Let's Face It, Conservatives--AS A GROUP--Are Incompetent

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 13:13


There are millions of perfectly competent, perfectly decent individual conservatives.  You can find them almost everywhere, in every neighborhood, in every city and town across America.  But when you shift your gaze from their individual lives to the philosophy they share, and its historical record, the conclusion is inescapable: It's a complete disaster, utterly incapable of producing sound, sustainable policies.  Worse yet, the political leadership it produces is incompetent at anything, except for making excuses for itself, and shifting blame onto others--not exactly the sort of behavior that squares with the famed conservative mantra of "personal responsibility."

First, consider the macro record, which goes way beyond "heckuva job, Brownie!"  Conservatives have dominated the federal government on two separate occasions over the past 100 years.  The first was 1921-1933, the second was 2001-2009.  (Although the GOP did not control Congress throughout all of 2001-2009, its post-2006 ability to filibuster in the Senate, combined with an Executive Branch that conceived of itself as accountable to no one effectively marginalized any Democratic influence.)  Both these periods ended in financial crises of unprecedented proportions, for which conservatives disavowed any responsibility whatsoever.

Indeed, conservatives today are still trying to deny any credit whatsoever to FDR's remarkable record of saving the nation the last time conservatives screwed up this badly.  And their two-fold purpose in doing that is to (a) continue absolving themselves of any blame and to (b) block us from dealing with the crisis they've produced this time around.

Individually, I doubt that one conservative in ten would act this irresponsibly.  But as a group, it's virtually impossible for them to act any other way.

Paul Rosenberg :: Let's Face It, Conservatives--AS A GROUP--Are Incompetent
And so it's hardly surprising to note how the conservative Washington establishment is conducting itself at the beginning of the Obama era.  First, there's the battle to see who will head the Republican National Committee. TPM reports:

RNC Chair Candidate Traces Political Beginnings To Opposing Busing

By Eric Kleefeld - January 22, 2009, 11:16AM

In the race for the RNC chair, it's becoming difficult to figure out which candidate is the most problematic in terms of party outreach to minority voters and adjusting to the political realities or our times.

The Politico reports that South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson has publicly traced his political coming of age to the civil rights movement -- that is, opposition to 1960's busing policies. "Government reached into my life and grabbed me and shook me at the age of 15," Dawson told a University of South Carolina audience in 2003.

The star of this particular show has been Chip Saltsman, who sent out a CD to committee members containing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro." But some more attention is also being paid to Dawson, who has faced scrutiny for his membership in an all-white country club -- which he only resigned shortly before starting his current campaign. And now there's this, too.

And no, that's not the SNL version, though it's certainly not ready for primetime.

They're also still rallying in defense of torture and against the rule of law:

To Prosecute Torture or Not to Prosecute? Cornyn's Holder Holdup Splits GOPers


By Elana Schor - January 21, 2009, 5:28PM

Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) decision today to force a week-long delay in Eric Holder's Judiciary Committee confirmation vote has opened an unexpected fissure in the GOP. On the one side are Republicans who want Holder to echo President Obama's promise to "move forward" -- widely interpreted as a hint that Bush-era officials and operatives would not be prosecuted for the torture of detainees -- and on the other side is, well, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

and, apparently, against global warming as well:

First Shot Fired in the GOP Battle Against Action on Climate Change


By Elana Schor - January 22, 2009, 10:09AM

It happened so quietly that few media outlets noticed. But Republicans are already rolling out their strategy to delay -- and perhaps even stave off -- congressional action to combat climate change.

The Journal's blog relays the basic fact: an anonymous senator has placed one of those pesky "holds" used prerogatives to slow down action on the nomination of Lisa Jackson, the president's pick to head the EPA, as well as the nomination of Nancy Sutley, future head of the Council on Environmental Quality.

.

