Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on December 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
“‘We’re becoming a church that would rather chase away heretics than welcome converts and that’s no way to become a majority party,’ complained former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who served as National Republican Congressional Committee chairman. ‘This makes no sense for those of us who are interested in winning elections.’…
“‘I don’t think national committeemen putting purity tests on the party is wise,’ said Reynolds, also a former NRCC chair. He called the move a recipe for ‘a perfect minority.’”
***
“Or maybe the party will simply head down the path to ever-more thorough bouts of inquisition and purging, resolutely depopulating its conservative pantheon. Consider the central article of the first point on the list—a commitment to ‘lower deficits.’ That would not only banish former President George W. Bush and many members of the late Republican Congress, since they infamously squandered the surplus and ballooned the deficit, but also former President Ronald Reagan, whom the authors of the 10-point program, in a long preamble to their test questions, hymn as the ne plus ultra of conservatism…
“Maybe this current crop of Republican incorruptibles will find, as Mr. Viguerie wrote in 1988, that ‘responsibility for the ultimate failure of the Reagan Revolution lies with Ronald Reagan himself.’ They will start to suspect that even those who approve of this test don’t meet its standards; that pure conservatism means very few conservatives.”
***
Via the Right Scoop.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Would someone please take the trash out? We need out White House cleaned out.
UncleZeb on December 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Oh, and first!
UncleZeb on December 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Rush for President
swimcoachmike on December 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The purity test stuff is crazy talk. If you’re seriously in favor of local politics, and I am, then you let that unfold, outside of some kind of national agenda.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Rush did well with the need to put the kibosh on the 3rd party talk.
myrenovations on December 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM
And yet so many conservatives continue to push the idea without so much as batting an eye.
ernesto on December 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM
A thin analogy at best. The people in question are not “converts.” They’re not converting to party ideology, but expecting the party to convert to theirs. It’s like a muslim joining a church and then complaining because no one else wants to bow towards Mecca.
CurtZHP on December 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM
The litmus paper is RED!
SouthernGent on December 1, 2009 at 10:40 PM
The lib sheeple will never bolt to a third party…
d1carter on December 1, 2009 at 10:40 PM
A Democratic Majority means greater ratings for Rush. Rush would rather ridicule than defend. I am convinced that Limbaugh is a George Soros plant to keep the Democrats in power.
Decider on December 1, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Rush has an amazing talent to not hide from the rino in the room. He looks it square in the eyes and tells everyone what needs to be said. Good job man, Good job indeed.
Indian Outlaw on December 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I see a big showdown brewing between Rush and Beck.
John the Libertarian on December 1, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Can this PLEASE be a bannable offense?
MadisonConservative on December 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I’m still for no parties.
boomer on December 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Before one calls Omar the tent maker, one should figure out what the tent is for.
As we’ve seen throughout the history of politics, a firm, consistent message and doctrine provides what the citizenry want: Consistent, stable, and predictable governance.
Provide that, and you’ll need to call Omar for an addition to the “tent”.
BobMbx on December 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Um, no. Reagan railed against deficits in just about every SOTU address and asked for a line-item veto.
He didn’t have Bush’s GOP congress.
mankai on December 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Rush is king. He is on the money on the 3rd party issue.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
party pooper
John the Libertarian on December 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Rush makes a good point here. He really does. I mean even when the Republicans supposedly lost their way, they did not do the stuff Obama and Pelosi and Reid have been doing.
When the Republicans lost control of the Congress in 2006, the deficit was about $168 billion. Right now we are very nearly running that kind of deficit on a monthly basis.
And the purity stuff, well, look at the people here who comment at HA who are not sure about the surge in Afghanistan, but that was one of the items on the purity test. I did not think that test was that draconian or anything, but I am sure a lot of people would find something on it they just could not tolerate.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I don’t think this is really all that big of a deal, in the long run.
I know how I vote, and I vote every year like clockwork.
I think voting gets down to priorities, gut level, etc.
The rest of the rhetoric?
