Harper on the Hot Seat
One happy result of recent election outcomes is that now liberal Americans get to tease our liberal Canadian friends about the role reversal — they’re the ones saddled with government by rightwingers, and they’re the ones who’ll need to flee ‘cross the border to enter the bountiful Land of Obama. Except it seems that America’s moment in the sun may be short-lived, as a three-party opposition coalition seems to have hatched a plot to boot Canadian PM Steven Harper from office.
For background, Canada has evolved toward a multi-party political system. But Canada doesn’t have a tradition of diverse coalition governments like you see in small continental European countries. Instead, Canadian parliamentarism closely resembles British political traditions. In practice, that means that when no party secures a majority in parliament, you get a “minority government” led by the plurality party. This can be a stable situation if conditions are right. But at the moment, the alternative parties — the centrist Liberals, the left-wing New Democrats, and the separatist Bloc Québéquois — are all to the left of the Conservatives on the main issues. So in principle they ought to be able to find a way to agree on a Liberal-led coalition that all will prefer to a Conservative minority government. At the moment, it seems they’re still having some trouble ironing out the details but if they manage to reach an agreement that’ll be the end of Harper.
66 Responses to “Harper on the Hot Seat”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
A separatist party joining a coalition government? Man, Canada can be weird sometimes.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
I myself would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Steven Harper, for his dramatic and arrogant right wing over-reach last week which prompted the opposition parties to realize that they were, in fact, the majority, and could form a government if they so chose.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Incidentally the Bloc has stated that it will not be forming part of the nearly-proposed new government, but will support its formation.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
As El Cid said, the Bloc has not joined the coalition, but they will support it as long as “it is in the interest of Québec”.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
And, for the heck of it, in other for’n lefty news, a German socialist speaks in a quite optimistic albeit stunningly naive tone:
Yeah. Uh huh. I feel safe in going ahead and saying ‘na’ ga’ happen’. Although I’m glad he’s saying it now instead of a month ago, as it would’ve stirred up the Palintards somewhat serious.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
And lets be clear here: teasing on that issue demonstrates the very level of ignorance for which Americans are famous. Look at Harper’s overall policy structure, then ask where that would fit in the left-right ratings of US congress. A Canadian right winger is at worst a blue dog Democrat.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Whoops! What a glorious misplay on Harper’s part.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
nolaboyd: Maybe so, but all things in context — if Bush Jr. were installed in power in Guatemala when Reagan’s evangelical general friends were slaughtering Mayans, he might well have been seen as a valiant reformer for human rights and democracy.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Harper’s goverment may not have matched U.S. rightwing standards yet, but it certainly isn’t the old “Progressive” Conservative Party. The CPC would go into Bush teritory legislatively if it could. The rhetoric is certainly there.
I find it hard to believe that the Grits and the NDP will ever act in concert to put this coalition plan into action.
I suspect that this past election was the CPC’s high water mark. If the Liberals-a pretty centrist bunch, in my opinion-ever get their act together they should be able to retake the government.
BTW, I recently saw the American version of the role reversal Matt mentioned in his opening paragraph. On Eastbound I-70 in Howard Co. MD, I saw a work truck with a ton of stickers such as McCain_Palin and “Don’t Blame Me-I Voted for EHRLICH” and the like. In the back window was a hand scrolled message, “CANADA’s looking good right now.”
So much for patriotism…
December 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
That’s “scrawled”, BTW.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A couple of interesting things:
In the recent election, the Conservatives were winning quite well in Ontario. If that continues, we’ll see more of them.
Secondly, if this deal goes through, it’ll be the end of Harper for now . . . but he may well return. I wouldn’t chalk it up as his end just yet. (Although it wouldn’t surprise me if the CPC decides that if they lose governance to a coalition government, they will toss Harper - but I wouldn’t assume that’s the end of his political career.)
December 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Al: Well, then god bless Harper for failing to have the same insight you did. Liberal and left parties tend to be stupid and timid as all get out, and if that’s what it takes to prompt them to take the country away from right wing dunderheads proposing to say ’screw you’ to an economic stimulus program, then by all means.
But then again, I’m an anti-American anti-free speech freak who supports the public funding of harshly controlled election spending anyway.
I also like socialized medicine and public broadcasters.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I don’t know if it will work out… but as an NDPer (they’re social Democrats) I’m excited. We’re a perennial third party, have never actually had seats in Cabinet before, so it could be interesting if it works out.
I’m not sure whether Harper is left or right of the Democrats. It’s more that the status quo is more left in Canada - we have gay marriage and unrestricted abortion, and it’s not politically viable to even think about changing those things; public health care is valued. And there’s little enough daylight between Dems and GOP on foreign policy that one can say Harper is close to both of them - which is far right of the norm for Canada.
But we have arguably a more regressive tax code than the US: anyone making over $10,000 pays 15% tax, and the top marginal rate is only 29%; and there’s also the sales tax (GST) which probably hits lower-income people harder.
Governments often get labelled as progressive for things that have little to do with economic policy and income distribution. For example, the provincial government in BC has implemented a carbon tax and is focusing heavily on the issue of global warming, which is something the US would see as ‘progressive’ - but over 20% of the population lives below the poverty line. That’s not progressive.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I don’t see how this can end well for the Liberals. They’re taking power (maybe) at difficult moment in the Global economy–which means they’re going to have to wear whatever happens. A coalition with the NDP means big bailouts for the auto industry and significant deficit spending–in the one country in the OECD that doesn’t seem to need it. The Liberals have spent the last decade building their brand as the party of balanced budgets (Hey Americans, you read that right!) but their premise for seizing power is that the Conservatives, who have already inflated spending considerably since taking power (Hey Americans, they’re just like Republicans!) aren’t spending enough.
And who’s going to drive this bus? Iggy, a less-than-one-term MP who got it wrong on Iraq and then made stupid excuses about it? Bob “I Screwed Up the Last Recession” Rae? Stephane “I’m Stephane Dion” Dion? Maybe we should just hand the whole thing over to Layton and get it over with.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
14: American politics is really screwed up because of how in bed the conservatives are with big business. The fact that liberals are only a little better doesn’t help. But the result is policies that have no connection with principled conservatism. Just principled plutocracy.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Also - unless something changes drastically, the Liberals are dying as a national party. Our system isn’t like the US, where the Dems and GOP have stayed around consistently since the Civil War - our Conservative Party was actually wiped out in the early ’90s, and for about a decade there was no viable governing alternative to the Liberals; the new Conservatives are something completely different. So for a major national party to actually cease to exist is not unheard of.
Take a look at the election map. Red is for the Liberals. You won’t see much of it. Over half of their seats were from two cities: Toronto and Montreal. That’s not a viable national party. In all four Western provinces (ie: the parts of the nations where the economy is still functioning) they got less than 20% of the vote.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
mpowell:
Things actually aren’t that different here. The Liberals are used being the party of big business, but the Conservatives caught on fast.
The weird thing is that “conservative” economic policies don’t seem to have a set meaning. At the same time as some US conservatives in the primaries (Huckabee) were proposing switching from income tax to a national sales tax, our conservatives were proposing cutting the sales tax, while the Liberals were arguing that income tax cuts would be better.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
How’s about the Canadian people choose a leader without eyes so blue they look like death rays?
Hasn’t anyone noticed that in the photo above, Toronto is burning in the background? This is because Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper can shoot electricity from his eyes! Do not thwart him!
And that tie is not helping matters at all. Seriously, what’s wrong with Canada?
December 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Regardless of whether the deal ends up going through, I think this is the death knell for Harper. There was a lot of criticism of him after the election in October that he did not win a majority against Dion, who was probably the weakest opponent he would ever face. The grumblings mostly died down, but since these wounds are entirely self-inflicted, I think they will return with a vengence. So I really don’t expect to see Harper leading the Tories into the next federal election (unless it is in January).
December 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
You people make me sick! I read statements like, “political miss play”, and, “over reaching”, like this is a game and Harper is getting what he deserves?!?! How about the Canadian people?? What do they deserve!? Who voted, overwhelmingly, in favor of a conservative government 6-7 weeks ago?? Yes, anyone remember the election we JUST had. This is CLEARLY about politicians who want more power. Hell, I hear Jack Layton is going to be minister of Finance if this goes through?! Great! He has what credibility or experience at the job?? None….
I am saddened and will be writing EVERY MP of this “coalition” to let them know this is not about Canadians, it about them losing the election (and I voted NPD by the way) and now wanted another way into power, one that doesn’t require the consent of the Canadian people. These MP are acting like little children
But you “Can’t trust Harper”! Get used to this phrase, you will be hearing it a lot this is there new platform!
I AM MAD AS HELL!!!!!!!!!!!
December 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Who is this “Harper” guy? I thought Pierre Trudeau was president of Canada. Or Jean Beliveau.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Goveel -
The majority of Canadians didn’t vote for Harper and indicated they wanted some co-operation between parties. The Liberals and NDP together got more of the vote than Harper did (44% to 38%). If Harper is unwilling to make any attempts at compromises, it’s perfectly legitimate for the other parties to seek to govern.
I’ve heard nothing about which positions the NDP will get, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed for International Trade. Obama WILL be renegotiating NAFTA, if we have anything to say about it.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Actually the Conservatives got 37.65% of the vote and less than half the seats in Parliament. By that logic, John McCain also won a landslide with 46% of the vote
December 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Update:
Goveel is a href=”http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html”>wrong - the Libs would have the positions of PM, deputy PM and finance in a coalition.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“Who voted, overwhelmingly, in favor of a conservative government…” No. He only got 36% support, despite the fact that he is hypno-toad (don’t stare directly into his eyes!). He decided to try to govern as though he had won overwhelmingly, which is why this is happening now.
“Can’t trust Harper” Well, we can’t, now can we? In just a month he went from promising unity in the face of a national crisis to changing the election laws in his favour. That does not build trust. A swift kick in the King-Byng serves him right.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
now liberal Americans get to tease our liberal Canadian friends about the role reversal — they’re the ones saddled with government by rightwingers…
You call Canada’s Conservatives “rightwingers?” Can any Canada experts explain to me what the substantive difference is between the Conservatives and the rest of the Canadian political establishment? From my perspective it seems like the main difference is style and packaging. When the right wing party wins an election in the US, it’s possible for there to be fairly radical policy shifts. Not so in Canada, where the people are more sensible.
If only the US had “rightwingers” like those north of the border.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Jeet Heer,
Yah 37%. The most of any party. I am sure there are many liberals who might have voted conservative if they thought their party would be making deals with the NDP and the bloc. I doubt however any of those 37% would change their vote.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Jasper
- The main changes the Conservatives have made so far include increased funding for the military (which we kind of needed, our equipment is in shambles), cutting the GST (which reduced the amount of revenue for other things) and pushing through crime legislating including harsher sentencing for minors. They are also useless on the environment.
They are generally trying to move Canada towards a more right-wing mentality, where we are less concerned with things like health care and education and more concerned with our leaders appearing “tough” and things like crime, and I don’t agree with it. They also support allowing more private health care, leading to a two-tier system where the rich get their health care from other facilities, decreasing support for public care and leading to less funding for it, further declines in the quality of public care, etc.
They are also opposed to Vancouver’s safe-injection site, which is intended to prevent the transmission of illnesses like HIV and hepatitis among drug users.
And they’ve been throwing money at Quebec, like everyone does, defined them a “nation within Canada”, and given then their own seat on UNESCO (FAIL. FAIL. MASSIVE fail). In other words, they’ve betrayed conservative ideals on the one issue where I wish they’d upheld them - the principle that we are Canadian FIRST and any other regional or cultural identity SECOND at most.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
#28 - Jasper
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are most certainly Right Wingers. Just look at his initial response to this crisis - his plan centred on denying Civil Servants the right to strike, selling Crown land and Crown property on the cheap (selling property at the worst possible time will most assuredly lead to getting the worst possible deal), and generally doing everything in his power to curtail any spending whatsoever in areas that would lead to stimulus (but he sure kept the 2% reduction in the GST and maintained corporate tax cuts!).
And if you look beyond this one issue, and look to his proposed “New Charter of Open Federalism” (one which is neither “new” nor “open”) you’ll see that he’s trying to starve the provinces and force them to shift expenditures away from health care and into things the feds generally pay for under an expansive interpretation of Federal Spending Power (the ability for federal gov’ts to spend in provincial jurisdictions). Basically he’s calling for a strict 1867 interpretation of the Constitution (Feds take care of Fed stuff like military and banking. Provinces look after the rest.) The problem is, healthcare takes up something like 35% of a provincial budget…the provinces depend on spending power. Without it, all the things that make Canada so great are in real danger.
Don’t be mistaken, he’s as neo-con as they come…and if he had a majority Canada would look VERY different once he was through destroying it.
p.s. he’s apparently thinking about suspending Parliament until the new year so the Liberals won’t be able to put forward a vote of non-confidence…sounds like something Chavez or Fujimori would do, eh?
December 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
If we’re talking about viable national parties, then the Cons don’t really count either.
The flip-side to the idea of ‘arper getting his arse censured out of 24 Sussex Drive is the likelihood of Michael fucking Ignatieff, carpetbagger, savant idiot and liberal shitehawk becoming Canada’s PM.
And Harper has only himself to blame: the flipside of calling an early election before the economic hammer drops is that you’ve basically given the opposition the right to boot you when its consequences start showing up.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Thanks Canada experts. I guess from the conservative dystopia that the US has become since the Bush coup, Harperism looks like pretty milquetoast stuff; but I stand corrected.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
You may laugh about our hockey, but Jean Beliveau actually turned down the appointment as Governor General (our head of state), and Frank Mahovolich is a Senator…
December 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Yeah, I remember about a decade ago how U.S. conservatives were committed to the principle that a plurality of votes for Bill Clinton represented a mandate by the people for his policies over a legislative majority who opposed him.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
You said it for me, pseudonymous. “Carpetbagger” is exactly the right term. I cannot BELIEVE that someone who’s been living outside of Canada for over 25 years can just parachute in and try to become PM, and I’m amazed that he actually looks like being able to do it.
How are the Conservatives not a viable national party, though? They used to have trouble in Ontario, but now they’re doing better there than the Liberals. They own the West, and they’re doing okay in the Maritimes. Danny shut them out of Newfoundland, but that alone doesn’t make them not a national party.
The Bloc controls Quebec in national politics; the Conservatives and Liberals are about equally weak there.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Harper was doing what he did during the last Parliament - act like he was in a majority and dare the opposition to defeat him. This time, the opposition parties were prepared and called his bluff. We’ll what results, but Harper may be done not only as PM but as leader for the Conservatives.
Harper is a very smart guy, but doesn’t appear to appreciate different points of view. He sticks to his ideology in a way that reminds you of Bush II, but he is a lot smarter.
As for the public financing that seems to be at the root of this dispute (notwithstanding the lack of stimulus package), Harper and the Conservatives supported this a few years ago. As part of the public financing agreement, significant restrictions on corporate and union donations were implemented. That agreement took a lot of work to reach, and now Harper was dumping it with no consulation.
Those arguing that Harper just won a mandate are ignoring the real results of the election. It was less an endorsement of Harper than a defeat of the Liberals. The vote totals a for all parties declined, but the Liberals lost close to 20 per cent of their total from the previous election. Others lost considerably less. The voters didn’t really switch sides, they just stayed home for a variety of reasons, including being disgusted with all politicians.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Katherine:
How are the Conservatives not a viable national party, though?
Two reasons: first, the supposed urban breakthrough outside Alberta didn’t really happen, and the few inroads in Greater Van and Greater Toronto have the look of a high water mark, given the state of the Liberals right now.
Second, and more importantly: the Con coalition is plain volatile, and the binding agent — the idea that Harper could create a solid governing majority — is starting to decay.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Speaking of Michael Ignatieff, is there some possibility of establishing a secular reverse-Great Schlep whereby American progressives trek up to Canada to warn Liberal Party members that Ignatieff is a giant tool?
December 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
is there some possibility of establishing a secular reverse-Great Schlep whereby American progressives trek up to Canada to warn Liberal Party members that Ignatieff is a giant tool?
Make that ‘American and British progressives’.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Steven Attewell -
Please come!
pseudonymous -
The Conservatives own the suburbs pretty much everywhere; arguing that a party isn’t “national” because it doesn’t win in downtown Toronto is pretty flimsy. And the Liberals don’t look like getting much stronger any time soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had the conservatives for a long time yet.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hey Katherine,
Check out that election map again, the Tories did just awful in the GTA. Granted the Liberals had a tough time, but the GTA remained pretty much solid Red.
On a completely different tangent - I wonder why nobody links Harper’s epic failure in Quebec to the leaked Dion tape where he flubbed a question on CTV? If there’s one thing my Quebecois brethren hate it’s having their language impugned…even if the target is someone they hate (M. Dion)
cheers!
December 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The great thing about this story is that it’s an example of one of the great benefits of Westminster-style government.
In a minority government situation, the keys to the executive branch are handed to the party with the most votes, and they’re allowed to form a government. Mostly, this is just for expediency. Without a formal coalition agreement, it really would be chaos trying to manage everyday executive-branch decisions in Parliament.
As a check on this unusual practice of giving a party with less than 1/2 the votes the keys to 100% of the executive branch, the other parties can get together and kick out the ruling party. Those keys came with a condition. That condition was: don’t do anything that’s going to be so off-base as to convince the three other parties to get together and oust you.
In fact, one could say this was the only condition.
That it was ever violated will be forever the legacy of this Conservative party. It would be very difficult to illustrate exactly how unprecedented this is in Canadian politics.
(As an aside, there are other, more permanent ways in for a government to gain 100% of the power—a majority government—without winning 50% of the votes, but, of course, that can happen in the US too, see Clinton, Bill.)
December 1st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Katherine:
You’ll notice they didn’t win much in Newfoundland either, much to the joy of this displaced newfie now residing in “Downtown Toronto.”
December 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Chris,
Speaking as the son of a woman who went down the road in the 70s, may I offer my sincerest gratitude that my newf brethren ousted the Conservative Party from the island.
Man it was nice to see!
Incidentally, how long do we give it before Danny officially becomes a Liberal? And how long before we have a Liberal Candidate for PM Danny Williams? (What that man did with the oil companies is a thing of beauty)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Chris -
I did notice that. Go Danny! I’d vote for him as PM if he ran.
My point was that the Conservatives have won significant amounts of seats in the West, Ontario and the Maritimes, overcoming the earlier perception that they weren’t a national party and couldn’t win in central and eastern Canada. The Liberals, on the other hand, won a grand total of 7 seats west of Ontario and are therefore arguably no longer a national party.
Arguing that the Conservatives aren’t a national party because they can’t win in Toronto is like arguing the US Republicans aren’t a national party because they lose in NYC and DC.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hmm…the Greater Toronto Area is like 20% of the whole population of Canada. That’s a substantial part of the whole population. Given that the Conservatives also do badly in Quebec, which is another 25% of the whole population, that would seem to make the idea that they’re a national party somewhat questionable. Obviously, by this standard the Liberals aren’t a national party either.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Toronto is more like 14% of the population of Canada. The Conservatives seem to have won most of the suburban area around it. Take a look at the map I linked in my first post. They also won one riding in urban Toronto, throwing out that argument.
They do poorly in Quebec, but they still did get votes and seats there. Being weak in one region or another doesn’t make a party not a national one; every party has areas of weakness are areas of strength.
A “regional party” as opposed to a national one, is one that can only win a certain, limited regional area. Saying the Conservatives can “only” win the prairies, interior British Columbia, some of Vancouver, western Ontario, virtually all of suburban Ontario, some of the North, and a good part of the Maritimes sounds silly.
However, one can now say the Liberals can pretty much only win major urban areas and the Maritimes and be correct. 7 seats west of Ontario - and at least two they’re only holding on to by their fingernails.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
They also won one riding in urban Toronto
No, they did not.
The closest the came was the riding of Thornhill…which is not Toronto, but - well - Thornhill. A suburb of Toronto.
I think the point is that Canada has 3 major metropolitan cities: Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. And the Conservatives failed to win one single seat in any one of those three cities. That is a major failing (by any party) and accounts for their failure to win a majority.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Re: A Canadian right winger is at worst a blue dog Democrat.
How rightwing a foreign rightwing politician can be depends very crucially on how much the Left has governed and put its program in place beforehand (the reverse may be true as well). No one, I think, would deny that Margaret Thatcher was a doctrinaire conservative, but she could not get away with dismantling the NHS and had the good sense not to try.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
What I don’t understand is why is our right to vote is beingtaken away in a “modern democratic government.” Canada spoke on october 14 and they wanted a conservative government but obviously our voice means nothing to the government. Our vote is our voice and I thought thats what a democratic government was all about. The current situation in our government is no better then what went on in Soviet Russia. They had elections too but it really meant nothing. It was just something to keep the people happy. To make them think they had a voice. This coalition government is a very big step towards communism, something i thought we had always been taught in school is bad and that a democratic government is what is fair to the people. This coalition is not fair to the people of Canada. The majority voice is not heard. Canada spoke. They want a conservative government and thats the way it should stay. The leaders of the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals just want power. They don’t care how they get it. If they do get it, they won’t know what to do with it. Canada spoke and they want a conservative government and thats the way it should stay.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
If Bobby isn’t being a parody, I vote the above post as among the dumbest ever, including Chris Ford.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:04 pm
El Cid,
If I hadn’t spent the better part of the day wading through the comments section in the Globe & Mail and The Star, I’d agree with you that Bobby is most assuredly a parody…however after reading literally hundreds of letters making the same moronic points, I’d guess that Bobby is most likely being sincere.
*shudder*
p.s. my favourite was the poor sot who thought that “coup” is spelled “coo”.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
mais est il bon pour Les Habitants
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
McKingford -
The Conservatives won Richmond, Delta, North Vancouver, and West Vancouver. I live in Vancouver, and those areas are definitely part of it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 am
I don’t need any help, the ndp party is radical, the bloc (they do not care) and the liberals don’t even like sephane dion? In a time of criss we need the sability of one GOV, the conservatives who understand the world delema, at least I think so.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 am
We have already; lost jobs in west Canada do to this reckless liberal behaviour. This is incredible, it is terrible for Canada, in fact an embarrassment to the world.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 am
Yes, crucially inciteful poynt: In this werld, only the conservativarians have the fortitudiness to enhance sability on the world delema, else we must listen to crazy radicals like the ddt and having libruls run yor countri is an embarsment to the werld.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
JIjrlW hzfmzxiupvjk, [url=http://qoitqfhwrfyp.com/]qoitqfhwrfyp[/url], [link=http://zkjslerfqnme.com/]zkjslerfqnme[/link], http://avyogpulxada.com/
April 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Nise site., Cheap Phentermine, 10418, Hoodia, =-[[, Cheap Hoodia, uyuz, Buy Viagra, tgg, Xanax
, >:-PPP,