This is what they conceive of as staying "true to their principles."  Yet, if one did a reality check with individual conservatives, and what most of them take to be basic conservative principles (even though plenty of moderates, liberals, and even socialists share them as well)m none of this makes a lick of sense.

A lot of individual conservative really do seem to have been brainwashed around torture over the past 7 years, but that's about as far as it goes, I'd wager. Since when did individual conservatives think that the rule of law should be treated with contempt?  Since when were they proud of their racist past--or, more likely, that of other conservatives 30 years ago?   And since when did they think it was wise to gamble with our future, instead of taking prudent steps to ensure against potential risks?

For all these reasons--and more--I am in complete agreement with Barack Obama that we ought to try to reach out to everyone and make them feel welcome and included as we move forward to solve the daunting array of difficult problems we face.

The only problem is, Obama seems to want to reach out to that very collective conservative leadership that is utterly committed to continuing its incompetent and delusional ways, rather than reaching out directly to the vast majority of basically sensible individual conservatives.

Yes, I know, it's harder to reach out directly to the individuals, when their collective leadership is screaming, "Don't listen! Don't listen! Don't listen!" But right now, they're the ones that no one, outside of Versailles, is listening to.  You've got the bully pulpit, Obama.  It's time to use it, and reach out directly to those who are willing to reach back.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Let's Face It, Conservatives--AS A GROUP--Are Incompetent | 36 comments
they achieve all their goals -- they're wildly competent -- (4.00 / 2)
it's that their goals are killing us and killing responsible government too -- to privatize govt functions and show Americans that we shouldn't rely on it, starve govt of money by reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations -- and funnel public money to them and not to social/govt services, eliminate all govt. regulations and oversight that reduce profit and accountability, etc.

that Obama believes in -- and pushes for -- tax cuts and "trickle-down" and privatizing simply shows that he shares many of these goals.  

I used to be a proponent (4.00 / 2)
Of this.  Certainly they are clever in a sort of Machiavellian way, but it is proving largely self-defeating.  The permanent Republican majority has been crushed in a mere 4 years.  

They can't even run things well enough to not cause catastrophes that discredit their whole governing ethos.  The problem is that the real core of their ideas are just so destructive when applied on any substantial scale that failure becomes inevitable.  

As long as the system remains broadly democratic, I don't think they can succeed in the long run.  They almost succeeded in wrecking that this go around, so I'm not blase about the risks should another bout of conservatitis stricken America again.  The next time they might just attempt a full on overthrow of the democratic order, rather than just trying to nibble it away in bites and hope the populace doesn't notice.  

[ Parent ]
is it tho? (4.00 / 1)
They get what they want even in the minority.

They also know that because we only get 2 options they're guaranteed to be in charge again no matter what.

They have totally trained much of the public to vote against their interests, to distrust government entirely, to excuse any crime if it's committed by the powerful, and to believe that lifting those with less is bad for them instead of good.

They are even now in charge of how our government and public money and resources are being used -- thanks to what's supposed to be the "other party".

And the media and almost all our DC office-holders are so thoroughly trained to see them and their policies -- and to sell to us only theirs -- as the "serious" and "sensible" ones, that actual policies and actions the majority wants and needs don't even get considered, let alone turned into programs and laws.

And Obama supports their policies in many ways -- tax cuts, privatizing, mandates and regulations are bad, "free" trade, fighting for rights and justice are "old politics" to be discarded, punishing spying on us is wrong, Wall St and the powerful should be rewarded with our money, the military should be expanded, etc.

