But don't worry, all we need to do is shed the mantle of GOP corruption, get back to the right-wing basics and everything will be fine. Oh, and maybe elect a new American public while we're at it ...
« The Outsiders | Main | The Dog That Didn't Bark » Our Brand Is (In) Crisis30 May 2008 12:42 pm Comments (44)
if you look at the details of the poll, the party positions are phrased by a colleague from James Carville's Democratic polling shop. 
That first post is not from the real MoeLarryandJesus. Granted, there was the usual condescension, but there was no real comic flair like we have come to expect from the real Moe. He did not call them 'repiglicans.' There was no use of the term 'Bushpig.' I miss the one true Moe.
"There was no use of the term 'Bushpig.'" Of course there was. Read it again, chuckles. Good luck getting your GED.
How did I miss Bushpig? Sorry about that. Usually it is twinned with 'repiglican' so that may have thrown me off. Thank Gaia that Moe is back. I am your biggest fan. I hate all the other Moes who pose as you, and smear your good name. You are the best. Ban the Fake Moes! All Hail the Real MOE!
Thanks, MuhammadLuLuandGaia. I apologize for calling you "chuckles" and for calling your educational achievements into question. Sometimes I get a little hot under the collar and say things I don't really mean. Why do we hurt the ones we love?
I like the title. I rarely hear anyone else mentioning "Our Brand is Crisis" even though I thought it was a pretty good documentary.
I agree with Ross that the GOP could have a better message, but that poll was lousy evidence for this point. If you ask people about taxes, trade, the economy (3 financial issues), and the horribly unpopular Iraq war, naturally you'll come to the conclusion that the GOP message is unpopular. If they had instead asked about gun rights, gay marriage and taxes, we would all go away with a much sunnier opinion about the appeal of the Republican message.
Gyrd writes: "If they had instead asked about gun rights, gay marriage and taxes, we would all go away with a much sunnier opinion about the appeal of the Republican message." Any Republican who still thinks the Dems are "coming after our guns" is a complete fucking moron. The Dems don't give two shits about your guns anymore, pal. I realize the issue still resonates with some brain-dead yahoos in your party, but if you think you're going to be winning national elections with it these days you're hopeless. The same goes for gay marriage - it just doesn't work when it's about all you have and there's a stupid GOP-run war going on and the economy is in the toilet. But good luck running a 1988 campaign in 2008.
Moe, you'll notice I didn't say that I think gays and guns will win the 2008 presidential election. Iraq and the economy have a good chance of delivering the Whitehouse to the Dems. My point is that the poll leaves one thinking that the GOP turns voters off with it's message, and that the poll does this by asking questions on which the GOP fares poorly while not asking questions on which we do well. I think you're tacitly conceding the point to me, that the GOP message on guns and gay marriage is more popular than that of the Democrats. As you point out, the Democrats are terrified of even bringing up guns these days. That said, I don't think today's GOP would be doing nearly as well in swingy rural states like NM, NV, and WV without the gun issue. Is gay marriage a 1988 issue? New shoes keep dropping all the time (see CA and NY in the past couple weeks).
And while I'm at it (from the campaignspot at National Review today), here's evidence of guns being a this-year issue, and not a 1988 issue: "Pfleger's ties to Obama are pretty well known, but there are some additional details worth noting. Like the donations and state-funded grants: One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs. But perhaps most notably is that in protesting a gun store, Pfelger told an assembled crowd, "We're going to snuff out [store owner] John Riggio," and "We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws." " Gyrd -- I think we can be sure that the NRA will let us know what they think of Obama's Chicago views on gun control. With the Iraq war receding as an issue (but the bad economy probably growing as one), and Obama constantly embarrassing himself with his views, I think this presidential election really still is up in the air.
Stop making me look bad with rational arguments, Gyrd, or I'll have to call you "Chuckles." And if you really embarrass me again, I'll call you "a Repiglican." Now, excuse me while I go back to polishing the sabre over my posters of Harlan Ellison.
Butt out, chuckles. I'm trying to argue with a Repiglican.
