Yup, this is great progress (Wizbang)

With the elections last November, we were all treated to endless blatherings about how the new, Democratically-controlled congress would be would be cleaner, more honest, more responsible, more responsive to the American people, and far, far more ethical. So, what have the Democrats done now that they've retaken the majority?

Well, let's just look at two of the women who were committed to cleaning up the House (and Senate).

First up, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) gave up her long-standing position on the Military Construction Appropriations Committee, after it came out that she had funneled literally hundreds of billions of dollars to her husband's company. (There was no word on whether Jack Abramoff was involved, and Representative William Jefferson ~~Clinton~~ was overheard to say "DAMN, she makes me look like an amateur!")

Then, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that she would be leading a Congressional delegation to Syria, where they will be meeting with "dorktator" Bashar Assad. Apparently Ms. Pelosi is a bit too busy trying to act as a "shadow president" to read the Constitution, which clearly dictates that the governance of our nation's foreign relations is primarily the bailiwick of the executive branch, with the legislative given a secondary, "advise and consent" role.

This, combined with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's recent statements that he had been meeting with foreign governments and "trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover... there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."

There was a time when "politics stopped at the water's edge," and Americans kept their disagreements at home. Now, partly because of the explosion in the communications field and partly because of the incredibly polarizing nature of politics these days, we have high-ranking officials of one political party (both those holding public office and those not) working towards setting up a second government alongside the legal first one, circumventing such inconvenient niceties as elections, laws, traditions, or even common decency.

This is not unheard of in democracies. England actually has formalized the process, with the party out of power setting up its own "shadow government" of officials ready to step up and take the reins of power. But it works there, largely, because in England they have no fixed election cycle. The governing party can change almost literally at the drop of a hat.

Here in the United States, it works differently. Pending highly unusual circumstances, George W. Bush will remain president until January 2009, and Congress will remain Democratic until that date. There is no chance that an election will be called before then that might upset that balance.

What Pelosi and Dean, among others, are doing is at the minimum a violation of the Logan Act (which forbids private citizens from engaging in formal negotiations with foreign governments without government authorization) and, at worst, high treason. They are undermining the current government's ability to negotiate in good faith today, by promising these other nations that if they just hold out until 2009, they'll get a much better deal from the Democrats.

There was a huge stink about an alleged "October Surprise" from 1980, when Ronald Reagan's campaign was accused of interfering with the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Critics said that Reagan had pledged concesions to Iran if he was elected president -- if they did not release the hostages before the election, which would have given President Carter a huge boost in the polls. Nothing conclusive was ever proven, several thorough investigations came to the conclusion that the story was bogus, and I personally think it was a load of crap.

Here's where the Dan Rather-inspired "fake but accurate" meme comes in handy. The allegations against the Reagan campaign were most likely bogus, but they demonstrate just how important a principle is being violated here. Pelosi and her travelling buddies are meeting with Bashar Assad of Syria, one of the biggest backers of terrorism in the world (I think Iran edges them out), and I would be tremendously surprised if the topic of how a Democratic government would deal with Syria never came up.

It should be noted that Syria is on the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism, has dominated Lebanon for decades, is implicated in several high-level assassinations, has been a sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, and has been supplying terrorists in Iraq with weapons.

So, just what the hell is Pelosi doing? I have my theory.

One of the weaker points of the Democrats has always been seen as their stance on foreign policy. Jimmy Carter's legacy in that field left a deep mark, when lofty principles led to "the perfect being the enemy of the good" and long-standing allies of the United States who weren't the best of people were cast aside, while glib promises and gentle words from the most brutal and vicious dictators were taken as gospel. In fact, much of our problems today can be directly linked to the actions of Jimmy Carter -- although, to be fair, he didn't cause them, but certainly exacerbated the hell out of them.

So what Pelosi, Dean, et al are doing is simply trying to bolster their foreign policy credentials by publicly meeting with foreign states, discussing weighty matters, and in general looking like they deserve to be trusted with the reins of power.

While this might help their efforts back home, what they don't see -- or don't care about -- is the incalculable damage they are doing to not just this administration, but our very system of government. It is an assault on the Constitution itself, on the principle of separation of powers, of three separate but equal branches. They are attempting to insert the Congress and the Democratic Party into what has been, for centuries and by Constitutional edict, the province of the Chief Executive.