[ Parent ]
a recent example -- "Craig was asked whether the president was required by law to follow executive orders. " (4.00 / 1)
...     In a closed-door appearance before the Senate intelligence committee, White House counsel Gregory Craig was asked whether the president was required by law to follow executive orders. According to people familiar with his remarks, who asked for anonymity when discussing a private meeting, Craig answered that the administration did not believe he was. The implication: in a national-security crisis, Obama could deviate from his own rules. A White House official said that Craig's remarks were being "mischaracterized." [my emphasis]

Note Craig said this in response to a question--presumably from one of the Senators. As a reminder, both Sheldon Whitehouse and Russ Feingold sit on the SSCI. They're the two guys trying to legislate away this kind of Pixie Dust, the claim that the President can just ignore his own executive orders. Whitehouse, of course, is the guy who first pointed out the way Bush had used Pixie Dust to wish away Saint Ronnie's prohibitions on spying on Americans. And Whitehouse asked this very question of Michael Mukasey before he was confirmed, only to have Mukasey flip-flop on it as Attorney General.   ...

-- http://emptywheel.firedoglake....

This is just one of many new examples of "stay the course" beliefs and policies that are wholly GOP -- and bad for us too.

[ Parent ]
Executive order is not a law (0.00 / 0)
I am not clear what the concern is on this.  An Executive Order is a creation of the President and issued by his pen.  Surely if he later chooses not to follow that order himself it would take no more than a few minutes to write and sign a new order exempting him from the previous one.  The greater concern is the President not obeying Laws duly passed by Congress and signed by a President, and the lesser concern is executive agencies and apparatchiks not obeying executive orders in force.

sPh  

[ Parent ]
then why not laws about torture, rendition and gitmo (int'l family planning aid too)? why an exec order only? (4.00 / 1)
i agree with you about laws -- but Obama is using executive orders and not legislation (or not even using them at all, and saying "trust me" like with the "bailout" and intentionally not putting restrictions on the money into law) -- and at the same time his people aren't binding him to them.

The focus on executive orders itself is one of many GOP strategies to consolidate power in the Executive, and to weaken the Legislative branch -- and they didn't follow the laws or all their executive orders, intentionally.

[ Parent ]
If they've been so successful in training the public (0.00 / 0)
then why have they lost 2 elections in a row in a very big way, lost control of both houses of congress and the presidency, and are hugely unpopular with that same public? Sure, they still have their 25% or so lunatic base, and sure, they've been able until fairly recently to fool another 25%-35% or so. But that was always contingent upon being able to deliver and/or perpetuate the illusion of delivering, both of which they've failed at spectacularly. You can only get away with failing for so long, and only fool people into not realizing that you've been failing for so long, and they've run out of time and patience. It's probably going to take another generation or two, and years of renewed prosperity, before the public forgets about how disasterous and dishonest conservatives actually are, and is willing to give them another chance, a consequence of the unavoidable human tendency to take things for granted and let down one's guard when times are good. And we're a long ways from such a scenario.

I wouldn't dispute that until recently, on a political level, and for a certain subsection of people and interests who've benefitted from it in other ways, conservatism has been very successful. But that political success is over, and many of these other forms of "success" are likely going to be rolled back soon, financially and legally. So calling conservatism successful is sort of like calling Madoff successful. Yeah, for a time, and in a way, sure, but that blowback sure is a bitch. I mean, the New Deal, clearly a success (sorry, Amity and George, it was), is STILL very much with us and in largely successful form. Whereas what successful and lasting legacies of 40 years of conservatism can you point to now, let alone will likely be able to in a decade or two? What, somewhat lower marginal tax rates, weakened gun control laws, a bloated M-I complex, wealth upward that's likely going to be redistributed back downward? THAT'S a success? By that measure John Gotti was a success, for a time--until he was a dying and defeated ex-mobster doing life in a maximum security facility.

We'll see, but I don't like their odds. Meaning, I LIKE their odds. :-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Can't agree (4.00 / 2)
> but it is proving largely self-defeating.
>  The permanent Republican majority has been
> crushed in a mere 4 years.  

Can't agree.  In 8 years Cheney transferred over $1 trillion of wealth to members of his (ruling) class, changed our economy to one much more closely resembling the Gilded Age and its income stratification, transformed the Middle East exactly according to PNAC's "stir the beehive" theory, and altered the US' relationship with the world.  Quite a few of those changes are irreversible no matter how many people of goodwill may follow him.  

I have a hard time as classifying that as 'incompetent'.  Evil yes, incompetent no:  the man got more of what he wanted than any executive since FDR and possibly the most ever.

sPh

[ Parent ]
You think that much of that money (4.00 / 1)
can't be gotten back, and then some? There may well be--and certainly need to be--broad investigations into corruption and misappropriation in all of these military contracts and financial bailouts that have transferred trillions to these interests.

I'd be massively surprised if the likes of Blackwater, Halliburton, ExxonMobile, BoA, their top executives, and government officials who basically gave them money with no strings attached, will be spared DoJ investigations and prosecutions, with convictions and settlements bringing in hundreds of billions back to taxpayers. It's practically "free" money.

If this doesn't happen, then Obama will be a failure. And I don't think that he intends to fail. I know that it's fashionable on the left to respond with knee-jerk cynicism and "Yeah, right, as if that's ever going to happen, heh--what are you smoking, dude?", but that sort of reaction is just symptomatic of the job that the right has done on the country--including the left--by implanting a cynical and defeatist spirit into it these past few decades.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
The Dreaded Nazi Comparison (4.00 / 1)
Like Daniel says.

"Thousand Year Reich", anyone?


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Beat me to it, Paul (4.00 / 1)
Hitler was astonishingly competent in 1934. In 1944, well.... That was 10 years, not 1000.

I suppose you could argue that Republican hegemony lasted 40 years, and thus has been four times as successful, but then Republicans didn't actually invade Russia....

[ Parent ]
Yes, But (4.00 / 2)
They didn't really control everything for 40 years.  Most of that time they were still chipping away at constraints.  The failure to get rid of Clinton was indicative of their limited power.

9/11 really did change everything in this regard, at least.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Mea culpa. (I should let Jon Stewart be Jon Stewart, and tend to my own garden) (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, forgive me, but what good's historical accuracy, after all, when it stands in the way of a delicious snark? The truth of what you say notwithstanding, there's also the argument that from LBJ onward, watching their right flank did constrain many Democrats in ways which are hard to comprehend today outside the context in which they were forced to operate at the time. Which, of course, you know as well as I do, having been around -- as I was -- to witness the consequences.
[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 1)
Dems have been running from their own shadows for 40 years.  That much is certainly true.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Distinguish the movement from individuals (4.00 / 1)
There are conservatives, and then there is the conservative (GOP mainstream) movement.

The fact is that conservatism can work very well as a personal philosophy, but does not scale when applied as a governing principle.  

Sometimes, despite one's personal responsibility, acts beyond one's control can intervene to create chaos. That's when we want to have a safety net, or a system that recognizes Murphy's Law.  

[ Parent ]
This is interesting (4.00 / 2)
I was at a rally in Concord, New Hampshire for Obama waaaay back in the beginning of 2008, the night before the primary there.  One of the justifications that Obama gave for reaching out to the other side was exactly this.  I forget his exact language but what said essentially was that you wanted to reach out the other side to maximize your possible level of support, "because you just might pick a few of them [those on the other side] off."  This was the exact phrase he used, and it seems to mirror what you are saying Paul.  I remember hearing this at the time and thinking that it made a lot of sense.  

The problem is that the Obama of early 2008 seems somewhat different from the Obama who is currently President.  I mean, the dude was always kind of cautious policy-wise.  That makes sense for some legislation, but not for this stimulus package.  Like Obama, I don't believe that any one party has a monopoly on all the right answers.  But right now the Republicans seem to have a monopoly on all the wrong ones.  At some point Obama is going to see this.  The question will be how fast it takes.  