Something I noticed in the economy question, as the "Democrat" solution to high gas prices: We should repeal the special tax breaks for companies moving jobs overseas and for the oil This got most of the votes. Taken at face value, this seems to suggest that most people think that raising taxes on oil companies will reduce the cost of oil, which makes no logical sense. However, I don't think that most people answering the questions really think that. Actually, I don't think they actually thought much about the content of the statements at all. Here's my theory: most of the people didn't evaluate the statements on their rational merits, but on their rhetorical, emotional flair. What may you notice about the "Democratic" answers in the poll is that they all take a particular sensationalist form: 1) Identify and express sympathy for some problem that Americans are having, 2) Name some "bad guy" and blame the problem on them, and 3) Promise to make things better by sticking it to that bad guy. So the economy statement goes like: 1) You are suffering from high oil prices, 2) It's the evil oil companies' fault! 3) We're going to get those oil companies good and make it better! It makes no logical sense, but it makes people feel good to hear it. It conveys emotional concern for their problems, gives them a tangible scapegoat to focus their rage on, and makes them feel that they have an opportunity to "get even". Republicans need to learn from this. I always hear the oil issue presented by them along the lines of "We need to develop our own resources so as to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, blah blah blah..." To the average American, that's boring, and lacking in the emotional red meat they crave. Here's the way to present it: "1) Americans are paying $4 at the pump and rising. It's become almost impossible for them to support their families! 2) This is the fault of environmentalists and Democrats, who are standing in the way of everything we need to do to bring down prices, because they want gas to be expensive and don't give a damn about your families! 3) We need to kick their sorry asses out of the way, so you can have $1 gas again, before you lose your house!" Here's the thing: as much as I hear conservatives wax poetic about the "greatness" of the American people, the fact is that most people are emotionalist and irrational. They will respond far better to concerned-sounding appeals to their insecurities and problems, and their desire for someone to blame, than they will to abstract logical argument. This is especially true in a country where women are allowed to vote. Republicans need to learn this. Populist rhetoric and demonization work, and they can be used in support of any position. There's no reason it has to be exclusive either. Use reason to appeal to those who will hear it, and emotionalist persuasion on the moronic masses.
Gyrd replies: "My point is that the poll leaves one thinking that the GOP turns voters off with it's message, and that the poll does this by asking questions on which the GOP fares poorly while not asking questions on which we do well. I think you're tacitly conceding the point to me, that the GOP message on guns and gay marriage is more popular than that of the Democrats. As you point out, the Democrats are terrified of even bringing up guns these days. That said, I don't think today's GOP would be doing nearly as well in swingy rural states like NM, NV, and WV without the gun issue. Is gay marriage a 1988 issue? New shoes keep dropping all the time (see CA and NY in the past couple weeks)." My point, Gyrd, is that the GOP (and you) are asking the wrong questions. The war and the economy and gas prices will control this election, and the GOP has no shot on those issues. None. Gay marriage? McCain doesn't give a damn, to his credit. Unlike the Bushes, he's not a complete bag of shit, though he has tried to move in their direction since 2000. And no, gay marriage wasn't a 1988 issue - back then the Bushpig ran on Willie Horton and some bullshit about flagburning. As for guns, there is no "Democratic message." They no longer care, not that most of them ever really did. It's just another bullshit message the GOP won't let go of because they had some success with it in the past. A poll asking what the most important issues were to voters which followed up with questions about the top issues would - of course - be tilted hugely in favor of the Dems. "With the Iraq war receding as an issue (but the bad economy probably growing as one), and Obama constantly embarrassing himself with his views, I think this presidential election really still is up in the air." Good luck on the "receding as an issue" argument. The war is going to be shoved up McCain's ass every single day. And since he's way past his prime and can't avoid gaffes that show how little he really knows about it - like his current claim that troop levels there are now "pre-surge," he'll be the one embarrassing himself on a regular basis. So of course the GOP-owned radio loudmouths will be yammering about how Obama is an un-American (meaning he's not white) Muslim (because Repiglicans love to lie) who wants to violate our wimmenfolk. Even when they have something to run on Repiglicans enjoy smear campaigns. This year it's all they have, and it will be uglier than ever.