Pure entertainment.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
All that (most) conservatives want is a GOP that is pro-life, pro-small government, and pro-Constitution. Is that really asking too much? I’m not going to vote for someone who isn’t pro-life. Does that make me bad Republican? Sorry. Is it that difficult to find real conservative candidates? Come on. All this brouhaha about GOP exclusivity is just wishful thinking on the part of the MSM, anyway. Dede Scozzawhatsit was a terrible Republican candidate (but just swell as a moderate Dem). Let’s learn from those mistakes and move the hell on. Why are we allowing ourselves to get carried away by MSM BS? Just let the DNC carry on with its work. It’s going to sweep Republicans back into power on a wave of liberal incompetency. Heck, another year of Obama and his henchmen and maybe people will be clamoring for a recall.
cynccook on December 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
He spoke a good game, like most republicans, but spent and spent and spent like the rest.
ernesto on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
mydh12 on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
A whole lot of Americans foolishly associate conservatism with Conservatives, when their party affiliation is Democrat, while they vehemently complain to their spouses about the high cost of utilities, groceries, gas, the car, taxes, fees and a bureaucrat for everything they want or need, they also hate the DMV, the postal service..and Republicans.
We have a purity problems because of a PR issue and we have a PR issue because the national conservative message is bereft of Conservatives.
Speakup on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Glenn Beck = Frodo, Rush Limbaugh = Gandalf
RadioFreeUSA on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Doubt it. Beck knows his place and what pays the bills. He’s a fringe shaker. Love em or hate em he wakes up the base and forces them to listen. They sy he goes off the rails, but the train he’s on is right. Rush is a smart man and understands it. While he may sit back and allow his ship to sail or set corse. Beck is a voice a loud voice of many of us. Beck is a smart man who will not pitch his own tent but will If you listen to his radio will excite more people to take charge of the conservative movement. Which as much as he may disagree is the GOP.
Indian Outlaw on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
It’s not the politicians’ job to make good policy popular. That’s the people’s job. If we make good ideas popular, then all the politicians will want to support them.
Now that’s a winning strategy.
JohnJ on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Yeah~there is only one person with any relevance that is talking about both parties being the same….the Beck/Rush dynamic duo is history.
I wish GB would just stick to talking about the czars…there’s plenty there in the FUBO House to melt down.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I agree with Rush. What I don’t agree with is Iowa and New Hampshire deciding they are giving us a Huckabee or McCain again.
Marcus on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Please someone tell me how Regan would flunk the purity test as the author suggests?
deidre on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I remember those years and Reagan ran a deficit largely to build up the military and finish the cold war. In fact in terms of GDP, he ran some pretty big deficits. And government was larger when he left office than when he took office.
I am sure that a Democrat would have done a lot worse and I am sure Reagan was a conservative, but there were deficits and government did grow.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Rush is correct on this. Conservatives and Libertarians need to gain control of the Republican party not form a third.
tetriskid on December 1, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Bull…A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers…And if there are those that cannot subscribe to these principals, then let them go their way – Ronald Reagan
The way to win is to stand for something and stop recruiting and running the 10% of the party that are democrats in drag. There are enough conservatives in the country to fill all elective offices…
Folk have been telling the party since 2005 that we were sick of politicians who do specific things that the party does not want, wild spending, pork, earmarks, illegal immigration and incumbent protection. The party ignored us entirely AND lost in 2006, lost in 2008 and still seem to want to lose again. If they blow 2010 they will never get another shot as the few folk that are left who call themselves republican will remain home forever.
Look at NY23…we do not want any more RINO’s…this is no longer debatable.
JIMV on December 1, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Eh… Beck is going to be tilting his windmill at his own 9/12 people and the tea party people, all of whom have “stolen” his idea to hold “conventions” and some of whom have gone against his advice and formed 523s (#?).
myrenovations on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.
Sapwolf on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM
And what about Reagan’s amnesty for 3.5 million illegals?
Reagan=Graham?
The idea that you can govern with purity is entirely stupid. It’s impossible to build a coalition in a democracy where everyone agrees on everything with everyone. That’s not how a system based on checks and balances work.
Hell! Dems with 60 seats in Senate are still finding it difficult to pass the kind of healthcare reform they would love to. (Single payer!)
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Don’t think we’ll have to worry about McLame or Hucklebee ever again.
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Great point! Again step aside. Rush and Beck are both Pushing us to become a better nation. Get back to our Values… and we win.