re Conservatives ARE Incompetent (4.00 / 4)
What DID happen to people who were Republicans but were competent?
Did the Bush administration just hire Brad Schlotzman (?) type Right-Thinking-Americans?
Do I just view them as all incompetents because their mind-set is so off to me?
I don't know if anybody else remembers the story about the woman in charge of Abstinence Only Education who was blogging to her "like-types" about some fellow she met on an airplane: he said hiya, what do you do? she told him, he said sounds interesting but does it work?
She said she was taken aback; then she wrote on her blog: who CARES whether or not it works because it's RIGHT and it's God's work (I am paraphrasing, this was from 2001 or very early in the Bus Administration).  She was justified before her Lord.
I thought, whoa nelly, I am paying your salary and "I" care if it works.
And that was a no-account-type job which was not much in the public eye.  WHAT was going on in the rest of the administration?
Oh, final question if anybody knows: the people that DOJ hired because they were Right-Thinking-Americans, can they be fired due to illegal hiring?  Are we stuck with them for eternity in Voting Rights group?  Do they have to be moved around to nothing-type jobs like Schlotzman said he did with the hold-ovres from the Clinton Administration?
This burrowing-in stuff really bothers me.
I REALLY want Monica Goodling (what a name!) and Bradley Schlotzman to be prosecuted because they were TOLD what they were doing was wrong by career hires who said you CAN'T do that and they did it anyway.  Remember Monica (I took an oath to the President?) and her tearful testimony before Pat Leahy?  Yikes.
But in the end they are all so typical.
Yup, You Said It! (4.00 / 2)
I'll just respond to one of your points:

The Versailles media assumption seems to be that nothing can be done about the illegal hires. Which pretty much guarantees that something can be done, but the bipartisan establishment doesn't want to go there.

Naturally, I think we should go there.  Big time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
create a new federal department (4.00 / 1)
the Bureau of Incompetent Burrowers.

the BIB mission will be to pound the Bonneville Salt Flats into more perfect flatness using hand tools.

[ Parent ]
Hand Tools? (0.00 / 0)
You need to be more specific.

Shovels?  Or trowels?

Or, to put it functionally, do we want them stooped over?  Or down on their hands and knees?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
they can (0.00 / 0)
use pogo sticks for all I care.
[ Parent ]
Pogo Sticks On The Bonneville Salt Flats? (0.00 / 0)
Interesting choice.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
another example (4.00 / 2)
This WaPo article discusses how there are no case files for Gitmo prisoners.  It's astonishing.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Not sure if it is right or wrong (4.00 / 1)
There is an article in today's Sun Times (Chicago's more liberal newspaper) about how Mc Cain will not vote for the stimulus package.

When I first read the headline I thought who cares?  Would there have been a similar article about Kerry in January 2005?

Then I realized that all this honoring of Mc Cain, meeting with Mc Cain etc by Obama after the election just elevated what Mc Cain thinks about the legislation.

If Obama thinks Mc Cain is a great man with worthy ideas then his opposition should be reported and discussed.
At least that is my take on why even bother to ask.  Perhaps I am wrong and he is just the most likely Republican to go to for a quote.

Also I do believe in dialogue and reaching across the aisle but with the caveat that it is done not so much in the public eye.  The smoke filled rooms back in the day allowed some horse trading and idea trading without political hits.  Maybe not always the most transparent but sometimes it can be more effective.  

If Obama signaled to Mc Cain that the door always open and his input welcomed on how to move forward but not in the public eye I think it would have accomplished the same thing but blunted some of this publicity.

it is what he thnks -- he grants them & their policies even more legitimacy -- (4.00 / 1)
Obama to meet Republicans on Hill next week -- http://www.reuters.com/article...

And he is intentionally and openly crafting legislation and policy like the "stimulus" not for our needs, but for their votes.

[ Parent ]
disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think the publicity is an important part of Obama's strategy. The press likes it, and it could bring McCain's constituents around. Plus, I think Obama knows that McCain is on the wrong side of history. The economy is in shambles and McCain votes "no" on an economic stimulus... not good for McCain. I say, the more publicity, the better.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 1)
McCain practically calls Obama a terrorist--and then has to jump in and restrain his followers from taking his lead.  Obama says McCain is a great man with worthy ideas.

Well, how about the idea that Obama is not really a terrorist, perhaps, but....

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Didn't you get the memo Paul? (0.00 / 0)
That McCain is gone. There's a new and improved McCain and he's like way totally different! That Sarah person temporarily brainwashed him into not being his true selves...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Few Choices (0.00 / 0)
The number of those Republicans who might vote for the stimulus package is pretty small: the Maine ladies and Specter are the most likely followed by McCain and Voinovich.  Republicans who played moderate fared poorly in the last election (Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman).  I don't think that the Judd Greggs of the world will be lining up to make Obama a success.

This will pass (unless the scorched earth crowd gets a major PR coup) but I don't think it can get wide Republican acceptance.

[ Parent ]
I made the mistake of reading the NYT editorials (4.00 / 2)
on Google news. The NYT is nothing more than a shill for conservative interests these days. It's a joke. Nothing but one conservative talking point after another. Incompetence is too kind a word. Republican group think is starting to resemble a suicide pact where the future of the economy and the country are concerned.
Not exactly (4.00 / 1)
Kristol, Brooks, Friedman for the most part, Kristof too often, Dowd in her own way, many contributors, even the editorials sometimes, push conservative ideas. And of course there's the legacy of Safire, Rosenthal and others. But there's also Krugman, Herbert, Cohen, Blow, often Collins, and usually the editorials, which are clearly liberal.

Now WaPo, it's much more consistently conservative. But even it has some liberals, like Dionne, Robinson and Meyerson.

And in their own unique way, I'd argue that the likes of Kristol, Brooks, Will and Krauthammer make an excellent argument for liberalism, by being such dishonest and contemptible shills for a discredited and dying movement. Ooh, the New Deal failed!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You think Cohen is a liberal? (0.00 / 0)
I guess it's possible.  Even though conservatives are the most likely suspects for outright idiocy, I guess that doesn't mean there are no liberal idiots.  But if Cohen is a liberal, all I can say is, it's liberalism's misfortune.
[ Parent ]
Roger, not Richard (0.00 / 0)
Roger writes for the NYT, and seems liberal and decent to me. Richard writes for WaPo, and is an idiot. But if you're referring to the former, what are your objections?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Incompetent at what? (4.00 / 1)
Conservatives are good to excellent at:

Controlling the terms of debate
Stealing elections
Restricting the vote
Hassling voters to an extreme
Gerrymandering
Redistributing wealth
Giving corporations tax gifts
Creating endless super dynasties of billionaires
Maintaining endless super dynasties of billionaires
Looting the Treasury
Employing their friends when unqualified
Privatizing
Ignoring the poor
Ignoring the disabled
Stealing pensions
Shipping jobs overseas
Lying
Stretching the truth
Eavesdropping
Eliminating civil liberties
Eliminating civil rights
Convincing many people to act against their own self interest
Starting wars
Waging wars on  the cheap so as to create future problems
Torture
Raping natural resources
Further polluting
Encouraging bigotry

That's a lot of competence.  Sure, conservatives are bad at promoting the general welfare.  Who says that is their goal?  There is little or no evidence to promote that viewpoint.  If you are in the "reality based" world perhaps you should reconsider the notion of incompetence and replace it with greed, amorality, selfishness, short sightedness, venality and a host of other less than positive qualities.

Incompetence (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, that's always bugged me. Rethugs were usually great at getting elected and controlling the dialog, but absolutely SUCKED at governing. Dems are on the whole great at governing, but SUCK at campaigning and standing up for themselves. If we had a hybrid with the best traits of both, that'd be great.
Precisely (0.00 / 0)
See my diary series, The Political Duality of Rep And Dem

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Let's Face It, Conservatives--AS A GROUP--Are Incompetent | 36 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox