Bloggers Loving It
Barack Obama went to a dinner party last night with conservative pundits such as George Will, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol, prompting the pool reporter to snark “This is for real, folks. The bloggers are going to love this one.”
Honestly this blogger is ready to wholeheartedly endorse a strategy of acting in a personally cordial manner to conservatives. I’m not enthusiastic about doing things like larding down a stimulus package with ineffective business tax cuts in a misguided effort to attract massive Republican support for the bill. But sitting down and being nice? Hard to see what’s wrong with that. Obama appears to be very effective at convincing people he speaks to in small group settings that he’s a good guy (I got to witness this firsthand in the summer of 2007 and you can see it indirectly as well) so it seems worth trying. Kristol’s probably a lost cause, but neither Will nor Brooks is a dogmatically on-message partisan.
64 Responses to “Bloggers Loving It”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
…first black guy invited to a party there…
January 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Will, in describing his first meeting with Obama, said something to the effect of, “I feel like I just watched Alex Rodriguez play for the first time.” It’ll be interesting to see what he says about this gathering.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I kind of like that these pieces of living sh*t had to sit down and be nice and smile to the new, liberal, Democrat black President.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Agree with everything you said, except this… That Will is subtle and Brooks is slippery doesn’t mask their dogmatic partisanship.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I have a friend who knows he and Michelle personally (from Chicago), and he echoes the same sentiment. But, it’s not just in small settings. I think his approval ratings are so historically high is b/c he convinces people (including many conservatives who were ardently opposed to him during the campaign) on a grand scale that he’s a good guy.
I really fucking hope he turns out to actually BE a good guy.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Re Matthew’s comment “Honestly this blogger is ready to wholeheartedly endorse a strategy of acting in a personally cordial manner to conservatives. ”
—————
I also –it let’s you get within striking distance of their carotid artery.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Good post. Nothing wrong with chatting in a cordial manner with these guys. I’m happy to have a president that is a nice guy and listens to people.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
So he’s even willing to sit down and talk to Bill Kristol without preconditions? Didn’t Kristol even have to agree to give up his support for terrorism?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
So was Bush. Go figure…
January 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
To RAM: Yeah, Bush is able to pull off the good guy image because he genuinely believes he’s a good guy. It’s frat boy comparison time all over again. The frat guy who was friendly with everyone back in college still acts that way when you run into him at a bar five years later. Even if you think he’s still a dick he genuinely wants you to like him.
Obama is showing a different sort of good guy image; one that will become more important down the line when he needs pundit-backing for his policies. Not only has he sat down for a personal dinner with one of the most insane pundits of the right (no, not Krauthammer), he also pulled in two moderate conservatives (or older style conservatives, non-neocon, fiscal conservatives) who both have a decent following among the conservative literati. To Obama, it’s not “meeting with the enemy” but talking to your opponents and letting them know that he will be listening. It’s good PR, it’s good politics and it’s exactly the opposite of what Bush would have done. Finally, it’s a none too subtle way of walking the walk of his rhetoric. The man has enough balls to sit down with Kristol-meth. After that, talking to foreign leaders will be a breeze.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Have the folks who run our public discourse never heard of co-opting? It is a very useful strategy to deal with your competitors at work (and in any other endeavour). It is very difficult to continually trash someone you have broken bread with. Also, did these writers not read the long pre-election stories in their own papers (The Post for one) on how State Senator Obama did the exact same thing in Springfield? Finally do they not get that the power person in this st down is the President and that these guys that sort-of carped against him since February 07 have to live with that?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I think on this proposal, Obama fooled us. We thought oh no 40% of the stimulus to ineffective tax cuts just to win over some GOP’ers?
Meanwhile, Obama got what he wanted. He got the GOP/Villagers support when he proposed the tax cuts. The Dems in the Senate said no, and all we get is reduced payroll taxes which is a very fair tax cut.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well, duh. This is why I voted for him.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well, duh. This is why I voted for him.
People really voted for Obama because he was expected to sit down and make nice with Republican partisans? I’m not arguing with the apparent efficacy (as #12 points out, it just might work)… but are people really looking for this in a president? Can you explain this attitude to me? I genuinely don’t get it.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Re Stav’s comment “Have the folks who run our public discourse never heard of co-opting? It is a very useful strategy to deal with your competitors at work (and in any other endeavour). It is very difficult to continually trash someone you have broken bread with. ”
—————-
Stav must not get out much –we’re talking about Republicans here.
People who sent 4000 fathers/sons/husbands to their deaths in an unnecessary war on a political calculation.
People who stole $3 Trillion out of Social Security — and gave $2 Trillion of that theft to the richest 2 percent of the population.
People who let Wall Street steal $Trillions while millions of Americans live in deep poverty — and millions more are locked up in massive prisons.
Of course, Democrats are adept at coming up with creative rationalizations for cowardice.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
The only person being co-opted is Obama — the Republicans’ “Magic Negro” who will shield the Superrich and their Republican whores from punishment for what they’ve done to this country.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Tyro – I seriously recommend the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” It is a bit dated in places by the underlying principles remain true.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Re Maineiac’s comment “I seriously recommend the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People”
————–
One of the “underlying principles” is that you’re known by the company you keep.
A President –our quasi-King — most of all. He sets the standards for who is –and who is not –accepted into polite company.
Why doesn’t Obama just invite Rod Blagojevich and Bernard Madoff to a White House State Dinner? OR a pack of crack whores and drug dealers?
Unlike William Kristol, those men don’t have the blood of 4000 Americans on their hands.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I seriously recommend the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People”
I think you were missing my conundrum. Regarding the “list of things we need to change” in this country, I never thought, “having Democrats make nice and ingratiate themselves with Republican op-ed columnists” was on the list. But apparently, some people thought that this was something that was needed in this country. I’m just wondering where the attitude comes from and how it fits into their political reasoning. If I had to look at the problems within the last 8-16 years, I can’t say that I thought one of them was that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush didn’t have enough dinner parties with partisan op-ed writers.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m sure that very soon Obama will go over to Amy Goodman’s place and have dinner with her and fellow guests Robert Scheer and Ed Schultz.
What? He won’t do that? Oh well.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Re Al’s comment “Or has Palmieri taken over the blog again?”
————-
Nah –she just wired a 120 V extension cord to Matthew’s testicles , with the switch in her office.
Like any good manager, she put the switch out of Matthew’s line of sight. That way, she doesn’t have to keep her finger on the switch –she just has to keep Matthew uncertain of whether her finger is on the switch.
It’s called the Panopticon –the invisible omniscience. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon .
Aka the All Seeing Eye. The basis on which the Founders designed the US government. If you don’t believe me, look on the back of our $1 dollar bill.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I’m sure that very soon Obama will go over to Amy Goodman’s place and have dinner with her and fellow guests Robert Scheer and Ed Schultz.
What? He won’t do that? Oh well.
Why bother, they’ll be critical no matter what. Pretty soon Afghanistan will be Obama’s criminal war where Obama is personally killing Afghan babies.
David Brooks’s last column on mortality and near death experiences make me believe he’s going insane.
George Packer made an astute observation the other day: “Sorry, Kristol (and by the way, Interesting Times notes that your one-year contract is up and you’re still appearing on the Op-Ed page—say it ain’t so, Rosenthal and Sulzberger).”
January 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Regarding the “list of things we need to change” in this country, I never thought, “having Democrats make nice and ingratiate themselves with Republican op-ed columnists” was on the list. But apparently, some people thought that this was something that was needed in this country. I’m just wondering where the attitude comes from and how it fits into their political reasoning.
Well, I think the extreme political polarization of the country over the last twenty years, led by talk radio and followed up by Fox News, is in a large degree responsible for the election of GWB, among others, and fosters a climate where the party in power mercilessly mows over the opposition no matter how slim their margin.
In addition to making it difficult to live in such a country, I think such an arrangement favors radical elements in our political discourse, as they are unlikely to gain a broad base of support for their ideas among the general population, but can occasionally hijack one party and ride to victory in a highly-fractuctuous environment.
Since the only viable radical element in this country is the radical right, and since I’m pretty much opposed to their entire agenda, I’m all about eliminating their power. And it’s probably good for the country, too, if average voters don’t view one another as enemies.
If Obama cross over and can roll back some of this filth that’s been spewed, I’m all for it. They don’t call him “Black Reagan” for nothing.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:23 am
If O felt he HAD to meet with these slimeballs, he at least should have made them come to him, rather than vice versa; this looks too much like he is in supplication and that Will and the other evil ones are “receiving” him. gross.
How about just saying publicly that these types have done enough to destroy america, and he won’t be breaking bread with any of them during his administration?
Just more of the Repub/Dem Political Industrial Complex.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I’m waiting for his sitdown with the Nation and Mother Jones.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Ok, I withdraw the book recommendation for the purpose of this thread.
I am as angry as anyone about what is happening to this country. I see good young men who love their country come back to my town from Iraq in bad shape. I once called Snowe’s office and did say she had the blood of American soldiers and the Iraqi people on her hands. At the end of my rant the person I was speaking to said, “we are sorry to learn that you will not be supporting the Senator in the future” I was able to vent some anger but now that, for example, we learn the Bernake is a fool my influence with the Senator’s office is zero. I am likely dismissed as a nut. What am I going to say? After you’ve washed the blood off your hands I request that your review…..
January 14th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The only ‘party in power’ to do that, or even attempt to do that, is the Republican Party. Democrats have always tried to play nice. That’s why Jimmy Carter could get Israel and Egypt talking and that’s why Bill Clinton came closer to mid-east peace than Dubya could even dream of…
I don’t see this as a flaw on the part of the Democrats. I see this as a strength.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Maineiac, Snowe has power and has certain priorities and needs. As to foreign leaders.
I guess one thing I have to wonder is… what do op-ed columnists want? What can Obama give them, and what do they offer to Obama? The truth is that I have no idea and don’t understand the calculus. Will and Kristol presumably have their own infrastructure which supports and rewards them. What does Obama have to give them? What’s the purposes of winning their friendship and influencing them? That’s what makes this a bit incongruous and why I don’t understand those who say, “this is why I voted for Obama!”
January 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I don’t see this as a flaw on the part of the Democrats. I see this as a strength.
Likewise. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
What’s the purposes of winning their friendship and influencing them?
Um, you were alive from 1992-2000, right?
January 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
It’s funny. Wingnuts are sitting around telling themselves that we lefties are going to just hate hate hate this. But look at this thread: It’s the wingnuts who are angry.
Wingnuts: This is what Obama does. He’s not afraid to sit down and talk with people who see things differently, unlike a certain cowardly soon-to-be-ex President.
Watch how the grown-ups do it. It’s so nice that they’re in charge again.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Um, you were alive from 1992-2000, right?
Were the partisan problems of that era caused because bill Clinton and other Democratic leaders were not friendly enough to Republican op-ed columnists? I’m just trying to figure out what Obama has that Will and Kristol want that they can’t get from someone else and what they can offer Obama in return. I’m open to the claim that feeling validated and listened to by the president will cause a chain of events that will result in talk radio calling off their attack dogs and republican senators and congressmen supporting Obama’s initiatives, but I’m not clear how the mechanism works. Maybe by embracing Will, Brooks, and Kristol, Obama serves to marginalize other more extreme right-wing pundits; I don’t know, I’m asking.
Brooks is one of those goofballs whom I’ve always thought needed a little less validation and a little more cream pies in the face.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Re petr’s comment “Democrats have always tried to play nice…
…I don’t see this as a flaw on the part of the Democrats. I see this as a strength.”
————-
1) I suggest that petr
a) avoid ever going to prison and
b) avoid dealing with a Republican politican
2) Democratic constituents have been fucked like dogs by these sonsabitches for 16 years and now the leaders those Democrats elected and supported turn into surrender monkeys for personal advantage.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Were the partisan problems of that era caused because bill Clinton and other Democratic leaders were not friendly enough to Republican op-ed columnists?
No, they were caused by Republican op-ed columnists being vitriolic towards the Clintons. But there are things you can do to pre-empt such events.
I’m just trying to figure out what Obama has that Will and Kristol want that they can’t get from someone else and what they can offer Obama in return.
This isn’t a negotiation, it’s a schmooze session. Obama’s gonna lay on the charm, they’re gonna write some glowing columns, or at the very least temper their criticism. He’s just working the refs, is all.
Maybe by embracing Will, Brooks, and Kristol, Obama serves to marginalize other more extreme right-wing pundits
Yes. Or more to the point: when mainstream right-wing pundits echo extreme right-wing pundits, extremists gain power. When their messages diverge, extremists lose power. That’s the goal of this sit-down, I would imagine.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Re Laertes’s comment “Watch how the grown-ups do it. It’s so nice that they’re in charge again. ”
—————
Yeah, I really liked that crafty $7 TRILLION bailout for Wall Street. That really showed the Republicans how we Democrats stand up for the common citizen, huh?
January 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Thanks for the advice. I’m not, however, in the habit of taking advice from angry trolls, so you can stop, mkay…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Re petr’s comment “I’m not, however, in the habit of taking advice from angry trolls”
—————-
I’ll repeat it anyway, out of Christian charity. Petr should , like Paris Hilton’s chihuahua, be sure to stay in safe , secure environments. Else he will be taking more than advice.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
We should not embrace these people. We should listen to what they have to say, explain why we think they are wrong, and ask them for support in areas where we have common goals. If for example George Will meets Obama he may still oppose some of his goals but he may be slower to suspect a hidden agenda.
Don Williams. We can be polite to George Will while at the same time putting George Bush on trial for war crimes.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Yeah, I really liked that crafty $7 TRILLION bailout for Wall Street. That really showed the Republicans how we Democrats stand up for the common citizen, huh?
Have you been watching the rate spreads? TARP may be flawed (especially in terms of transparency), but it is producing the desired results. Without it we would be knee-deep in a depression that no amount of fiscal stimulus could pull us out of.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hardly Christian of you to suggest I cower at anothers whims, like a dog.
Neither Christ nor Ghandi (nor even our own MLK jr, for that matter) ever let the actions of others, no matter how nasty or potentially harmful, stop them from doing what they felt needed to be done. It’s called ‘backbone’. It’s an outgrowth of ‘righteousness’ and lies at the heart of everything ‘Christian’.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“now the leaders those Democrats elected and supported turn into surrender monkeys for personal advantage”
Williams here demonstrates a lamentable flaw: Thinking Like A Republican. See what he did there? Equating “Talk” with “Surrender?” That’s classic Bush thinking, and the last eight years of that have been quite enough, thank you.
If one is going to throw a little tantrum every time Barack Obama talks to somebody that one doesn’t like, one is going to have a very very difficult eight years.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“People really voted for Obama because he was expected to sit down and make nice with Republican partisans? I’m not arguing with the apparent efficacy (as #12 points out, it just might work)… but are people really looking for this in a president? Can you explain this attitude to me? I genuinely don’t get it.”
Try renting the movie “Advise and Consent.” Once upon a time in DC, people who strongly disagreed were still able to maintain cordial relations, even friendships. That not only tempered the tone of public discourse, but also enabled moderates to marginalize extremists in both parties. (Moderate Senate Republicans, for example, snuffed the career of Joe McCarthy.)
That tradition mostly died out after the 1994 Gingrich takeover of Congress, to be replaced by snarling-heads-TV-style trench warfare in which politicians and their supporting casts of operatives and pundits characterized, and treated, their opponents as toxic agents needing eradication. And what happened? The near-extinction of moderates in the GOP and (until 2006) steady erosion of their numbers in the Democratic caucuses, the adoption of gridlock as legislative strategy and demonization and polarization as campaign strategy.
Obama’s dinner party with Will, et al., is not going to temper their criticisms of him — unless, like Brooks, they were tempering their critique already. But it may make it more difficult for them to pretend in print that he’s some kind of stealth Hugo Chavez or terrorists’ pal.
In any case, reaching out to the other side makes Obama look like a mensch. And it may have given him some insight on how opposition opinion leaders think, which can’t hurt in battles to come.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Re DTM’s comment “Obama has consistently tried to find ways of going around the Republican elites to speak to these voters, with some degree of success. And there is where I think these mainstream media figutes, and also people like Warren for that matter, can help–they obviously aren’t going to support Obama overall, but the tone and framing they adopt can be more or less helpful when it comes to Obama’s efforts to at least engage their audiences in productive discussions.”
—————-
I agree that we need to talk with, understand, and try to find compromise with the grassroots Republican voters. They are our countrymen , after all.
But scum like William Kristol, George Will and David Brooks –and the rest of the right wing propaganda machine — are the enemy. They don’t exist to inform Republican voters — IMO, they exist solely to lie to and deceive Republican grassroots citizens. After all, how could George W Bush keep 30 percent? favorable ratings when he has –by any objective measure –bought destruction down upon the Republican middle class?
January 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Re Laertes’s comment “Williams here demonstrates a lamentable flaw: Thinking Like A Republican. See what he did there? Equating “Talk” with “Surrender?””
—————–
No — what I said was that that PRESIDENT Obama gave William Kristol, George Will, and David Brooks LEGITIMACY by having dinner with them. Whereas they should be scorned as whores who have damaged this country while waving the flag.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
IF you have dinner with William Kristol, you have given up any moral authority you have to criticize Republicans for what has happened over the last 8 years — and any moral authority to criticize George W Bush for his shameless whoring.
If the Left is too stupid th realize how it has just been ..uh .. sold down the river, then it deserves to get fucked.
I know — let’s have Noah take a surprise 1 day poll of MoveOn. Ooops –too late.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Wow, Don Williams sounds exactly like the right-wingers in his fury. “We don’t sit down with the enemy!!!” Isn’t that what the neocons have been saying about the Axis of Evil, etc for years? Some people on the left want were hoping Change meant a left-wing version of Bush/Cheney. Maybe you should have stopped taking the wingnut spin of Obama as a Communist, crypto Muslim terrorist for granted. Is that whom you thought you were voting for? I’m sorry, but the majority of us are very happy to see a sea change in the political discourse from our Commander in Chief.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“I’m sorry, but the majority of us are very happy to see a sea change in the political discourse from our Commander in Chief.”
I second that.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Brilliant move by Obama. Not only does this further his post-partisan post-ideological brand, but he’s also cleverly dividing and conquring the republican party.
The Malkins and Limbaughs will start looking at the conservative intelligentsia with increased suspicion, especially since they weren’t invited. They’ll react by going further down the joe the plumber route and push for Plain in ‘12, which is exactly what Obama wants.
Palin is a divisive losing card, reducing the republican party to their own brand of identity politics, while the inclusive Obama continues to pluck off moderates and even conservatives (see Warren affair). The intelligentsia knows this but are still afraid the elitist card will be played on them. A deep schism now exists within the party. Probably only Jindal can bridge it.
Obama’s combination of principle and machiavellianess is something to behold.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Shorter Manju: If I just play along with this guy Adolf, he will be my friend and I can use him for my ends.
I misunderstood. You guys aren’t Democrats — you’re Social Democrats.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
The “factions” we should be courting are the grassroots Republican voters –who don’t get their paychecks from Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban etc and who will flip to voting Democratic if we (a) show our leaders will look out for the interests of ALL Americans, not just their political donors and (b) show how badly the Republican pundits like George Will and Bill Kristol have mislead them and (c) show how the Republican middle class has been greatly harmed by the past 8 years
I.e., Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy.
But the Democratic elites don’t support that because it requires integrity, not corruption.
What we’re getting instead is the same betrayal we got in 2002 — in which Democratic leaders show that there is no real difference between them and the Republican leaders like Bush/Cheney — other than the fact that they are whoring for a slightly different set of billionaires at the expense of 98 percent of the population.
No one who really has the interest of America at heart would sit down with someone like William Kristol.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Obama is heading toward the same situation we saw with Hillary and John Kerry — in which they were too complicit with the acts of the Republicans to campaign as an alternative or to criticize Bush.
Hillary and Kerry lost because the voters knew there was no difference between what Hillary and Kerry supported versus what George Bush supported — other than the fact that Bush was not as two-faced and weak as were the Democrats.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Don Williams Says: A lot of hyperbolic, paranoid, hyper-partisan nonsense.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Re DTM’s comment “that ordinary Republican/conservative voters don’t believe people like Will, Brooks, and even Kristol are Hitleresque monsters–indeed, that is precisely why those guys are the mainstream media representatives of the Republicans/conservatives.”
————-
Well, ordinary people will still believe Will, Brooks and Kristol if you have the President of the United States give them CREDIBILITY by having dinner with them. In fact, that ensures that the INEVITABLE criticism of Obama’s administration by Will , BRooks, and Kristol will be credible as well.
What you should be doing is pointing out to ordinary Republicans that they are $6.3 TRILLION deeper in debt, that their PERSONAL share of that George W debt is about $50,000, and that 7000 US citizens are dead because of George Bush lies supported by Wills, Brooks, and Kristol. As well as by Fox News.
But no, you prefer to pass up this HISTORIC opportunity to discredit the right wing. Instead , you protect and preserve the right wing psychopaths by accepting them as brothers –even though they will turn on us at the moment they feel safe from political judgment for their past acts.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
This Don Williams guy is actually pretty entertaining.
Let me guess the resume… used to pose as a PUMA, now poses as a pissed off lefty?
January 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Obama wants to find out more about these republicans underlying interests and perceptions, because he will be able to use that information to negotiate more effectively with republicans. Neither democrats nor republicans have enough power to impose their preferred solutions for very long, and trying to impose solutions makes the politically weaker side only more determined to re- take power and undo whatever good got done. Obama knows how to be “soft on the people and hard on the problem.” He knows that it is more effective to focus on interests, not positions, to generate a variety of optioms before evaluating and deciding, and to insist that any solution must be shown objectively to be likely to strengthen our economy, and keep us safe, and to be perceived as fair by both sides. This is called “interests-based” negotiation or negotiation “on the merits.” It has been shown to be very effective against so called “hard” bargainers who seek only victory, in any context in which both sides are likely to be forced to keep dealing with each other over a long period of time, as republicans and democrats surely are. It is described in the brilliant, clear 1981 book, “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” by the architect of the 1979 Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt, Roger Fisher of Harvard Law School (2d ed. 1991). If you want to understand what Obama is doing, rather than just speculate, read that book.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Thank you for your help!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
buy viagra online
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:44 am
kQWhUk wxtiiggqbbrr, [url=http://dlvysujdpskh.com/]dlvysujdpskh[/url], [link=http://tnbifvvdfxpy.com/]tnbifvvdfxpy[/link], http://pgmiaeyxfwpz.com/