Indian Outlaw on December 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM
So why did Reagan sign amnesty for illegal immigirants?
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM
A thin analogy at best. The people in question are not “converts.” They’re not converting to party ideology, but expecting the party to convert to theirs. It’s like a muslim joining a church and then complaining because no one else wants to bow towards Mecca.
CurtZHP on December 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM
B-I-N-G-O. It’s just another liberal ploy. “Ooooohhhhh, Republican infighting! Yes, please!” AP is right about allowing conservatives to be pushed into some kind of 3rd party nonsense. Can you say “political suicide?” We just need to fix what’s not working. We already have a system in place that can win. The GOP on all levels has to start thinking like winners. They’ve been pushed into this defensive posture and it seems like they can’t shake that loser mindset.
cynccook on December 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Rush is right. We are not going to defeat Hard Core Leftists with jelly fish moderates.
RadioFreeUSA on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
My quotes of the day: turn on Air America and listen to them bemoan the man they elected. Seriously… talk about buyers remorse. Of course, their issue is that they think it’s GWB’s third term, but still.
The best quote came from an email that the host read without any real comment. That if Obama went against the Military-Industrial complex he would be eliminated. The host then helpfully added that some people feel that’s what happened to JFK.
strictnein on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
That Wall Street Journal piece is so full of sophistry, lies by omission, and revisionist history that it makes debating liberal democrats just impossible. They are either delusional or dishonest.
Unfortunately, they will continue to do what they are doing until it no longer works, or until they have to pay a price.
Why should a man who picks your pocket everyday stop stealing your wallet if you are not going to have him arrested?
Why should a married man stop having extra marital affairs if his wife pretends he isn’t doing it?
We have become a nation of liars, and thieves, and cowards, and the criminally insane.
Skandia Recluse on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
deidre:
The list is:
Some of them are not even relevant to today, but number 5 would have been a problem for Reagan. But that was then, who knows how he might feel today.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
They did not decide that. No one stopped true conservatives from electing their own candidates.
Maybe, they should look at the fact they cant even defeat democrats in lots of Southern states anymore.
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I still want a super duper primary~I got to vote in JUNE, byt the time it was all over by the bullsh*t that maverick gave us.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
He raised more revenue than the Democrat Congress projected. But the Congress then thought like Treasury today: neoKeynesian “investment” was more necessary than deficit reduction. The Democrat complaint against Reagan was not his deficits, but that they were military instead of social and total spending as a fraction of GDP was too LOW.
Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM
That thing still exists??
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM
My money is on Rush.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
He made a mistake…no reason to make it again in 2010.
JIMV on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Is it me or is Dana Perino HOT! Sorry had to get that out.
Indian Outlaw on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Absolutely. I just get this feeling that Beck is going to unveil a third-party movement and jump the shark.
John the Libertarian on December 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM
If pure conservatism means few conservatives, then Rush Limbaugh would not have an audience of over 20 million and Reagan would not have won the presidency in huge landslides no one has won since.
So baloney to that notion.
But it doesn’t help when we have republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voting like damn liberals. Yes, the few rotten apples ruin it for everyone else.
But I agree with Rush that third party means more liberalism for more years.
cubachi on December 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM
So what about Bush? No longer a Republican?
The problem with true conservatives is that they decide who gets nominated in GOP…I mean there isn’t a single republican representative who is not anti-choice. But when the same guys can’t govern according to the purist principles–simply because it is impossible too–they blame them as RINOs and demand more purges. It’s a vicious cycle.
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Yes, but doesn’t your governor look like Horatio Sanz?
And I understand. All that money dumped into Fred Thompson and who did I get to vote for in the primaries? Mittens!
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM
It is not just you. I am a heterosexual female and I thought the same thing as you.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM
So what about Reagan’s increasing taxes in 1982–if memory serves me right and amnesty?
And how much was the size of government lowered during his administration? Which entitlement program disappeared? Medicare? Medicaid?
In fact, he signed into laws bills like OBRA which imposed greater regulations.
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM
The democrat complaint is largely irrelevant if the topic is conservative purity, no? Reagan was not averse to compromise, even on ‘core principles’ (see: tax increases to fix social security).