The Douche writes: "What may you notice about the "Democratic" answers in the poll is that they all take a particular sensationalist form: 1) Identify and express sympathy for some problem that Americans are having, 2) Name some "bad guy" and blame the problem on them, and 3) Promise to make things better by sticking it to that bad guy." That analysis is pretty fucking funny coming from someone who was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. You know, the one where the Bushpigs used the fact that Americans were consumed with fear after 9/11 to identify Saddam Hussein as the bad guy and that sticking it to him would make t all better. You remember that, chuckles, don't you? Didn't work, did it? Now the argument for attaching a whirlwind profits tax to the oil companies is much easier to make. Since the Iraq War was actually fought on behalf of the fuckers, let's MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT. They should be happy to do so as patriots who have profited outlandishly as a direct result of the war. During WW2 the automotive companies basically stopped production in order to help out with the war effort. But then that was a real and serious war and we had real and serious leaders and today we have Dumbya and Dickless, two wholly-owned, perpetually greased whores for Big Oil.
bag of shit Bushpig bullshit bullshit shoved up McCain's ass Repiglicans Repiglicans The Douche fucking Bushpigs chuckles fuckers Dumbya and Dickless greased whores
I should probably explain what that post at 6:18 is all about. Sometimes--as was the case with my comments at 5:49 and 6:10--my posts are so lengthy and subtle that the casual reader might want an edited version that includes only the most vital points. I'm happy to contribute such edited editions from time to time, and have done so above. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions if something's still not clear. Thanks for reading.
By the way, I realize that sometimes my language can get a little salty. Personally I think we're all grown-ups and should be able to handle the rough-and-tumble of political debate. But out of deference to those with more delicate sensibilities I'll post directly below an edited comment that summarizes my thinking without using profanity, ridicule and abuse.
The Democratic positions as described here suffer from the defect of being untethered to reality. There aren't any "special tax breaks for oil companies and companies that move jobs overseas," so repealing those imaginary tax breaks probably won't do much. If there were any special tax breaks like that, they would inconsistent with laissez-faire principles, so Republicans should definitely oppose them. While they're at it, I think they should oppose "college admissions preferences for the children of illegal immigrants" and "legal restrictions on exploring for oil right here at home," and start supporting "middle class tax relief."
The Douche also said: "Republicans need to learn from this. I always hear the oil issue presented by them along the lines of "We need to develop our own resources so as to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, blah blah blah..." To the average American, that's boring, and lacking in the emotional red meat they crave. Here's the way to present it: "1) Americans are paying $4 at the pump and rising. It's become almost impossible for them to support their families! 2) This is the fault of environmentalists and Democrats, who are standing in the way of everything we need to do to bring down prices, because they want gas to be expensive and don't give a damn about your families! 3) We need to kick their sorry asses out of the way, so you can have $1 gas again, before you lose your house!"" This would work if the voters were all as stupid as you are, Douche. But since all Dems have to do is point out that gas prices have MORE THAN DOUBLED since Dumbya & the Douchetones took over in 2001 it won't work on anyone with an IQ in triple digits. Anyone who thinks higher gas prices concern the Republican leadership is even dumber than you are. There are only two things that still make Dick Cheney get it up these days - one is, of course, his collection of lesbian snuff films. The other is the rising cost of oil.
TheRetardedLowRentJamesCarvilleWannabee: Didn't work, did it? Actually, it worked quite well. Perhaps you recall that the war used to have popular support (I'm making the questionable assumption that you have capacity for long-term memory). Remember all those polls, touted by Democrats, showing that a majority of people believed as fact that Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11? The fact is, regardless of whatever arguments intelligent people were making for the war, the masses didn't really support it for those reasons. Just like the masses don't oppose it for rational reasons now, regardless of what good reasons there may be for opposing it. Now the argument for attaching a whirlwind profits tax to the oil companies is much easier to make. Since the Iraq War was actually fought on behalf of the fuckers, let's MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT. Regardless of whether or not one buys into your conspiratorial retard-rodeo view of reality, I'd like to know how MAKING THEM PAY FOR IT is supposed to bring gas prices down instead of making them even higher.
The Douche stupid Douche. Dumbya & the Douchetones even dumber than you are. lesbian snuff films.
Re: I think you're tacitly conceding the point to me, that the GOP message on guns and gay marriage is more popular than that of the Democrats The Democrats don't really have much of a message on either. They oppose gay marriage (but support civil unions), and you can find them all over the map on gun control. Neither issue has all that much traction right now. They are both "luxury" issues, things that people care about during peace and prosperity when more vital aspects of life are not under threat. An unwinnable war, skyrocketing energy prices, a dead-in-the-water economy, and an administration that can't find its butt with both hands and a road map-- these have driven God, guns and gays off center stage. Re: Americans are paying $4 at the pump and rising. It's become almost impossible for them to support their families! 2) This is the fault of environmentalists and Democrats, who are standing in the way of everything we need to do to bring down prices, because they want gas to be expensive and don't give a damn about your families! 3) We need to kick their sorry asses out of the way, so you can have $1 gas again, before you lose your house!" That won't fly. People don't blame environmentalists for oil prices, they blame A) OPEC (or more generically "the Arabs", against whom 9-11 already stirred up a great deal of ill will), B) the oil companies (they're the ones charging those prices and making humungous profits), and C) the occupant of the White House on whose desk the buck always stops, deservedly or not. If you had a Democrat in the White House you could pull this off. Instead George Bush has morphed into Jimmy Carter and the GOP is going to suffer as the Democrats did in 1980. Deal with it. Re: This is especially true in a country where women are allowed to vote. You know the country's most ferociously emotional and irrational episode occured long before women had the vote. I am speaking of the 1850s and 1860s.
The Douche quotes and replies: "Didn't work, did it? Actually, it worked quite well. Perhaps you recall that the war used to have popular support (I'm making the questionable assumption that you have capacity for long-term memory). Remember all those polls, touted by Democrats, showing that a majority of people believed as fact that Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11? The fact is, regardless of whatever arguments intelligent people were making for the war, the masses didn't really support it for those reasons. " The "didn't work, did it?" question was an answer to the third prong of the Repiglican Master Plan - the part where the attack on Iraq would "make it all better." Didn't work, did it? The fact is that intelligent people made arguments against the war and they were right. Venal warmongering assholes made arguments in favor of the war, along with a few clueless chickenhawks. The war never made sense - that fact, along with the fact that it was run by morons and maniacs, is why it failed. "Regardless of whether or not one buys into your conspiratorial retard-rodeo view of reality, I'd like to know how MAKING THEM PAY FOR IT is supposed to bring gas prices down instead of making them even higher." Who said it would bring prices down, chuckles? It would simply help pay off the debt for the war that they wanted so badly - the very war that has had a direct influence on the rising cost of oil, which has led to their much higher profits. And it's quite amusing to have a moron like you - a fool who is worried about the establishment of a freaking caliphate! - refer to my conspiratorial view of reality. It's not a conspiracy when they do it right out in the open and morons like you applaud them for it. Or are you seriously dumb enough to think that high gas prices bother the Bushpigs even for a single goddamn moment? In the retard-rodeo you're not even bright enough to be one of the clowns.
Somebody respond. I will not be ignored.
Bend over, grab your ankles, and SQUEEEEEEEAAAAAALLLLLLLLL like a repiglican!
Oink, oink!
@Gyrd: So Dems own the substantive issues, while Reps are kings of the culture war clubhouse. Got it.
concerning the trolled trolls: "So Dems own the substantive issues, while Reps are king of the culture war clubhouse. Got it." Nice try, Repiglican.
The fake MoeLarryAndJesus fake MoeLarryAndJesueses: "concerning the trolled trolls: 'So Dems own the substantive issues, while Reps are king of the culture war clubhouse. Got it.' Nice try, Repiglican." Nice try, fake MoeLarryAndJesus.
Re: This is especially true in a country where women are allowed to vote. Women are not necessarily more 'emotional' than men. There is some reason to believe (see Carol Gilligan, etc.) that they tend to have a different kind of rationality, one that focuses more on individuals and one's obligations to them rather than on abstract ideals. This is a generalization with many exceptions of course. In terms of politics (at least in Catholic countries) women generally have a _moderating_ effect on the politics of the country and less sympathy for extreme movements of the left or right. Women were traditionally more anti-Communist than men, for example, and in Peru's last election voted for the social democrat rather than for the radical socialist-nationalist (men had the opposite preference).
@concerned: You're illustrating exactly why the Democrats take a pounding on cultural issues. Lots of voters see cultural issues as the important substantive ones, and won't vote for a candidate who not only disagrees with them, but doesn't even take their issues seriously. And think about it -- Dems want a top income tax rate at 38%, while R's think it should be 33%. Dems and R's both support free trade, except when it hurts their district. Clinton declared a policy of regime change in Iraq, while Bush carried it out starting off with mainstream Democratic support. Why, exactly, are these the big and 'substantive' issues on which the election should be decided when, if you scratch beneath the surface, the two parties are so similar? The choice between traditional and gay marriage, the difference between Scalia and Ginsburg, seems much starker to me, and to many other voters.
@Gyrd: Important issues have already seen there time in the intellectual marketplace - you're not going to see a chasm between the parties on economic issues, as the supporting principles have already been decided. However, there is a great deal of importance in what you see as insignificant compared to the stark contrast seen on social issues. Both parties recognize that baby steps are required to reform solid bulwark elements of American society. On smaller, fringe-ish issues, the gloves come off, as the results are relatively less important. You're mistaking heat for a fire. As for your first graf, Repubs never fail to make the argument about how their stances can garner votes, rather than about the underlying issues themselves. It reeks of cynicism, and it grows tiresome.
This is the fault of environmentalists and Democrats, who are standing in the way of everything we need to do to bring down prices I swear, Repubs think ANWR is some neo-Canaan. So you think environmentalists and Dems acquiesced and stepped aside for your bold proposals, that somehow prices would magically plummet? Seems to me that your cause is the only effect you're seeking.
Re: The choice between traditional and gay mar How different are the Democrats and Republicans here? Forget party platforms: no one takest hose seriously and the candidates routinely ignore them. The difference between actual Democrats and Republicans on this issue is not much greater than their differences on other issues. Most Democrats oppose mariage rights but support civil unions. Many, perhaps most Republicans, agree with that, albeit less enthusiastically.
JonF, It seems to me that typical elected Republicans would vote to appoint judges who don't think the Constitution requires gay marriage, while typical elected Democrats would appoint judges who do. Rhetorically, both parties like to avoid the discussion for the most part. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is the usual bipartisan refrain. But the judicial appointments are widely differing and greatly consequential. I happen to be a Romneyite, and wish more GOPers did support universal coverage in principal. In practice however, most Republicans got behind the prescription drug benefit, and always vote however the AARP tells them to. That's how real politicians of both parties stay in office. Voters would definitely trust the GOP (more than they currently do) to reform entitlements if conservatives would vocally speak of their belief in meeting the needs of the needy. That's one of the things most Republicans support in practice, but won't admit to in principal, without a lot of equivocation, out of deference to doctrinaire libertarians and talk-radio Reaganites.
Gyrd writes: "I happen to be a Romneyite" That's okay. I still support your right to marry.
Re: It seems to me that typical elected Republicans would vote to appoint judges who don't think the Constitution requires gay marriage, while typical elected Democrats would appoint judges who do. First off, only the President and (I think) a few governors are in a position to appoint judges so the issue of judicial appointments is salient only in a tiny number of races. Secondly I would not care to bet my life savings on either of the two propositions, that a Democratic-appointed judge would vote to impose gay marriage or that a Republican appointee would not. Judges are surprisngly independent creatures once seated, as witness the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court over the last generation with a solid majority of GOP-apppinted justices. Re: I happen to be a Romneyite, and wish more GOPers did support universal coverage in principal. Good for you. Govs Romney and Schwartzeneggar are two major exceptions there, and a couple years ago I had hoped that their approaches (or similar approaches) would catch on. In past off-the-record (or off-the-cuff) interviews statements a fairly large numbers of noted GOPers (including McCain and Newt Gingrich) have expreessed support for universal coverage in principle. Unfortuantely on this issue, as on Iraq, the Party Line has been been rigidly maintained and most GOP candidates for national office, including John McCain, have been forced to toe the rightwing line. If anything saves the GOP it will have to be the state level establishments where orthodoxy is not so strictly maintained and experiments are allowed. I would also recommend Charlie Crist of Florida to you. His recently passed experiment with health insurance for the working poor is less ambitious than Romeny's plan (and may not work), but it shows that he is aware of the probvlem and is willing to work at solving it. Re: Voters would definitely trust the GOP (more than they currently do) to reform entitlements if conservatives would vocally speak of their belief in meeting the needs of the needy. Entitlement reform will have to come from the Democrats. I believe it would have had a chance had Al Gore been elected in 2000, since the Clinton administration had raised the issue and the surplus that Bush blew on his wars and tax cuts could have been used to fund the effort. The public isn't going to let the GOP anywhere near Social Security especially now that the party has been branded not just with hostility to the program, but with a general incompetence at accomplishing anything useful.
JonF writes: "First off, only the President and (I think) a few governors are in a position to appoint judges so the issue of judicial appointments is salient only in a tiny number of races. Secondly I would not care to bet my life savings on either of the two propositions, that a Democratic-appointed judge would vote to impose gay marriage or that a Republican appointee would not. Judges are surprisngly independent creatures once seated, as witness the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court over the last generation with a solid majority of GOP-apppinted justices." This was the case here in Massachusetts, where most of the members of the SJC were appointed by Republicans. Of course Massachusetts Republicans are almost never fire-breathing nutjob Repiglicans of the sort I suppose Gyrd is so devoted to.
Well, I know this thread is getting old and off topic, but I've still got two more cents. Yes, Presidents and Governors appoint judges. But they have to be approved by the senate at the Federal level, and probably the state senates in most states. So that's not just one election (POTUS), it's 101 elections, federally speaking. And considering that Representatives usually are the ones who go on to become senators, I'd be very interested to hear the positions on judges held by those mere reps as well, even if they would hold no direct immediate influence. As to the independence of judges, I think you'll notice that this has been a one way street. GOP judges sometimes take on a progressive jurisprudence. I've never heard of a Dem appointed judge moving towards originalism in my lifetime. The 'independence' (aka leftward drift) observed in justices Stevens, Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy does indeed blur the distinction between the parties on this front. But if you asked any interest group on the left or right if it mattered which party was appointing these judges, I think their answer would be unanimous. Whole other long debate -- I do think jurisprudence is part of the GOP message which is both right on the merits, and a political winner. And I think you're right that the public won't be trusting the GOP with Soc. Security or Medicare anytime soon. Only Nixon could go to China, only California governors who are GOP can raise taxes, and only the Dems have the political credibility with voters to reign-in/reform entitlements.
Re: I do think jurisprudence is part of the GOP message which is both right on the merits, and a political winner. I partially disagree. I dislike judicial excesses, though I think my definition of "exceses" migh tbe more limited than yours. But I have noticed that it generally depends whose ox is being gored: the Supreme Court had no constitutional warrant to thrust itself into the middle of the 2000 election dispute, but with few honorable exceptions conservatives don't generally complain about that business, though I can think of few epsiodes more deserving of the term "judicial usurpation of politics". (It's epsecially egregious since the result of leaving the matter to the Florida legislature, or the US House, would have been the same: Bush as president).
Re: judicial excess, election 2000 There were two parts to that decision. A 7-2 ruling that the recount as it was going was unconstitutional, as well as the better known 5-4 that time for recounting was up. I should say that all the conservatives on the court, to my knowledge, agree with the precedent of courts fighting to preserve equal voting rights. I've never heard any of them say that the Feds had no right to secure voting rights in the formerly racially segregated South. So, I just always like to point out that the Court has correctly long acknowledged a responsibility to ensure voting rights within the states, as required by the equal protection clause. Hence the 7-2 decision. On the 5-4 part, that does seem to me to be overstepping themselves.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
All you need to do to cleanse the "GOP brand" is have a massive seppuko session in front of the Capitol involving most of the House and Senate Republicans and the top 1000 or so members of the Bushpig administration. Toss in Jonah Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity just for laughs.
After that, I'll be happy to say a fresh start is possible.
(Pause now while the wingnuts look up "seppuku.")
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 30, 2008 1:10 PM