They are showing just how incredibly myopic they are. Sure, irritating the Bush administration scores points with some voters, and it is a good political tactic -- irritated people tend to make mistakes, mistakes that can be capitalized upon. But the damage they inflict will not simply go away on January 20, 2009. The precedent will have been set that Congress can bypass the President and make its own foreign policy, conduct its own talks with foreign nations, and leave the Chief Executive unable to exercise his Constitutional duties. Somehow the thought that these very same rules might apply to a Democratic president and a Republican congress -- even though just such a state existed less than a decade ago.

One of the reasons that the United States has not only survived, but prospered as a nation is that while politicians come and go, and parties rise and fall, the fundamental precepts remain solid. We have a democratic republic. We live by the Constitution, amending it when necessary. We have three branches of government, co-equal, with separate powers and areas of responsibility, but with the ability to check the actions of the others.

The Democrats want to hold political power. That's no big deal. So do the Republicans. It's the nature of political parties. (With some exceptions. I've always thought of the Libertarians' goal was to hold political power with the intent of NOT using it, but simply to keep it out of others' hands, and I like that notion.) But there are acceptable ways to achieve that, and the traditional way has been through elections and other legal processes.

But here, the Democratic leadership -- damn them -- are committing a flagrant, naked, unconstitutional power grab. And the Bush administration and other Republican officials -- damn them -- are simply letting it happen with token protests.

The main fear seems to be of a Consitutional crisis. There is a tremendous fear of triggering one, where all three branches will find themselves fighting it out over just which branch can do which things, and the losers get publicly humiliated, stripped of some of their power, and -- quite probably -- earn the scorn and dismay and distrust of the American people.

But such things are sometimes necessary. They tend to have a cleansing effect, as well as clarifying the fundamental principles of our nation and our system of governance.

I think that we need just such a thing, to put into place just what the balance of power between the Executive and the Legislative branches should be in matters such as war and other elements of foreign relations. I think we desperately need it, and need it now.

But I don't think it's going to happen. It, like so many other problems, will be pushed back and allowed to continue to grow and fester until it simply can't be avoided any longer.

If President Bush is truly starting to get concerned about his legacy, he could do worse than to push for a true resolution into just how Congress and the President divide up the powers involved with foreign policy (including war). But I don't see that happening, either.

Comments (79)

And the demicrats talk abou... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by Steve of Norway | March 31, 2007 8:05 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Steve of Norway:

And the demicrats talk about Bush trashing the Constitution. Talk about cajones. Well, pequeno ones that is.

Posted on March 31, 2007 08:05

I read the post till I got ... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by Hugh | March 31, 2007 8:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Hugh:

I read the post till I got to the part where you allege that democrats are "at worst" committing "treason", and "negotiating" with foreign countries. Then, of course, I had to stop since whatever credibility you might have blew out the window.

[Just to be clear about something Jay. Remember when Jesse jackson went to Syria and Kosovo to successfully "negotiate" the release of our captured servicemen, that was treason. Correct? he should have been tried, convicted and perhaps executed or imprisoned?]

Whenever I opine that you write like a right wing flack you bristle and deny it. Well, I am more convinced than ever with your latest screed. Deny, deny, deny - just like the Bushies do.

Posted on March 31, 2007 08:31

Hugh, since Jay annoys you ... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by goddessoftheclassroom | March 31, 2007 8:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

goddessoftheclassroom:

Hugh, since Jay annoys you so much, go away. Don't come back. Don't read postings and comments.

At least don't comment yourself.

Posted on March 31, 2007 08:48

Thanks, gotc. And funny how... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Jay Tea | March 31, 2007 8:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jay Tea:

Thanks, gotc. And funny how Hugh skipped right over the part where I lambasted both sides, including Bush. He read just enough to confirm his prejudices, then stopped -- he'd had enough, no need to confuse the issue with facts.

And Hugh, you're more than welcome to start your own blog, or even register for the Bomb Squad. No one's forcing you to continue reading and commenting.

Posted on March 31, 2007 08:51

Why read past an inane comm... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by Hugh | March 31, 2007 9:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Why read past an inane comment that accuses people of treason? You have no credibility after that Jay. It's the old, worn-out, inane and stupid label the right so loosely tosses around. No different than the stupid chicken-hawk some on the left toss around here. You tossed the bomb jay, you do it frequently and then get pissed when called on it. I simply responded to the intellectual dishonesty of your bomb.

I gather from your silence you do think Jackson should have been accused of treason.

And goddess, the last time I checked the internet(s) are free unless it's a membership site. Charge money or make it a registration and I'll make you happy and be gone. By the way Jay doesn't annoy me. I wouldn't give him anywhere near that much power. What does annoy me is folks like you with comments like yours.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:02

Hugh lost his bip, again.<b... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:10 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

kim:

Hugh lost his bip, again.
================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:10

The last six years have see... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by groucho | March 31, 2007 9:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

groucho:

The last six years have seen a "flagrant, naked, unconstitutional power grab" of epic proportion. It's no secret that Cheney and the rest of the "brains" of this outfit have, from day one, been bent on expanding the role of the executive branch. If you happen to think that this is a positive thing in terms of what it does for the check and balance model the founding fathers had in mind, then I guess it's all good.

I see the Dems pushing back on an out of control, secretive, almost megalomaniacal White House who gives no thought at all to the rule of law. Signing statements, hidden provisions that expand gov. power to search, seize, etc, the politicization of the Federal Judiciary. It's a pretty long list. Six years of cronyism and its accompanying privatization have left US bloated, weak and stupid. Nov o6 showed people are starting to wake up to this fact.

This is the most power-drunk crew ever, hell bent on turning this country into the personal fiefdom of the corporate ruling class. This government needs oversight and the restoration of equal power among the three branches. And soon. It may be painful, but it will happen, one way or another.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:11

[Just to be clear about ... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Taltos | March 31, 2007 9:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Taltos:

Treasonous? No, I don't think it amounts to aid and comfort of the enemy. However, it was a rock solid violation of the logan act. I'm not sure what the sentencing provisions are for it though.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:13

Kim, I may have lo... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by Hugh | March 31, 2007 9:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Kim,

I may have lost my bip but I still retain my grip. (I'll never say on what though).

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:20

This is the most power-d... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by Taltos | March 31, 2007 9:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Open a history book. When it comes to executive authority Bush has been downright timid compared to past presidents.

As for equal powers, the judiciary has absconded with more power than the other two branches combined over the years. The legislature is trying to catch up.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:21

You've retained your grip o... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:28 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

You've retained your grip on ennuyance, for sure.

Right, Taltos, but no matter how circumspect Bush has been, groucho is still going to hear the tiptoes of tyrants. Sic semper paranoia.
===============================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:28

Hugh, instead of responding... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by wavemaker | March 31, 2007 9:28 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

wavemaker:

Hugh, instead of responding like a blockhead, why don't you do a little research on the subject matter and point out where and why he is wrong. I thinnk it's an interesting issue and I'd like to learn more about it.

Don't you think, for instance, it's necessary for someone like Howard Dean to speak with people in the State Department before and after he goes to a foreign country utilizing an official title to discuss relations between the countries?

Or do you think he should be allowed to go wherever he wants and say whatever he wants, if it advances his cause to strengthen the Dems chance of capturing the WH? That's what it's all about?

At least in Jackson's case, he had the sense to meet with NSA Berger before he left and was given a message to carry to Milosevic. At least he could have been (modestly) trusted by Clinton not to be acting four-square in contravention of the President's foreign policy. I doubt the same could be said of Howie.

Hugh,Please look abo... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by DaveD | March 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

DaveD:

Hugh,
Please look above at Taltos' post. He/she also disagrees with Jay but qualifies his take on the matter. Sort of, 'I disagree but here is how I see it'. You never seem to be able to get that far. I don't know if it is also typical of the way you to respond to people with whom you disagree in person, but if you do, most people probably don't give you much time. Sad, really. You might change someone's mind if you actually offer an alternative opinion sometime. You don't see any of us insulting you because you think Paris Hilton is talented.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:31

So "Stretch" Pelosi and "Sc... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by nikkolai | March 31, 2007 9:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

nikkolai:

So "Stretch" Pelosi and "Screamin'" Howard Dean are making backdoor deals with terrorists and madmen. Figures.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:32

The self-correcting process... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:33 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

The self-correcting process here is that what fools overseas will depend on promises by these out of power Democrats? Besides al Qaeda and Ahmadinejad, I mean? Look, when you've descended to cozying with Bashad, you've come a long way, Baby.
================================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:33

I mean, just exactly who is... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

I mean, just exactly who is Dean talking to. Maybe we should know, not for purposes of prosecution under the Logan Act, but for a campaign ad. How about a YouTubie, Howie? Let's see all your good patriotic work.
==============================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:41

wavemaker:i will a... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by Hugh | March 31, 2007 9:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

i will admit that when i see people so freely toss around labels like treason or chicken-hawk, any argument they are making loses credibility with me.

He's wrong when he tosses out words like treason. He's right when he asserts there is a power struggle within the government. What's wrong with a power struggle? Wasn't the whole idea of the founders to have checks and balances for all 3 branches? There is no question that Cheyney's philosophy is to have a stronger executive. Obviously Bush has accepted that philosophy of governance. The dems are pushing back. One would hope that the end result would be something somewhere in the middle. Again, I think that was the founders internet.

Dean has no official government title. He carries no authority of the government. Should he tell the State Department his intentions? Sure he should. Is he being treasonous? That's absurd.

Reagan did not want Jackson to go to Syria when he did if I remember correctly.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:43

Where's JibJab when we need... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Where's JibJab when we need them?
=====================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:44

If treason and traitor aren... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

If treason and traitor aren't allowed, Hugh, how about comic opera and buffoon?

Don't worry, the adults are in charge, and will see that you get your bip back.
====================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:48

JT, very interesting post. ... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by WildWillie | March 31, 2007 9:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

WildWillie:

JT, very interesting post. I too am appalled that the dimmers are using foreign policy for political gain. For the learning impaired, Jesse Jackson is not an elected official let alone a congressional leader. This will set precedent, and no matter what party is in control of the presidency, this will happen again and again. JT, I will advise you that you should not expect the dimmers to obey or uphold any laws that will put America and GW in a bad light. Party before Country, that is their motto.

As far as a secretive administration, I would say the amount of "secrets" that were exposed proves otherwise. GW's administration does not know how to keep secrets.

Lincoln and FDR would have lost their wars is limited to the rules the dimmers demand. ww

Actually I was looking for ... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by wavemaker | March 31, 2007 9:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Actually I was looking for a little research. Never mind, I'll do it myself. Unfortunately, "treason" is one of those words that sounds inflammatory but nonetheless has a literal and legal meaning. If a guy with the title Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is saying things to a hostile government that undermine the current administration's foreign policy (whether you agree with it or not), then I want to know about it, and I want to know the facts. It's certainly as important as The Big AUSA Scandal. I doubt any of the "victims" of the firings are intent on flying planes into the Capitol. I can't say the same for terrorists based in Syria.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:49

That's right Kim, the adult... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by Jo | March 31, 2007 9:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jo:

That's right Kim, the adults are in charge, and I think that's what pisses off the libs. They are perpetual children, without a clue in the world how things are done. But all the time whining and throwing temper tantrums. Hopefully they'll grow up someday.

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:51

And just exactly why is it ... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 9:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

And just exactly why is it not aid and comfort?
============================

Posted on March 31, 2007 09:52

Taltos wrote, "As for equal... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by tyree | March 31, 2007 10:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

tyree:

Taltos wrote, "As for equal powers, the judiciary has absconded with more power than the other two branches combined over the years."
That certainly is true out here in California where the 9th Circuit Court has been overturned more times by the Supreme Court than any other.

Posted on March 31, 2007 10:03

"What Pelosi and Dean, amon... (Below threshold)

25. Posted by Herman | March 31, 2007 10:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Herman:

"What Pelosi and Dean, among others, are doing is at the minimum a violation of the Logan Act (which forbids private citizens from engaging in formal negotiations with foreign governments without government authorization)" -- Jay Tea

Well, Mr. Tea, if what you allege is true, will the Bush Administration and its Justice Dept. charge Mr. Dean (and eventually Ms. Pelosi) with crimes??? Yes or no, Mr. Tea? What's your answer, dude? And if your answer is "no," is the Bush Administration incompetent, or does it merely believe instead that Mr. Dean hasn't engaged in any crimes with his discussions? (Before answering, please observe that "discussions" does not equate with "formal negotiations.")

"One of the weaker points of the Democrats has always been seen as their stance on foreign policy. Jimmy Carter's legacy in that field left a deep mark..." -- Mr. Tea

Jimmy Carter got the U.S. hostages taken by Iran out alive. If Reagan had been left to deal with the matter, not only would they have been killed, but 40,000 or so Iranians would have been too, happily "martyred" while fighting the Great Satan. Hey, you conservatives aren't in to diplomacy, it's not your thing.

On second thought, perhaps I'm wrong, maybe instead of massacring thousands of Iranians, Reagan would have traded arms for hostages (like he sought to do later, anyway), and then later lie about it. What do you think, conservatives?

Jimmy Carter's "foreign policy legacy" is best exemplified by the lasting peace between Egypt and Israel, and in part for his role in establishing this peace, Jimmy Carter would win the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, if they gave out a "Nobel War Prize" you conservatives and your leaders would be first in line to receive it.

*********************************
Bush Quotation of the Month for March: "I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama been Forgotten]." -- George W. Bush, March, 2002

Posted on March 31, 2007 10:18

Woof, Herman, which end of ... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 10:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Woof, Herman, which end of the retrospectoscope are you looking through? You have amazingly misconstrued facts and fantasized meanings.

Gaza is peace? Do you have any idea of the torments Allah is inflicting right now on Yassir Arafat for betraying his people? Think what he has in store for Carter.
==================================

Posted on March 31, 2007 10:29

Surely you people run acros... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 10:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Surely you people run across a fact now and then that messes up the storyline, don't you. Jimmy Carter freed the hostages? In what alternative universe have you been educated, that you'd give him credit for that.
======================================

Posted on March 31, 2007 10:50

"Pending highly unusual cir... (Below threshold)

28. Posted by Herman | March 31, 2007 10:58 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

"Pending highly unusual circumstances, George W. Bush will remain president until January 2009..." -- Mr. Jay Tea

And what might these circumstances be, impeachment by the House followed by conviction by two-thirds of the Senate? But Mr. Tea, such a conviction has zero chance of happening, so you needn't have even brought up the matter. While the House may possibly impeach Mr. Bush's sorry ass, there's no chance of conviction in the Senate, as Republicans have shown repeatedly that they don't give a damn about being lied to. (Unless of course it's a Democrat lying to cover up an extramarital affair, then they'll literally make a federal case about it).

Posted on March 31, 2007 10:58

Herman is crabbing to himse... (Below threshold)

29. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 11:06 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Herman is crabbing to himself about his own lack of imagination. Please, find him a bip, too.
=====================

Posted on March 31, 2007 11:06

I don't think JT is throwin... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by epador | March 31, 2007 11:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

epador:

I don't think JT is throwing terms around lightly. We've gone through this banter about verbiage before. It generally is brought up when the keywords are used repeatedly in posts to inflame emotion and divert threads. It is also criticized when the inflammatory claims are made with no merit. I don't see how that can be the case in the posting, and the mention of treason is embedded in arguments for that accusation.

I would suggest to call it MADONNA [malicious-actions-destroying-our-notorious-national-authority] if that would please Hugh and keep him reading, and responding to the stated argument instead of descending into haughty holier-than-thou tripe. It might please his British sensibilities, since I hear she's still popular across the pond. Then again, tripe is popular over there too.

Posted on March 31, 2007 11:11

Kim, Carter freed the host... (Below threshold)

31. Posted by Steve Crickmore | March 31, 2007 11:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Steve Crickmore:

Kim, Carter freed the hostages but it wasn't for lack of trying by the parallel team of Casey, Reagan and Bush senior to hold back the deal. According to Jay was the October surprise 1980 a load of crap before or after Iran Contragate?

Steve, you don't seriously ... (Below threshold)

32. Posted by kim | March 31, 2007 11:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Steve, you don't seriously credit Carter with freeing the hostages, do you? Do you not remember that it was the democratic will, exerted through the election of Reagan that freed the hostages?

You seem to have such a petty mind.
=======================================

Posted on March 31, 2007 11:19

Yes, Mr. Carter gave us des... (Below threshold)

33. Posted by Mitchell | March 31, 2007 11:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Mitchell:

Yes, Mr. Carter gave us destabilizing revolutions Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan during his term of office, and thereafter, certifying corrupt elections in Venezuela, Haiti, Dominican Republic.

His NSA man, Brezsinski, said in a speech this week that the nation is "terrorized" by the war on terror, as if it were all a thing concocted by the government against us. Like we are cowering in corners, too afraid to function.

They just never get it; so if you vote for them, expect a repeat of what they brought us then.

Posted on March 31, 2007 11:23

The Iranians freed the host... (Below threshold)

34. Posted by WildWillie | March 31, 2007 11:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

The Iranians freed the hostages simply because a republican conservative who believed in peace through strength was becoming president. The Iranians blinked. What Carter did was let the hostages become humiliated by their captors because they saw the spineless dimmers as what they are. Afraid.

I believe Herman is Rosie. Anyone else? Only she can say such dimwhitted drivel. ww

34. Posted by WildWillie | March 31, 2007 11:26 AM | Score: 0 (

Yup, this is great progress

TrackBack

Comments (79)