Correct. Which is why erecting rather strict barriers to entry – especially barriers that represent opposition – rather than ideas, is an idea with little merit.
ernesto on December 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM
OT: Greta called out Chrissy at top of the show!
John the Libertarian on December 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM
If a third party more closely represents what I think, I’m voting for it. The party that’s for enforcing immigration laws is the party that gets my vote. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ve ever voted FOR anyone. I’ve always voted against someone else.
deewhybee on December 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
If there is a reasonable, rational, educated, intelligent voter still out there that can admit that they voted for the travesty which is the Obama presidency I would be shocked. WTH were these people thinking putting our country in the hands of that egomanical goober? Just what has he ever done to deserve to be sitting in the Oval Office? Putzes!
TXMomof3 on December 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Well, look at Bush’s first year and Obama’s first year, there was about a trillion dollars worth of difference in spending. The levels we see today are out of sight by anyone’s standards…but over the last few years government has grown with the population and so has spending.
I think it is a matter of degree. And if I understand what Rush is saying it is also a matter of intent.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM
She’s unbelievable, but married so I’ll say no more other then that she also has extraordinary fashion sense as it relates to necklaces.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Fine. I am just pointing the pitfalls of the such simplimsitc purity test?
I mean we are all for small government, fine. So which Republican candidate is running in 2012 with call to abolish Medicare? That’s not Big government?
So there is a difference between mounting platitudes–common sense conservative principles as one particular individual is inclined to do so–and actual policy.
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM
It was the youth culture of today plus ‘white guilt’ and eight years of non-stop Bush-bashing thrown in for good measure.
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I said the last few years, really growth and spending have been growing steadily for decades.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I don’t disagree. I am not at all claiming that Bush on spending was not better than Obama was. (Though he could and should have been better.) I am just saying when you have such a list, this is what will happen.
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Yep. I tune in for 10-15 minutes from time to time. I’m always amazed by the lack of in depth discussion of any topic. No matter the host, they barely scratch the surface of any subject. Or they are so amazingly obtuse that it is unbelievable.
A recent example: the host was saying how horrible it was we spent so much money on the military. To prove his point, he compared the per capita military spending of the US to that of Germany and Japan. Now, I’m assuming the average Hot Air reader can quickly surmise what the problem with that comparison is.
strictnein on December 1, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Spent on what? Tax cuts. Defense spending, escalating the arms race in a successful effort of bankrupting the USSR and ending the cold war.
What else?
FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Burrito Boy~yes, that would be our governor.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Well, I’m glad it never existed here in Orlando.
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 11:07 PM
rightisliberal:
Yes, I see your point. But then again, the people who put the list together say only 8 out of the 10 need to be followed, so there is some acknowledgment that purity is not always possible.
I think the whole point to the list is to keep things like the debacle in NY23 from happening by trying to keep really unacceptable people from running on the GOP ticket.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Rush speaks for me!!!
redridinghood on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Liberalism’s imploding, so we’ll get more lectures about “ideological purity” and “litmus tests” and “don’t you dare be too conservative”.
When the Dems are welcoming to pro-lifers, they can snort about “ideological purity”.
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I’m gettin’ outta here before any trolls find this place!
Lanceman on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 PM
False either/or argument..either we cut government in half, reduce spending to 1950, and only elect Reagan clones or we must spend, embrace RINOs, and act like democrats in drag…
We can try to select candidates that represent the base of the party and not the democrats, spend less and gradually reverse the rot of the last 20 years…
JIMV on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Floating Rock:
Reagan raised social security taxes as well. But overall government spending grew while he was in office. I think the growing population had a lot to do with that. The larger the population, the larger the government. It has been that way for a long time.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 PM
You’re kidding, right? Have you checked the budget this year?
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM
^ Oh, OK. Misunderstood the point. Skimmed too quickly.
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM
JIMV:
It is a lot more than 20 years that government has been growing and most of that growth has been not only tolerated but supported by a substantial number of people. Getting ordinary people to give up something will not be easy.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Rush is right. Call out the Rinos, develop and implement a core conservative philosophy, and attract people to the GOP rather than pulling the edges out to try to cover the “independent voters,” making the tent wider by knocking out the central pillars holding the whole thing up.
cs89 on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM
The chance to do that was actually post-1994, but Newt et al lost their nerve.
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 11:13 PM
I don’t see any distinction made in that first bullet point on the test. And besides, it wasnt all tax cuts for him either. He raised them as part of his SS fix.
ernesto on December 1, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Actually, apparently we do know. That amnesty was supposed to be for around 300,000 illegals and something like 3 million showed up. After he left office he wrote, or told a friend that he regretted the mistake.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Indeed. I think the current rise of traditional conservatism is one part Barry backlash, one part crushed economy, and one part people finally feeling the full weight of government intrusion.
The purity test notwithstanding, it would be helpful if candidates clearly and specifically stated what their goals are and how they plan to achieve them. For example, if a truly conservative candidate says s/he will dismantle Obamacare if enacted, then I want specificity about how the legislation will be repealed or abolished (that is if it can be repealed).
Conservatism can’t be distilled into one issue, but it can be conveyed in a straightforward manner. I’m not concerned if a candidate’s stance on one issue is contrary to mine. What I’m interested in is clearly defined conservative goals and objectives. Rather than a purity test, the Republican party needs a solid, no nonsense strategy that addresses rescinding liberal legislation, redrafting existing policy, and specifics on new policy plans.
anXdem on December 1, 2009 at 11:16 PM
No wonder the Left hates Rush.
The List: If you substract out DOMA, you’d probably have 60% approval (actually, probably with DOMA).
So Davis is playing the idiots game…oh, I’m not like them, I read WaPo, I’m a sophisticate.
(Merriam-Webster, aka (cf. Obama) Merriam’s Dictionary)
r keller on December 1, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Ya, there’s a reason it’s called the Japan Defense Force.
boomer on December 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM
What? Now I seem to recall from the 80′s that Reagan’s budget-cutting was forcing old people to eat dog food. I was pretty young at the time, but I can swear that’s what I heard.
ddrintn on December 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Churches that fail to “chase away heretics” soon become heretical.
29Victor on December 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I thought that was just because it looked cool on t-shirts.
29Victor on December 1, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Yeah, I think the list needs some work. I haven’t paid much attention, but don’t they suggest candidates are supposed to agree with 8 out of the ten? As somebody pointed out in a thread the other day, that means somebody that supports both amnesty for illegals and porkulus would pass.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Floating Rock:
I think it was about 3 million people when all was said and done. But there was nothing in Reagan’s ideology that told him it was a wrong thing to do. I also do not think that Reagan would have built a wall. He was from a different time. He was middle aged before he even became a Republican.
He was not the kind of man who built walls, he tore them down. And I think a lot of his feelings about the issue of amnesty etc came from his feeling that America was that shining city on the hill. We have to keep these things in the context of their times.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
GOP establishment scorns purity test
====================================
D*mmit,no Purges,or Purity Tests!!UGH(I kid).
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
“ideological purity” is not the same as “work product emerging from a summit with a hostile coequal branch” so when you mention these Reagan-era policies, they are not the same as Reagan’s philosophy.
Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Bush may have run up a deficit, but it was to protect America, not to destroy it. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Look, when we talk about “small government,” we are speaking relatively. I have no problem with Medicare or even Medicaid. Can they be improved and streamlined? Of course. Here in Ohio, as in all states, I presume, we have an entire legal division of the AG’s office that does nothing but investigate and prosecute Medicare fraud (a tiny percentage of it, undoubtedly). America is wealthy enough (at least for now) to provide a safety net for our people. We just want limits on it.
cynccook on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM
You got that right, Rush. Let the Blue Dog Democrats and RINOs start their own party…
Then the Conservatives can sweep the elections.
Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Its not about having an ideologically pure GOP. Its about who is running the party and the direction in which it is being taken. Either the Moderate Minority and the Democrat lite plan or the Conservative Majority and the clear principled approach of holding true to the core values of the GOP and conservative movement.
Hellrider on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I think that might have had something to do with shutting down a lot of state hospitals.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM
ddtirin
I have never seen a can of dog food that cost less than a can of tuna fish. Of course I’m in California.
Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I think we are saying the same thing…no?
rightistliberal on December 1, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »