The Not-Conservatives Strike Back
Following up with last night’s right-wing columnist dinner party, Obama sits down with some non-conservatives:
The group included the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, the Wall Street Journal’s Gerry Seib, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein, the New York Times Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, among others.
This highlights one of our enduring asymmetries in American political media, namely that everyone who’s not a card-carrying member of the conservative movement is counted, essentially, as a liberal. Or, rather, that the essential dichotomy is held to be between conservatives and not-conservatives rather than between conservatives and liberals. But this group isn’t at all the mirror image of the conservative roster we heard about last night. Some people on it are, but others really aren’t. It’s like the common description of Brookings (rather than, say, CAP/AF) as a “liberal” think tank simply because it’s not a conservative one.
80 Responses to “The Not-Conservatives Strike Back”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
After spending one night at the children’s table, it’s nice to know Obama is back eating with the adults.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Absolutely. Dionne, Robinson, Maddow are definitely liberals in the sense the others were conservatives. Rich and Brownstein are borderline. Dowd, um, no. And I don’t know who Seib is. Would have been interesting to see Thomas Frank from WSJ there and Krugman as well–if we are sticking to big media people.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
But is this good or bad? In some ways it shows conservatives have more power — that is bad. In other ways it shows liberals are just the same as everyone else — that is good.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
It is bad Mark.
B/C Pomo right-wingers use this dichotomy to say, hey, this balanced-piece from Washington Post journalist X is the liberal side and William Kristol is the conservative side. It undermines mainstream journalism as merely the liberal point of view, which crowds out actual liberal points of view. That is bad. It encourages people to think of the center as something between what the AP says and National Review. Not good. It also allows conservatives to disregard well-reported facts as merely a liberal opinion. I’ve seen this work on average people–so, yes, very bad.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Also, it should be said, that Obama probably has his own reasons for inviting Dowd. Always good to stay on her good side. Otherwise he might be analogized to King Lear or Moe from the three stooges or Shrek or…who knows…
January 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Of course that’s wrong. Obama had a dinner with a bunch of conservatives one night, and had a dinner which a bunch of objective journalists the next night. They obviously need better editing over at that web site.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Jesus. Didn’t Brownstein consider taking a job with the McCain campaign? I count three and a half actual liberals (Dionne, Rich, Maddow, and maybe Robinson), two non-liberal journalists (Seib and Brownstein), and one Villager (Dowd).
Actually I note that Brookings now seems to be more often referred to as a “centrist” think tank. Hooray to CAP for moving the Overton Window!
January 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Matt never gets it right. These are mostly commentators, not reporters. And they’re on the left, broadly speaking and with the possible exception of Seib, who adopts a conventional wisdom POV for his articles, which means it sounds largely liberal but in a purposefully neutral-sounding way. (In other words, he’s the closest to a straight-news guy in the room.)
The big difference between this group and last night’s? If Bush had invited this group to dinner, at least one would have refused, and at least one would have been uncivil.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Amazing how fast has been Maddow’s rise.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Which is completely accurate.
But not as you disingenuously write, of course (but what the hell, that’s what you’re paid to write). And as David pointed out: it’s bad. Very bad. Ultra mega bad. Like, the U.S. actually invaded Iraq bad. Fucking horrible, it is.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Just like all those other non-conservative journalists did. What were their names again? Ummm…
January 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Muntadhar al-Zaidi? I believe that’s Arabic for “Frank Rich.”
January 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I’m not sure Rachel Maddow’s eyes are capable of rolling hard enough for her to have successfully survived Maureen Dowd’s rants concerning Bill Clinton’s penis. Hopefully they were seated far apart.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Yes, I remember the major-league incivility between Bush and the press.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“Uncivil” in what way? Telling someone to go fuck themself on the Senat floor uncivil?
January 14th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I don’t get it. I don’t know much about Seib or Brownstein, but the others are at least as liberal as David Brooks is conservative.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
All of last night’s “conservatives” and all of today’s “objective journalists” support one major policy. I’m sure the smart liberal could name that policy. Could someone ping the smart liberal to this thread?
January 14th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Would have been interesting to see Thomas Frank from WSJ there and Krugman as well–if we are sticking to big media people.
It’s being reported that Krugman was invited, but did not attend.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thomas, given that Bush regards, “uncivil” as things like “addressing the French president in French” and “wearing dark glasses to disguise one’s blindness,” (to name two of Bush’s public press-conference meltdow/outburst moments) I have to agree that, yes, something would have happened that would have caused Bush to feel like people were being “uncivil” to him. Which is why Bush never had this sort of thing and rarely appeared in public before an audience of anyone other than hand-picked groups willing to sign loyalty oaths: Bush has personal problems dealing with others. A problem that Obama does not have.
Anyone in our media-political system that is not explicitly conservative gets coopted by the overwhelming liberal majority.
Yes, Al, we’re already well aware of how you believe that everyone not willing to sign blood oaths to “the party” is an ideological enemy. We’ve heard. We know. And anyone who dared question “Dear Leader” was an enemy of the people. However, those you deride here were proven right, and those such as yourself were exposed as the fools they are. Your entire shtick was lashing out at anyone who disagreed with Bush. Maybe if you weren’t blinded by such mindless hero worship and devotion you would have seen the error of your ways. A little modesty and humility about hwo you got things wrong would help here. Krugman realized Bush was a doofus. You didn’t. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was able to see things that you couldn’t.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Al: you are a caricature
Sullivan is “hard” left? Really? Sullivan is clearly a libertarian-leaning guy. E. J. Dionne? In Europe he’d be a liberal Christian Democrat.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
hard-left commentators
Al, it seems you’re a little slow on the uptake– let me help you… what’s interesting is how few of those commentators would qualify as “hard left” under any objective circumstance. However, from your perspective, because they do not represent slavish devotion to “the cause” of the Republican party, you class them as “hard left.” That’s your problem, not Obama’s or Sullivan’s. Maybe a little less ideological blindness and ignorance would help you out here, since you have no idea what you’re talking about politically speaking and you seem somewhat isolated from political reality.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Tyro, the fact is, liberals are, as a group, unwilling to be civil. Did you watch the conventions last year? McCain couldn’t get through his speech without a big fundraiser for Obama interrupting, but no one interrupted Obama. Not everyone on the left is uncivil, but enough.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Didn’t Brownstein consider taking a job with the McCain campaign?
You’ve got your Rons confused: that was Ron Fournier.
And troll harder, Al! Troll harder! Get Kelly the One-Note Whore to give you lessons!
January 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Thomas, hecklers are a fact of life in political rallies. Bush, however, is much more heavily sensitive to such things (melting down even in the presence of non-hecklers). I have no down that any meeting with regular journalists and non-sycophantic op-ed columnists would have been “civil” for most people, but Bush wouldn’t have been able to handle it. There are well-known instances even when dealing with Bush’s own staffers where Bush screamed at members of his (presumably civil) staff for disagreeing with him or pointing out an error in his reasoning. No doubt Bush and you would regard such behavior as “uncivil,” but that’s not the way most of us see it. As the example of Al shows, only the most unquestioning devotion and loyalty to the beliefs of “the party” is considered acceptable. That may well be what Bush demands, but that is not what is expected in the norms of public discourse. You’ve simply invented a standard to conform with Bush’s (and many Republican’s) hypersensitivities and demands for
strict ideological conformity.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“Ambinder’s post (linked by Darius) is interesting. It seems that Obama - correctly - grouped Andrew Sullivan in the with hard-left commentators.”
Said post is, of course, entitled “Obama Meets With The Center-Left”. And I highly doubt Sullivan considers himself a Democrat or liberal or center-left. Just someone who really, really doesn’t like torture. It’s amusing that opposition to torture is now the hallmark of being called a RINO (or worse, in Al’s case).
January 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Tyro, hecklers are a fact of life, and yet one candidate seemed to attract a lot more of them than the other in 2008. Those on the left treated Bush with disrespect from the beginning. Norms of public discourse–yes, you all should learn about those. They were in evidence last night, but, as I said, they’ve been missing on the left for at least the last 8 years.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Al,
His obsession with Trig Palin’s lineage is most certainly delusional. It’s very clear they’re intentionally not shutting him up so they can play the “look at the liberal bloggers out to get us, why won’t they leave our poor family alone?” card, and he’s fallen for it hard. That said, for most of us there’s a lot more to one’s political philosophy than who they vote for. But that’s probably because we don’t treat politics like football, where everything boils down to your side and their side, good guys and bad guys. That seems to be a common Republican view these days.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Because, let’s face it, Republicans are simply more civil than Democrats.
Two words: O’Reilly and Hannity
January 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Those on the left treated Bush with disrespect from the beginning.
Actually, the disrespect for Gore was much more intense and more telling, culminating in outright rage from the right when Gore had the temerity to (gasp) say that the Iraq war and torture were a bad ideas. And it was Bush, not Gore, Kerry, or Obama, who insisted on strict loyalty oaths and forcibly and physically removed any visitors who might have been suspected of not being loyal Bush supporters. Bush simply couldn’t handle seeing the public who didn’t agree with him (even among his own white house staff), and it’s why Bush wouldn’t have been able to have such meetings. The claims that a professional Op-ed columnist like EJ Dionne or Paul Krugman would have been “uncivil” to him is an invention in your own mind, or perhaps some outside standard of “civility” that only exists in the head of you and Bush.
The fact is that it is Bush who engages in bizarre disrepectful behavior, in part because he has problems, and in part because he is hypersensitive to perceived slights and non-sycophantic behavior. Only people like you and Bush have such demands of slavish devotion to him. That is your problem, not the problem of the left.
As we can see, too, from the dialog of the right when it came to Obama, it was they who were much less respectful, much less civil, and, quite honestly, downright dangerous. You might enjoy criticizing the left for being “uncivil” (even if it isn’t true), but the reaction of the right to Obama’s candidacy has exposed a lot of dangerous, dark undercurrents on the right which you seem to be in denial about. And yes, Obama did not require loyalty oaths from those wishing to see him in public. That’s because Obama has a temperment for dealing with right wingers that Bush simply does not possess.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Al, most of them may be “liberal” in some sense, but most of them helped elect George W. Bush to the White House with their war on Bill Clinton and his penis and their unrelenting attacks and ridicule of Al Gore.
You should be very happy to have such “liberals” around, it works out quite well for your side most of the time.
Maureen Dowd, of course, is in a completely separate category from the rest, a truly despicable, self-absorbed…well, moron.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Because, let’s face it, Republicans are simply more civil than Democrats.”
As evidenced by virtually every speaker at said McCain convention spending more of their time attacking Obama, often with ad hominems about being un-American, palling around with terrorists, etc, than they did actually espousing their own positions. Let’s not forget Palin’s withering speech (which I’ll admit, while impressive, contained many brutal attacks). In fact, almost the entire McCain campaign was simply anti-Obama. One wonders if that’s because they’ve lost the ability to convince people their ideas are good ones, to the extent they have ideas to begin with instead of just being the anti-Democratic party.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Thomas, as I said, maybe when Bush learns not to scream and snap at members of the press corps who where dark glasses for their vision-impairment or reporters who address the french president in french during press conferences or when he doesn’t yell and scream at staffers who point out errors to Bush can you talk about the need for people like EJ Dionne to be “civil.” If Bush were mentally capable of meeting with op-ed columnists, he would have done so. If Bush’s staff felt that Bush were able to mentally handle dealing with a heckler or two during a rally, they wouldn’t have worried so much about the issue, rather than demanding strict loyalty oaths to see the president in public.
The problem is not the problem of the left: it is a problem of Bush and, to a degree, a problem of the right who would become furious and scream that someone was a left-wing extremist if they ever disagreed with or criticized Bush’s policies. When YOU change, Thomas, then there may be more room for Republican presidents who, like Obama, meets with many columnists of different ideological background. However, the makeup of the modern right and modern Republican party would seem to select against republican politicians who can do that.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Because, let’s face it, Republicans are simply more civil than Democrats.
No, just more chickenshit.
Polite people don’t yell “terrorist,” “kill him,” and “off with his head” at the mention of a political opponent’s name.
Did you see John McCain concession speech? Did you notice those “polite” Republicans’ response when McCain called for them to support their next president? McCain sure did, and the look he shot the doesn’t suggest to me that he was impressed with their politeness.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Tyro, it’s a strange world we live in where liberals can disrupt conservative events routinely while conservatives refrain from such incivility, and, when conservatives respond to the constant interruptions by attempting to limit the ability of hecklers to disrupt, they say that conservatives can’t handle disagreement. Your position is just nuts. I’d love to see all political events open to everyone, but it’s hard when your friends demonstrate time and again that they can’t behave. As we saw in the campaign and again last night, this isn’t a problem that conservatives have. We’re able to have dinner with a politician we disagree with without being rude; we’re able to attend events for politicians we disagree with without heckling or disrupting. If we acted like your idiotic friends, Obama would change. Of course, if we acted like your friends, you’d find it inappropriate. Your standards are flexible like that, aren’t they?
joe, civility doesn’t require one to support someone. I don’t support Obama, but I’d be happy to have dinner with him. I don’t agree with what he wants to do, but that doesn’t mean I’d treat him like, say, you’d treat Bush.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Democrats thik that George Bush is an evil, evil person.
Presumably this could lead to a discussion of “the nature of evil.” However, most liberals don’t really take kindly to the use of torture and an obsessive desire to turn back the restrictions placed on government wiretapping in the wake of Nixon’s abuse of power.
conservatives think liberals are wrong
Actually, they thought that Obama was a Marxist terrorist… they thought he was evil, not merely wrong. In any case, you’re cribbing off a quote from someone else without explaining what you really believe. The Republicans’ view of Obama has really further confirmed to me that there is a sickness running through the republican party. It all started when I heard Republicans frothing at the mouth that Krugman had, somewhere, written that Bush was wrong about something and then flipped into a rage when Gore publicly disagreed with going to war in Iraq. I don’t know whether republicans think that democrats are evil (though the evidence indicates that they do). I do, however, think it’s clear that they regard disagreement with Bush policies as evil. I don’t know whether they support Bush because he reflects their dualistic, simpleminded thinking, or whether right-wingers have adopted Bush’s dualistic, simple-minded thinking as their own because they wish to imprint on their authority figures.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Al,
“It’s very clear they’re intentionally not shutting him up
Who is this “they” you speak of?”
I speak of the Palin family and/or anyone close to them with the necessary information. Clearly, Trig is Palin’s child and clearly, they have proof of this they could release if they felt it necessary so that Sullivan would stop posting stuff on it. My conclusion, therefore, is that they’re intentionally not killing the (obviously false) story so they can point at how the deranged liberal bloggers are trying to destroy her life.
“Huh? You appear to be unfamiliar with websites like Daily Kos.”
Daily Kos is in fact the rough equivalent of what I described. That’s because its stated mission is to elect more Democrats, no matter what. By necessity that lends itself to that mindset. I will say in their defense that they cheered William Jefferson losing, wanted Blagojevich impeached from day one, and (mostly) think Caroline Kennedy is unfit for office. They also constantly criticize Democrats too heavily involved with lobbyists, corporations, etc. My (granted limited) experience with the comparative conservative sites is that there’s virtually never criticism of any Republican for doing something wrong.
“As I’ve often said, one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals is that liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are wrong.”
You have often said this, but I’m not sure that makes it true. Perhaps one should ask the frequent visitors of Free Republic and LGF whether they think liberals are evil. My guess is that there are both moderate and extreme views on both sides, in probably the same proportions.
Though, as a Georgia resident, I do think Saxby is evil. The rest of the Georgia Republicans, not really.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Thomas, I don’t know which right-wingers have brainwashed you into this myth that Obama rallies never got any hecklers, but they informed you incorrectly. The difference is that Obama (and the Democrats) have the mental temperament to handle it, whereas Bush was known for public near-meltdowns if he decided, in his mind, that someone was trying to make him look bad. Combine this with the authoritarian mindset of republicans (the sort that ensures that you obediently and unquestioningly repeat the canard that Obama never had hecklers) and you have a formula for bizarre loyalty oaths demanded for anyone to see a “public” appearance of the president.
The truth is you’re simply wrong. Whether you’re acting as a conscious agent of propanda or merely its victim is something I cannot know for sure. When the Republican party no longer becomes a party authoritarian obediance and ressentiment, this will change. But for now, it is a party where its leaders like Bush would never be able to handle having dinner with op-ed columnists like Obama does and one where even Bush’s own staff is in fear of ever telling him “bad news” because they fear his wrath (the man is, as you would say, “uncivil”).
January 14th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Al,
Could you provide a link to what they’ve released? That’s the first I’ve heard of any such letter (or anything from her on the matter other than stonewalling and whining about liberal bloggers).
Also, “liberals do it too” is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. Everyone has their bad apples they need to clean up. The question is how many, and whether one side excuses all theirs by pointing fingers.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Thomas, I’m now genuinely curious– is this a point of discussion in right-wing circles about how only liberals would heckle republican candidates? Is this what they’re telling you people? I’d really like to hear more about the urban legends/beliefs that you guys seem to hold.
Seriously, the Republican reaction to the Obama candidacy I think reflects quite poorly on the state of Republican culture, and it is something I can only really describe as sick. It is, of course, a poor reflection of the character judgment of republicans everywhere given their support of Bush, but the unhinged rumormongering about Obama, the terrorist accusation, the marxist red-baiting, etc. exposes some seriously problematic undercurrents in Republican culture. Now that I hear that Republicans exchange urban legends about how only democrats heckle at rallies, requiring the loyalty oaths to see Bush appear in public (rather than acknowledging Bush’s prickly, sensitive nature) makes me wonder what other weird things conservatives tell each other in the alternate reality they exist in. Seriously, you’re *still* defending the Bush temperament and mindset? That’s no way to cultivate new leaders or do any good for the future of the country.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“That’s pretty good evidence in favor of my postulate, since Saxby Chambliss is about as mainstream a Republican as you can get.”
I don’t think anything about his policies are evil, since they are in fact mainstream Republican. I think he’s evil because he won his 2002 election in large part due to ads featuring Max Cleland’s face morphing into that of Osama and Saddam and calling him a terrorist sympathizer. Max Cleland, the man who lost three limbs in Vietnam defending his country while Saxby got six deferments. Or the ads in his 2008 election all but saying that Jim Martin killed children. Yes, I’m serious.
I’m sure you have some counterexample of a Democrat’s negative ads, and while I’m sure they don’t reach that level I will say I will very probably disapprove of them too. Some things are just beyond the pale though.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Al, funny you should mention georgia. It was Newt Gingrich who said that Susan Smith’s drowning of her children was a sign that voters needed to get Democrats out of office,and yet you continue to deny that Republicans think Democrats are evil. Why do you have so much invested in a claim that you know is false? Are you just trying to deflect the accusation when Republicans are regarded as evil? Why is it that you’re willing to support and endorse some unhinged rheotric from republicans and then say, “only democrats think the other side is evil”? Is it because you don’t want to be responsible for when you get called out, or are you trying to seem “reasonable”? Because I have to say, nothing about what you’ve said is reasonable– it’s reflective of out-there extremism.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Tyro,
To be fair, I don’t think Newt or any other Republican politician thinks Democrats are evil. They’re just interested in winning elections, and they know that kind of rhetoric will play well with their base, who in fact might think that.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This civility discussion is really weird. Liberals hate Bush because he’s a monarchist and a war criminal who took power in a coup and made this country worse in every way during his illegal administration. This sort of thing can lead to some heckling or disruption.
Republicans hate Obama because… Hmm. Because he’s a normal person? Because he’s black? Because of his middle name? Because has a functioning brain accessible to facts and logic? Because he doesn’t think that bombing people you don’t know is visionary public policy? Because every one of the Republican presidential candidates was some sort of wacko, with the exception of Tommy Thompson who was out of the race in a month, while Obama ran a brilliant campaign and danced circles around their two clown candidates?
I don’t see any legitimate reason for Republicans to heckle or harass Obama. Bush, on the other hand, is heckled because he’s not in prison where he belongs.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Don’t feed the paid shills, please. Thanks.
And please be civil, like these pro-America Americans.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Matt’s bang-on right here, only he understates. If you’re not a movement conservative, you’re a liberal. From the wingnuts’ perspective, people like Brooks and Noonan, and Will himself, made the dinner party an ideologiocally mixed affair (even discounting the guest of honor).
January 14th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Tyro, this is just bizarre. I mean, have you lived in a cave the last 8 years? I’m starting to think that you go to Republican events to heckle. (Of course the problem goes back more than 8 years. Albright had more of a problem with folks on the left than she ever did with folks on the right.)
I’m not sure what you mean by the “Republican response” to Obama. As far as I can tell, Obama has been favorably received in the country, including by Republicans. Some people have told some stories about him that aren’t true, which is not anything new. He was able to give his speech at the Democratic convention without interruption, so in some ways he was treated better by Republicans than McCain was by Democrats. We can talk about rumors and conspiracy theories if you’d like, but given that you’re a member of a party in which a significant percentage of the folks are truthers, I’m not sure you really want to go there. (Are you one? That would explain a lot.)
As far as Obama’s temperament and mindset and comparisons to Bush: The story about Obama when he was at UofC is that he’d have nothing to do with the conservatives on the faculty. Wouldn’t go to lunch with them, wouldn’t talk about law with them, wouldn’t have anything to do with them. As if he feared contamination. This is the big, broad-minded thinker we’ve got now. Now, I don’t think that’s all there is to the man, but, unlike you, I don’t just go around looking to confirm my prejudices.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:47 am
DTM, it isn’t false. Epstein’s public statements aren’t the full story. Obama acted as I described–he would interact with conservatives only when he had to. He wouldn’t socialize with them–he wouldn’t go to lunch with them, etc. Obama’s schedule wasn’t the issue, and this was true before he entered politics.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Can you provide more details on this?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I am very impressed with this. I will put this blog to my facebook favourites.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 15th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Great post, thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Very intresting blog you have.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
High quality article my friend. It’s nice to read. Thanks for spending time to write good things for us.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Your informations has been very useful for me. I hope you can post any more info about this soon.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Great site, Good info
viagra