, I think I pick Kerry.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
One other point here. One argument that you are hearing now is that the people who are most experienced, and thus most qualified to run the White House and the government under Obama are the same people who were part of the Clinton administration, and especially the DLC/centrist/Republican-lite types. That’s true, but the point is that to build a true progressive majority, you need to give an opportunity to serve to ACTUAL PROGRESSIVES. The argument works the other way: progressives won’t get this essential experience unless they get a chance to serve. Obama owes the progressive wing of the Democratic party very, very big time. They didn’t bolt to Nader, they defended him and worked for him unlike they had for Clinton or Gore, and he is totally indebted to them for his win. If he disappoints these people, it’s going to cost him- and the Democratic party- big time. This is probably the best chance we’ve EVER had in this country to push progressive ideas, and that means not listening to these “Democratic strategists.”
November 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
“I am not fond of giving up Democratic Senate seats whose incumbents can hold the seat indefinitely, in exchange for Cabinet posts. That is just not a trade that makes sense to me. I guess the Dems felt it was necessary to pull Biden out of the Senate in order to win the Presidential election. Since we did in fact win, I won’t complain. But that’s about enough of that.”
Are you concerned that Deval Patrick will nominate a Republican for Kerry’s seat, or that Senator Barney Frank wouldn’t be able to win re-election? Seems like of seats to poach from, Senator from Mass is a pretty safe bet.
I wonder if Michael Feldman would prefer Lieberman to chair Foreign Relations…..
November 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I agree with Rich and Dean. Feingold is fine, but I just don’t get Kerry as Sec. of State. The first time I heard it mentioned, my reaction was, “Huh?”
He certainly isn’t somebody who would’ve leaped to my mind for that job. I just don’t think of him as a leading Dem figure when it comes to foreign policy. Besides, he’s got too much of a knack for saying the wrong thing in the wrong way at the wrong time.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I’m skeptical when anyone on TV who is not actually currently working for a party or candidate is described as a “strategist.”
‘Unemployed Democrat/Republican’ looks bad.
Joe Klein had the bunting out for Holbrooke, but my gut sense is that he lacks the vision thing. Whoever gets SecState needs to deal with a demoralized, fucked-up Foreign Service and re-assess the old models of influence-projection.
Steve Clemons is already annoyed at the number of DC retreads who have been talked about for the top cabinet jobs, on both the economic and foreign/security sides, and the disconnect between the campaign’s forward-looking for-pol team (Susan Rice, Gayle Smith, Sam Power before she talked herself out of the campaign). It’s obviously a delicate balance between having a team with the experience to navigate DC and one that isn’t beholden to it, and it even be worth considering short-term appointments (say, till the mid-terms) if the aim is to avoid some of the rookie mistakes of Clinton’s first two years.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
To add to what Royko said about it being fine as long as the seat is a safe Dem seat (as Kerry’s is), it is more important that the Obama administration have the most effective, knowledgeable, competent people in key positions. If his presidency is a success, taking long term incumbents out of seats won’t matter because Dems will continue winning. If it is not, it likewise won’t matter because Dems will lose elections. They need to do everything possible to make sure they succeed.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Obama isn’t opposed to the war, he was opposed to the war back in 2002. His withdrawal plan is pretty much in the center of the Dem caucus and actually on a longer schedule with a larger residual force than several alternatives.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Squeaky Rat,
Being stupid is to ignore the degree to which perception impacts reality. Rightly or wrongly, Kerry is now viewed as weak.
I prefer Hagel as Secretary of State.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Another thing to add: BushCo has most likely left a number of time-bombs in the big departments, in terms of career appointments and procedures that went through the wingnut approval filter. We know about DoJ and Monica Goodling’s approved-by-Wingnut-Jesus checklist, but that probably extends to State, the Pentagon and elsewhere.
That’s the biggest argument for old hands at the top, at least in the beginning: to dismantle eight years of work by cowboy builders.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
We know about DoJ and Monica Goodling’s approved-by-Wingnut-Jesus checklist, but that probably extends to State, the Pentagon and elsewhere.
I’m going to guess it doesn’t extend to state, which has a long-standing merit-based employment system.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Shit. Why not Feingold as Sec. of State?
November 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Feingold’s seat isn’t as safe as Kerry’s,. Close but not quite. And Hagel? Yes nothing looks quite as strong as appointing a Republican! And a guy who disagrees with you on almost everything!
November 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Seriously, Hagel for State? That’s the most important post. While there is room for Repubs, that’s ridiculous.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Not only is Feingold’s seat less safe, but the best way to protect it would be to nominate someone more rightist than Feingold. Promote Kerry, you get Barney Frank.
As a Masshole, I have provincial reasons for supporting Kerry. I like him, for one. (see next paragraph.) Also, one of the problems of one-party rule is stagnation at the top, and we need regular promotions out of the top seats to keep the undercard moving along.
I think the dislike of Kerry is wrong-headed. He’s been a very solid liberal internationalist for years now. Even if electoral campaigns were useful predictors of performance in diplomacy and department-leading, Kerry’s much-maligned campaign notably outperformed most structuralist predictions of the 2004 elections, probably because he so dismantled Bush in the debates. Everyone hates a loser, but you’ve gotta give context – Bush’s approval ratings were around 50%, and support for withdrawal from Iraq was around 40%. Kerry did good with the hand he was dealt.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Appointing Holbrooke to anything would be a tragedy. He not only supported the Iraq War, but in February 2003 wrote an article criticizing Bush for wasting time trying to get a second resolution. And he boasted that he had gotten Clinton to bomb Serbia with no UN approval.
Holbrooke is a hard-core neocon who has also said that he and Wofowitz see things the same way.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
For progressives, the fact that Feingold was the 1 in the 99-1 Patriot Act vote should honestly outweigh a whole lot of other things. Seriously, either Feingold or Sanders is *the* most progressive Senator holding office (hopefully Merkley and Franken can compete for that title). For Matt to note some disagreement he had with Feingold in the mid-90s about NATO is, well, utterly ridiculous. He’s one of the really, really good guys. Give him whatever position is possible to give.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
So Matt was for bringing countries like Georgia into NATO?
And for going to war with Russia when madmen like Saakashvili decide to go rogue?
November 8th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Realizing that Feingold would be chair was the first thing that made me really excited about Kerry as Sec. State.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
DivGuy,
As a fellow Masshole (though I live in the Midwest now) I also like Kerry. He seemed to do better in MA this year than he has in past Senatorial elections, which is interesting…perhaps his Presidential run raised his profile and made people like him a bit more.
I’m surprised that Mr. Yglesias supported NATO expansion, given that our expansion of NATO is rapidly looking like it may get us into a war with Russia. But then again I should never underestimate the capacity for dumbness of cosmopolitan liberals like Yglesias.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
JS,
Saakashvili is indeed a madman, not to mention an admirer of his fellow Georgian, Josef Stalin.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I say keep Gates AND Condi on, just to watch Broder and Brokaw show us their “Ohh!” face on MTP.
Seriously, this Democratic ’strategist’ hack Feldman isn’t worth all the attention he is getting, but I guess we do need to smackdown this DC Elite Centrist bullshit.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Is there anybody who reads this blog of the opinion that it might be wise to pick somebody as Sec’yState because that person would do the job well?
November 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Warning Shot is correct. At the moment, it looks like Obama is going to be “Clinton Retread” – if not “George Bush Lite”.
Even Rachel Maddow is questioning where this is going.
Maddow: ‘Are we looking at Bill Clinton’s third term’
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Maddow_Will_Obama_be_third_Clinton_1107.html
Yes, Rachel, you should. Because Obama foreign policy is going to be EXACTLY THE SAME AS GEORGE BUSH foreign policy with regards to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and probably Russia.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Don’t ask me why, but the impression I’ve always had of Kerry is that he’s decidedly second-rate. It’d be like making Biden Secretary. Whereas someone like Samantha Power, though I’m sure I disagree with her on most everything, is not second rate.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
If I were going to pick a Republican for the cabinet, it would be Patrick Fitzgerald for AG.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’m going to guess it doesn’t extend to state, which has a long-standing merit-based employment system.
Point taken, and the main issue at State appears to have been that it was undermined and routed around by OVP and other bits of the Cheney shadow executive.
Look, that an institutional DC Dem like Feldman is gabbing to Mitchell suggests that whatever he says matters somewhere between zilch, zero and fuck-all during a period where most Democrats with an eye on jobs will be talking elsewhere. The cablenewsers over the past few days have been the equivalent of NBA garbage time, where extended appearances by ’strategists’ or pols only suggests they have nothing better to do with their time.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Even Rachel Maddow is questioning where this is going.
Just as she was questioning whether Obama could win. Having a cablenews segment devoted to concern-trolling is innovative, but I’m not sure it’s helpful. Her interview with Steve Clemons on her radio show was better in that regard.
Like I said, it’s post-election garbage time right now, with bits of the DC ruling class offering handy hints to the Obamas on how to fit in with the Village mentality, and fuckloads of Republicans and past-sell-by-date Dems with nothing better to do than fill out a ten-minute cable segment.
Give it a week. Look for who’s not giving interviews.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Seriously, Hagel for State? That’s the most important post. While there is room for Repubs, that’s ridiculous.
___
Trenchant analysis.
I mean, why would Obama want a guy who has demonstrated both more insight and more courage than most Democrats on Iraq?
Seriously?
November 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Trenchant analysis.
I mean, why would Obama want a guy who has demonstrated both more insight and more courage than most Democrats on Iraq?
Seriously?
Gee, I don’t know. Because there are more issues than just Iraq out there? Because he in fact did vote for the AUMF, and only turned against Bush in late 2005 when he his popularity was already well on its decline? His 96% with Bush voting record in 2006?
But I guess we should just ignore all that because he eventually came around to the idea that Iraq was a disaster.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Because Obama foreign policy is going to be EXACTLY THE SAME AS GEORGE BUSH foreign policy with regards to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and probably Russia.
Sadly, that seems to be true — except that Obama has asked for more of a “surge” in Afghanistan then Bush was planning. Obama seems to feel that he cannot afford to be perceived as weak in foreign policy. He already has painted himself into a corner wrt Iran — if Iran does not abandon the development of the bomb that it denies to be developing, we will have to go to war. That’s what “unacceptable” means — unambiguously — when a head of state is talking about such things.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Oops — 2nd graf should have had no italics. Where’s the preview?
November 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Why on earth should Kerry even be considered for Secretary of State?!
He stood by his vote for the war after all the so-called evidence turned out to be a sack of lies, and he went even further saying in 2004 “he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq”.
If this weak-kneed fool with blood on his hands becomes Secretary of State, that’ll be the beginning of the end of my support for Obama.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Since there have been two Riches in some of these threads, I’ll distinguish myself, so to speak
Kerry lost the 2004 election with his political incompetence. To reward him with a senior Cabinet position seems like the worst sort of coddling of those who least deserve it. I’d like the new Administration to be fairly ruthless in cultivating winners and ditching losers.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I think it’s going to be Susan Rice or Samantha Power. Why should it be an elected official? Look at recent Secretaries of State, in chronological order :
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
George Shultz
James Baker
Lawrence Eagleburger
Warren Christopher
Madeliene Albright
Colin Powell
Condi Rice
Only Muskie (1980-1981) had experience in elected office before taking on the job, and that was two generations ago. The past 4 presidents have chosen to appoint diplomats, academics, or former-military to the post. Of course, there are men and women in the House and Senate who fit one or more of these roles. But why remove an (ambitious) ally in the legislature when one of your advisors will do just as well?
November 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Gee, I don’t know. Because there are more issues than just Iraq out there? Because he in fact did vote for the AUMF, and only turned against Bush in late 2005 when he his popularity was already well on its decline? His 96% with Bush voting record in 2006?
But I guess we should just ignore all that because he eventually came around to the idea that Iraq was a disaster.
Biden and Kerry voted for the AUMF as well.
If your reasoning is so persuasive, why doesn’t it apply to them as well?
November 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
That would be one of the reasons I supported Obama over a guy like Biden.
If you are going to appoint a Republican to the most important cabinet post, he had better really stand out from the Dems you could appoint. When his main qualification is something nearly every prominent Dem can also claim, sorry, that’s not enough to me. Yes, it makes a difference when determining what roles they will have that Kerry and Biden are Dems.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Sec. of State is too important for Kerry. The longtime inattention that Bush gave the position plus the decade of post-Cold War peace has made us forget the leading role that the Sec. of State is supposed to play.
Someone being ‘fine’ for the position is just not good enough for today’s problems. Maybe Kerry would be outstanding, but I doubt it.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The article you link to about Kerry doesn’t suggest he’s left wing. It suggests people think he’s a wimp because he couldn’t fend off the Bush attacks in 2004, and a Secretary of State who can’t effectively stand up to people is a bad idea.
I’m unimpressed with Kerry and hope he doesn’t get the Sec of State job. Cabinet doesn’t exist to provide losers with consolation prizes.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Would someone please explain what qualification(s) Samantha Power is supposed to have for this job?
November 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Kerry knows the stuff, and if he has Obama’s backing, he’ll be fine.
Maybe, but he’s a terrible communicator, and I’m not sure that’s something we want in our chief diplomat.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Susan Rice would be a very interesting pick, and immediately show that a new generation of for-pol thinkers was in charge.
I can see Sam Power getting the call for internal policy-side stuff (NSC; Paula Dobriansky’s undersec job at State; WH Liaison) but she clearly doesn’t have the diplo chops for outward-facing work.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Um, any list of “Senators who could be committee chairs in the 111th Congress who should raise red flags” *must* begin with Joe Lieberman.
Anyone for whom that list starts with Russ Feingold has rocks in his fucking head.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
That would be one of the reasons I supported Obama over a guy like Biden.
If you are going to appoint a Republican to the most important cabinet post, he had better really stand out from the Dems you could appoint. When his main qualification is something nearly every prominent Dem can also claim, sorry, that’s not enough to me. Yes, it makes a difference when determining what roles they will have that Kerry and Biden are Dems.
Part of the reason that Hagel stands out is precisely because he is a Republican who ultimately opposed a war that his party persistently held up as an acid test for one’s opposition to terrorism and support for democracy. That took no small amount of courage.
In addition to seeing the light on Iraq, Hagel had the independence to accompany Obama on his trip abroad over the summer, thereby providing him with valuable political cover, and he did so despite his long time friendship with McCain.
In the wake of the end of an Administration that continually exploited the Iraq war for purely partisan gain, for the next president to choose a Secretary of State from the opposition party would reinforce the meme that partisanship does indeed cease at the water’s edge, and it would demonstrate Obama’s intellectual strength.
To to evaluate Hagel through the lens of a “qualification [that] is something nearly every prominent Dem can also claim” is to miss the forest for the trees.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Isn’t the unspoken thing here not Feingold’s opposition to the war, but his supposedly foolish pursuit of presidential censure based on lawless wiretapping? Which also should not be disqualifying.
I can’t speak for Feldman, but my sense just from having been around is that Feingold has never been a favorite of the Democratic establishment. Going back to his work on campaign finance reform, which pulled a leg out from the stool of the party apparatus as constructed by the Clintons.
I’ve always been skeptical of the merits of McCain-Feingold. But it’s important to realize that, had it never happened and soft money not been eliminated, Hillary Clinton would probably have been the Democratic nominee. The whole Obama campaign model would never have been constructed, or if it had it probably wouldn’t have been able to compete with six-figure checks from Steve Bing and Haim Saban.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Rice did have that “neither one of them is ready for the 3 a.m. call” gaffe. I might prefer a Secretary who isn’t prone to put her foot in her mouth.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Does Kerry have the track record of accomplishment in terms of international affairs, diplomacy and the effective promotion of the US’s interests internationally that we desperately need in a secretary of state. This should be the key question. It is not whether the person is solid, loyal, or smart. The best indication of whether someone will get things done is whether they have gotten things done in the past. This is why Obama picked Rahm Emanuel.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I don’t think Matt’s mention of Feingold’s opposition to NATO expansion is any more ridiculous than everyone else’s fixation on his Iraq War stance.
Regarding his foreign policy views during the Clinton administration, check out these votes:
December 13, 1995: Only Democrat along with 21 Republicans who voted to prohibit funding for the deployment of troops to Bosnia.
December 13, 1995: Only Democrat along with 46 Republicans to vote for a weaker “sense of the Senate” resolution expressing opposition to the deployment.
December 13, 1995: Only Democrat along with 29 Republicans to oppose a “sense of the Senate” resolution expressing support, with some reservations, about the Bosnia deployment.
There are some other examples of this during the action in the Balkans.
Feingold’s rationale was that Clinton was not following the procedures set down in the War Power Act. Belief in little things like the rule of law and constitutional procedure are big no-nos among the foreign policy elite.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:40 am
It probably won’t be Power because she has little experience in running anything in government. Cabinet appointees have to get into the nitty gritty work of bureaucracy in a way presidents don’t (the president can just decide to invade Canada, but the Secretaries of State and Defense actually have to work on the logistics). I could see her being on the National Security Council though, which is more like policy intellectuals coming up with basic strategy. Somebody like Nye, Gary Hart, Talbott, etc. would probably be a better choice.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:14 am
It seems to me that the only reason why a lot of people keep mentioning Senators as front-runners for all the cabinet members is because those are the national politicians we all (and all the pundits) have the most familiarity with. People aren’t talking about academics, congressmembers, people running state-level departments, deputy-level federal executives, diplomats, etc. because we don’t know those people, or there’s too many of them for us to know all the important ones.
But you know what? Obama and his people who are on his team do know them, and that’s why I’m sure a lot of the appointees will end up being people like that. And yeah, some of them will be well-known politicians. But just because some guy in a suit comes on TV and says “Obama really needs to re-appoint the Clinton cabinet” doesn’t at all mean he’s going to do it.
How about we wait for him to actually start appointing people before criticizing the direction the appointments are going?
November 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The only good thing about having a man as excruciatingly boring as Kerry for SOS? If he was presiding over tense negotiations, the parties would probably hold guns to their own heads just to get it over with.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It’s disappointing that so many people have swallowed the conservative talking points about Kerry. He is really an impressive progressive politician and would be great Sec State.
Look into his work in the The BCCI Affair for an example of the kind of stuff he would be able to do at state.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The reason to focus on the obvious choices known to all (and that includes non-senators like Holbrooke btw) is that a relatively young president with limited national and international experience will need someone who already enjoys international respect to avoid debilitating early criticism here and in Europe.
I hope it will be Kerry or Hagel. Both have “stature” and their choice will earn Obama leadership points — rather than cost him. Neither is a warmonger (like Holbrooke). The choice of Hagel would bring the additional benefits of bipartisanship (yes it’s a benefit) and of leaving Kerry in the Senate FRC where he can be very useful. Agree that it’s a Republican talking point to accuse Kerry of being boring — as is accusing Gore that he has a stiff physical posture.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
a relatively young president with limited national and international experience will need someone who already enjoys international respect
Obama already enjoys international respect that Bush never had.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
It’s disappointing that so many people have swallowed the conservative talking points about Kerry.
Agreed. There’s also this misconception that the people in Foreign on inside State who matter give a flying fuck about old domestic politics.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Great site. Good info
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 7th, 2009 at 5:39 am
In searching for sites related to web hosting and specifically comparison hosting linux plan web, your site came up.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra