The Politics of Resentment

So, are you changing your mind about Rudy being unelectable?

As I've said before, Democrats will be better off if the GOP nominates McCain or Romney.

One of Andrew Sullivan's conservative readers calls Republican support for Guiliani pragmatic, then claims authenticity is the key to the election:

"Someone like Kos or Josh Marshall will never, ever get this about us - we are an extremely pragmatic group of people who like to win and aren't willing to lose just because liberal bloggers and the Media say we should lose. ... Authenticity vs. inauthenticity. That's the story of 2008. Rudy is real. You can touch and feel the Catholic kid from the Neighborhood. ... Hillary is not real. She's inauthentic. There's your story, Andrew. An entire army of front men and pet chihuhuas like Begala or Wolfson cannot alter her inauthenticity one whit: she's poison and there's not a damn thing she can do about it."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/email_from_the_.html

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing the other day about how Mormons more than any other group think the Iraq war was a good idea. You know if Al Gore was President they'd all be against it (see Bosnia and Kosovo). It has nothing to do with the issues. It's all arbitrary tribal symbolism. They might as well just call themselves the Red Team and wave a big red flag all the time.

I will also say this: Hillary is the perfect foil for the politics of resentment. Republicans love to hate her and they will feed off that hate if she wins the Democratic primary.

That's not to say that liberals shouldn't vote for Hillary. If she's the right person for the job, who cares what Republicans think? But there's no question that she presents a more attractive target than almost anyone when it comes to this brand of politics.

It's ironic, I suppose, that HRC is more conservative than either Obama and Edwards. Her campaign would have us believe that her moderate stance on foreign affairs will insulate her from the right and make her more electable in the general. But the reality is that her policy positions are irrelevant for a lot of people. They hate her on a personal level.

I have to think, too, that another reason Giuliani is so appealing to the right is that if he loses (as, no doubt, many secretly fear any Republican will in '08), the excuse for losing will write itself -- 'the GOP nominated a northeastern moderate'. In the history of Republican nominees Guiliani will appear as nothing more than the impetus for a course correction, like Gerald Ford or Bob Dole. A swing back toward southern reactionaries will be the Christian right's consolation prize.

I prefer the 'authoritarian impulse' formulation over the 'resentment' one. The latter implies that the conservatives are somewhat powerless, helpless, and oppressed, none of which applies to them by a long shot.

I don't see the two concepts as being exclusive. Most Republicans I know are in fact seeking some sort of strong-daddy figure to tell them how to live. But nothing stops the strong-daddy from stomping the Other, particularly the Other Who Is Keepin' Me DOWN! Two halves of the same walnut.

Cranky

There's a lot of truth to this post. Frankly, while I'm a hater when it comes to Giuliani, I think there's something to the theory that you have to be a bit of a fascist in order to run a big city effectively. I have a soft spot for Mayor Daley in Chicago and I voted for Bloomberg (although he's pretty lightweight as fascists go).

Ultimately, I think the Republican brand is too damaged for them to actually keep the White House in 2008, particularly if the war is still going on. But Giuliani seems like the clear favorite for the GOP nomination unless he implodes or something.

Just a guess, but I bet Derbyshire and Stoller haven't spent too much time among the Southern evangelicals that comprise the GOP base. Richard Land, James Doson and others have made it abundantly clear that they won't accept a Giuliani candidacy, and I know my Baptist relatives will freak out once they've seen the drag videos. How could they possibly explain that to their children?

No Republican candidate for President can expect to win without full support from the old Confederacy. And while there are some flinty, liberal-bashing, take-no-prisoners aspects to Giuliani's character that may appeal to Southerners, there's no way in hell they'll vote for a man who's been married three times, wore a dress to tease Donald Trump, humiliated his wife and children and then lived with a gay couple following his separation September 11th halo or no September 11th halo They'd rather seethe under the burden of a Clinton restoration than give even an inch on their issues. Bear in mind that they're ticked off that Bush has failed to deliver on their agenda.

My fellow Southerners are a unique breed. Perhaps Derb and Stoller and even Yglesias should spend some time down there in order to familarize themselves with the complicated and often distorted prism through which the South views America and the world.

"Gestalt" -- this word, I am not sure it means what Corner-ites thinks it means.

If you apply what Bob Altemeyer discusses in "The Authoritarians" (see http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/), you and Stoller are both right. In Altmeyer's terms, authoritarian followers have a high degree of aggression, but they only express it in ways that they perceive as being sanctioned by authority. Guiliani appears to be the type of personality - a person with with high social dominance characteristics - that Altmeyer says is especially equipped to manipulate authoritarian followers. It's of lesser importance as to whether the leader actually shares the degree of idealogical conviction of his authoritarian followers, as the high social dominance types often don't. It's a common trait of a lot of "conservative" leaders (Bush and Gingrich come to mind).

But, Matt, conservatives see themselves as standing in the way of what liberals call “progress.” In other words, a big part of our self identification is seen as working to limit the damage that liberals want to do to our country and it’s traditions. Derbyshire writes a lot about his favorite president being Coolidge, who was most notable for doing nothing as president. Doing nothing from a government policy standpoint can be seen, in and of itself, as a conservative principle. So, from Derb’s perspective, being an anti-liberal can be good enough.

By the way, Derb is pretty anti-Bush and Bush has been pretty good at sticking it to democrats, so it’s not an authoritarian impulse at work. Derb sees Bush, correctly in my view, as a different form of liberal.

I fear that everyone here is right. What do we do about it? Everything about Rudy the Tough Guy screams "overcompensating sissy" to me, but then everything about George W. Bush, Regular Guy, screamed "condescending, overprivileged frat-boy" to me, and we see how that worked out. How do we sissify Rudy?

I agree that this isn't really about an authoritarian impulse-- it's about Our Team vs. Their Team, with all the intellectual and moral weight of a "Jeter Sucks" chant from the bleachers at Fenway.

I'm a Sox fan, but as a liberal, hence committed to honesty and empiricism, I must confess that Jeter does not, in fact, suck.

MY wrote: "This, naturally, is why conservative governance is such a joke."

I see your point, Matt, but in all fairness, this is but one of many reasons why conservative governance does, in fact, suck.

it's about Our Team vs. Their Team, with all the intellectual and moral weight of a "Jeter Sucks" chant from the bleachers at Fenway.

I think this is wrong. Their Team and Our Team actually believe vastly different things about the world, and, in general, see the world differently. There is a point to the tribalism in a way there isn't to Red Sox vs. Yankees.

"authoritarian impulse"

It's called leadership.

So nevermind that there's no indication Giuliani has the capacity to do the job of president.

Er, why not? As compared to, um, say, a first term Senator who has no executive experience at all???

Pragmatically speaking - what blue states can Giulliani realistically expect to peel off next year? I doubt that he would even carry NYS - and if can't do it there, where else could he do it? In the meantime, can anyone imagine a scenario in which Ohio won't go blue?

It's called leadership

Nobody doubts that you and yours see all manner of authoritarian actions as "leadership," Al.

Hate is the drug of choice among most humans, and the righties are its biggest users.

I think what Matt's calling authoritarian has a lot to do with a posture of toughness. The Republican candidates are all positioning themselves as fighters for the conservative cause. Instead of focusing on what they actually believe or the policy differences between the three, we're watching them compete to demonstrate who will fight the hardest against the liberals and the various and sundry enemies of freedom. Policy will be okayed by the conservative press, and truth is the details aren't considered that important, but fight needs to come from the top dog. McCain doesn't really get this which is one of the reasons he's having a lot of trouble among right wingers.

I really think a pro-choice candidate will actually hurt Republicans in the Northern Midwest in the general election. In states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and such (maybe Missouri too), a huge portion of the conservative base really seems more upset about abortion than resentful of the cultural revolution. I think this is because they really are primarily motivated by moral and religious doctrine. They also don't have the same racial anxieties that seem to define the Southern Conservative base-particularly in states like Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I would be surprised if a Guiliani pro-choicer would turn them out as well as he can motivate right-wingers. But I could be wrong.

I'm with brklynlibrul on this one. As the guy at Eat the Press over at Huffpo posted:

I ask Max Kaster, a local pastor and party chair for Calhoun County, a half-hour south of Columbia, what people down here would think of America's Mayor if they knew he had moved in with a gay couple after separating from his second wife. "Really?" Kaster says. He fiddles with a lapel pin that combines an American flag and a cross. "I think that would roll a lot of people's socks down."

You bet your sweet ass it would. And you can also bet your ass that word will get around in the evangelical community about such things between now and the end of the year. Authoritarian or not, most conservative evangelicals are really, really creeped out by queers.

The upshot: all of the current GOP leaders - Giuliani, McCain, Romney - are or shortly will be damaged goods, from the POV of the evangelicals. Right now they're OK with Giuliani - because they don't know him. It'll be a different story when they do.

I'm not sure people care about Rudy's personal views on abortion as long as they think he'll appoint anti-Roe judges.

I'm not sure people care about Rudy's personal views on abortion as long as they think he'll appoint anti-Roe judges.

Ditto Romney.

I prefer the 'authoritarian impulse' formulation over the 'resentment' one. The latter implies that the conservatives are somewhat powerless, helpless, and oppressed, none of which applies to them by a long shot.

It doesn't matter whether it actually applies; that's how they feel. And if it doesn't, that just makes them more resentful--reality isn't validating their feelings.

Bear in mind that they're ticked off that Bush has failed to deliver on their agenda.

And yet, thanks to the former Confederacy, George W. Bush got a second term. Gad, the way Southerners, especially evangelicals, stayed home in droves in 2004 just boggles the mind. Dr. Land was shocked, shocked! back in 2004 that the Republican Party would seek to use church directories for voter outreach. Yet somehow, that and disappointment with Bush didn't detract from his efforts to push the Republican brand. They have to talk tough about the candidates, in order to make them crawl, craving pardon. The fundamentalist rank-and-file will do as they're told, and once Giuliani/McCain/Romney has genuflected sufficiently to Dobson and company, the orders will go out. Once upon a time that wasn't true, but once upon a time the Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary wasn't run by a Dominionist whose primary goal is more political power for his kindred. Once upon a time Southern Baptists weren't a monolithic Republican voting bloc, seeking to use the power of the state for the work of the church.

It's not about whether or not they have political power, they just resent that things ain't like they aughtta be, which is what they thought the universe was like when they were 10.

Authoritarian or not, most conservative evangelicals are really, really creeped out by queers.

Hey, did you hear? Dick Cheney has a gay daughter who's living in sin with another woman, and who's made a lot of money working on behalf of homosexuals. Whew, thank goodness being creeped out by queers trumped support for an iron boot in the face of liberals and filthy minorities, or we'd be looking at a second Bush term right now.

You're funny, Matt. You swing from thoughtful, penetrating, mature thought to juvenile twaddle. This post is pure twaddle.

I usually vote Republican. I support Rudy. He's socially liberal, he generally did well in a tough job, he's smart, his economic views seem to be those of an adult, he can win, and who else am I going to support? McCain? Too old and too weird, and I hate McCain-Feingold. Romney? Old Romney, not bad. New Romney, are you kidding? Brownback? Fat chance.

As for the Dems, Edwards' economics make me laugh - never a good sign. Al (Mr. Rogers, swelled) Gore, no way. Not the long suffering Hillary. Obama, I don't know yet.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that my support for Rudy has nothing to do with my being an authoritarian, resentful dweeb.

We need a candidate who is going to create change, someone who is dedicated to the Millennium Development Goals and putting money toward things that really will make a difference (like extreme poverty), and can clean up politics to get our agenda back in focus. It's not clear who that is yet, but that's what we need.

"What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them."

Sorry Matt. Stoller gets it right here.

But of course conservatives weren't *always* the authoritarians.

If Mr. Yglesias reads his comments threads, he knows that Linus has always been saying in these parts (and elsewhere since not long after 9/11) he thought Democrats would eventually dust off the Robert A Taft playbook. And who did Ms. Pelosi quote in her statement about the anti-escalation resolution?

Giuliani is a big dick, but anyone who has been poll-watching the past few years always knew he had a real shot at the Republican nomination. And while I think a race would be close between he and Mrs. Clinton it's difficult to conclude that the fundamentals don't give him a slight advantage.

Make no mistake about it: there will be no return to nomal.

I don't think an "authoritarian impulse" is the right word for it. It is, instead, the politics of pure resentment.

What's more interesting to me is the way the run-of-the-mill suburban Northern conservative voter, just like the centrist Beltway pundits, makes the mistake of assuming that the right-wing base "thinks like they do." Watching Andrew Sullivan slowly realize this over the past few years has been an excellent case study. Many conservatives are just successful people who want the government to leave them alone. But "The Right" is a different beast entirely. The phrase "authoritarian impulse" describes the phenomenon perfectly. And I don't think anyone raised in the wealthier enclaves of the Northeast or the West Coast really understands what these folks would do if you handed them black shirts and nightsticks and gave them free rein to bring about social change.

Fortunately, when the Republicans let the jackboot crowd out of the closet, as they did at the 1992 convention, they tend to lose elections.

"It's a mistake to view this as an either/or matter. The politics of resentment are hopelessly intertwined with the desire for a "tough" leader who will kick the snot out of the resented class."

Sure. But the politics of resentment don't necessarily have anything to do with the authoritarian impulse.

The appeal of Giuliani to Republican primary voters in '08 is very similar to the appeal of Dean to Democratic primary voters in '04. And I certainly don't think Dean was playing to the authoritarian impulse.

The latter implies that the conservatives are somewhat powerless, helpless, and oppressed, none of which applies to them by a long shot.

Authoritarian followers ALWAYS play the victim card. To take the most extreme authoritarian movement, Nazism, they justified genocide because they claimed the Jews were a THREAT. They had sneaky tricks that would bring down the fatherland.

More locally, the KKK justified its actions by saying they needed to protect white women from the savages.

Authoritarians play the victim card harder than anyone. And their solution to victimization is always "round 'em up," never "I have a dream of us all living together in harmony in a better world."

Petey, I suppose that Dean, like Giuliani, played to the resentments of the party base to build his support. Giuliani is popular for being "tough," and Dean's appeal was based largely upon the perception that he was the only candidate in the race who "possessed a spine." But I think the similarities end there. Dean was a mild-mannered centrist who acquired his national popularity almost entirely by accident, since no one else was willing to fill the niche. Giuliani, by contrast, has built an entire career out of turning his personality-driven "toughness" on the objects of white middle-class resentment.

Your point is a good one, though. I suppose a better formulation would be that the politics of resentment are inextricably linked to feelings of powerlessness and a desire to shift the balance of power. There are both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian flavors of this phenomenon.

The appeal of Giuliani to Republican primary voters in '08 is very similar to the appeal of Dean to Democratic primary voters in '04.

What? Precisely what opinion or policy position does Giuliani hold that (a) agrees with a significant part of the base, and (b)is ham-fistedly opposed by the vast majority of the Republican officials in DC?

"What? Precisely what opinion or policy position does Giuliani hold that (a) agrees with a significant part of the base, and (b)is ham-fistedly opposed by the vast majority of the Republican officials in DC?"

Yes sir. Petey's analogy makes perfect (not to mention bitchen) sense. Dean you see had wide bipartisan appeal as governor of a notoriously conservative state as well as potentially wide appeal among the legions of anti-war Independents.

Funny, that's something I've long thought about Bush. His truest passion in life seems to be pissing off the Democrats. His policies and persona appear almost calculated to that effect. Cheney helps a lot. And it's been effective - there's a whole narrative on how Democrats are uncivil and angry and just not nice. It's the source of the smirk.

Bertrand Russel wrote that if people desired their own happiness as much as they desire the unhappiness of others, the world would be paradise. The conservative base desires more peoples' unhappiness than any other organized group.

Well, my (reasonably obvious) comment may not make sense to Linus or SCMT, but considering that it made sense to the poster I was responding to, I think I'll leave off further explanations for the hard of hearing.

Dean's campaign was centered around distancing himself from the mainstream Democratic candidates in a rather in-your-face way. ("The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," and all that.) I don't see Rudy making any comparable effort to anoint himself the only "true" Republican in the race, or anything like that.

Hey, did you hear? Dick Cheney has a gay daughter who's living in sin with another woman, and who's made a lot of money working on behalf of homosexuals. Whew, thank goodness being creeped out by queers trumped support for an iron boot in the face of liberals and filthy minorities, or we'd be looking at a second Bush term right now.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about the primaries here, which should have been clear from my earlier post. Sure, in a general election, they'll vote for whoever the GOP runs, although the numbers may vary slightly with their enthusiasm, or lack of it. (And please note that in 2004, the fact that Bush was unquestionably One Of Them, and they wanted him to continue running the country, easily trumped the fact that his running mate's had a daughter who had a girlfriend. What were they going to do, vote for Kerry as a protest?)

What we want to do in the primaries is, as each new contender rises to the top, remind them of why they really don't like people like this guy. With any luck, eventually they'll nominate Brownback or someone like that, and of course lose. And even without that luck, if they start off 2008 genuinely disgusted with all the possible candidates, evangelical turnout should take a hit come November. And that would suit me just fine.

That letter to Sullyman linked by owenz is smarter than much of what one reads in the msm or the blogs (even if the guy is obviously an asshole).

I see little reason to disbelieve the idea that a Hillary v Rudy race in 2008 would turn on authenticity (given the likelihood that their policy positions are liable to be near-identical), and Giuliani probably wins that contest.

The only good thing about it is that it would vindicate the Kos types' withering attacks on the hackishness of the Democrats' liberal hawk wing.

There is also however the depressing prospect of a Democratic congress becoming a kind of national version of the California state legislature, obsessing about gay marriage and peddling bans on spanking small children and smoking as the Big Ideas while the authoritarian centrist chief exec racks up big policy victories with lastingly bad consequences for the place, and lots of major problems go unaddressed. You almost hope LA's budding race war goes national and things get so fucked up on their own President Rudy is prevented from fucking up the country in his own image.

"Dean's campaign was centered around distancing himself from the mainstream Democratic candidates"

And Dean's not Catholic either!

And Giuliani wasn't a wrestler in high school either!

So I guess I will try one more time for the hard of hearing. Think of it this way: everything in Derbyshire's comment could apply to Dean in '04 as easily as Giuliani in '08 if you switch the parties.

Dracula the Republican became NYC mayor post Dinkins by capturing the votes of Jewish Democrats who understood what "It's Giuliani time!" meant for all the Louimas and Diallos in the city. Their rat-faced hero held enormous pockets of resentment for people of color, especially the "shvatz". Racist resentment is his middle name. Even gays who support him understand he is only supportive of white gays. All others have bullseyes on their backs.

The GOP gets with Giuliani the best of both worlds -- Sen. Theodore Bilbo and Mussolini. We can have trains that run on time and throw coloreds off the back of them.

And the fact that Giuliani isn't ostensibly in the pocket of the Taliban wing of the GOP will help, not hurt, in the new, frontloaded primary environment, especially if NJ moves up into February.

Brownback will be put on the ticket to appease the mullahs, and the rest is just techinique.

verything in Derbyshire's comment could apply to Dean in '04 as easily as Giuliani in '08 if you switch the parties.

I guess that's true. It could apply (or be applied). It doesn't describe the Dean dynamic very well, but you could apply it to Dean (or HRC or Obama or Edwards, etc.) if you're willing to overlook that weakness.

"Think of it this way: everything in Derbyshire's comment could apply to Dean in '04 as easily as Giuliani in '08 if you switch the parties."

Except that the silent majority of the Democratic Party wouldn't nominate Dean, and the silent majority of the Republican Party could nominate Giuliani.

"I'm not sure people care about Rudy's personal views on abortion as long as they think he'll appoint anti-Roe judges."

Doesn't that say something about both Rudy and Mitt, though...they'll do what crazy base land wants but not what they believe?

I guess that only counts if authenticity and strength of character are still measures used to judge our politicians.

Conservatives think that Giuliani crushed liberals in New York City? Huh. Actually, he twice got the nomination of the Liberal party, running on both the Republican and Liberal lines in the voting booths. I twice voted for him on the Liberal line.

Perhaps his opponents are unaware of this, because I'd imagine it would make good anti-Rudy fodder.

Hey, SomeCallMeTim, getting back to a point we differed on early in the thread:

I wrote: it's about Our Team vs. Their Team, with all the intellectual and moral weight of a "Jeter Sucks" chant from the bleachers at Fenway.

You wrote: I think this is wrong. Their Team and Our Team actually believe vastly different things about the world, and, in general, see the world differently. There is a point to the tribalism in a way there isn't to Red Sox vs. Yankees.

You're right, of course, to an extent, but remember, 10 years ago, the GOP claimed to be a small-government, balanced-budget party, reluctant to let the military do social work as in Somalia and Yugoslavia. During the 1990s, no one further right than, I dunno, Paul Wellstone seemed to be concerned about the humanitarian impact of sanctions one iota, while now it's a favorite conservative pro-war talking point.

9/11 made conservatives more likely to lash out-- and liberals like me who supported the Iraq war did so in part on humanitarian grounds-- but it's not obvious to me that that trauma had to lead to the current state of affairs.

Tribalism, following the leadership that happened to be at the head of the GOP in the past 6 years, is the best way to account for the state of affairs today.

Had Bush announced, say, that it was time to "come home America, and stop letting Israel determine our Middle East policy," I think that quite a substantial number of GOP primary voters would have gone along with that, and criticized liberals for mistaking foriegn policy for social work, with the same vehemence that they criticize liberals who want to bring the troops back from Iraq today.

And it would work to an extent the other way 'round, too, but I don't think that liberals get as much of a bang out of the "take that, stupid conservatives!" mentality as do conservatives vis-a-vis liberals.

Incidentally, Rudy has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination. True fact.

Derb sees Bush, correctly in my view, as a different form of liberal.

Posted by: ofcs on February 27, 2007 12:17 PM

Conservatives see Hitler and Charlie Manson as liberals. It's nice to see that they've given up on the man they worshipped two years ago, but the conservative opinion of Bush doesn't tell you anything about Bush except that he has failed to make the conservative hysterics happy.

See, the bi-coastal elitists who make up the Demonrat party just don't understand the appeal of a down home, authentic leader like Guiliani to the ordinary Americans who make up the backbone of the Republicans. . .

Conservatives think that Giuliani crushed liberals in New York City? Huh. Actually, he twice got the nomination of the Liberal party, running on both the Republican and Liberal lines in the voting booths. I twice voted for him on the Liberal line.

The Liberal Party of New York was a joke - a sad little personal patronage machine for Ray Harding, who was more than happy to endorse Giuliani in return for city jobs for Harding's family members. If the endorsement means anything, it's just further evidence of Rudy's corruption.

In short, it was neither liberal, nor a political party, and now it is - thankfully - dead. And none of it changes the fact that Rudy Guiliani is a corrupt, authoritarian racist.

Right, the Liberal Party had lost any connection with liberalism a long time ago. Its endorsement of Giuliani was, as BrooklynRiader says, purely transactional, and helped hasten its demise since it led indirectly to the formation of teh Working Families Party, which ahs replaced it as NY's left-leaning fusion party.

It is true, though, that "twice endorsed by New York's Liberal Party" would make a good primary ad for someone...

chris said...
Agreed. I was thinking the same thing the other day about how Mormons more than any other group think the Iraq war was a good idea. You know if Al Gore was President they'd all be against it (see Bosnia and Kosovo). It has nothing to do with the issues. It's all arbitrary tribal symbolism. They might as well just call themselves the Red Team and wave a big red flag all the time.

This is a bigoted opinion. As egregious as saying "You know blacks more than any other group think the Iraq war was a bad idea. You know if Frederick Douglas was President they'd all be for it (see Civil War 1861-1865)."

If it came to a Giuliani/Hillary showdown, Hillary would win handily just like she would have won handily in New York if Rudy hadn't backed out in 2000.

I was like Matt in claiming that Rudy didn't have a prayer, a prediction that now looks it might be mistaken. Still, Matt over-estimates the power of the politics of pure resentment among conservatives. I don't doubt that there's a strong vein of resentment in the Rush Limbaugh/ Ann Coulter wing of the conservative movement. You certainly see enough of it on the internet and Fox. At the same time, that resentment does not animate the majority of conservatives. In my part of Kentucky, there's a great deal of strong feeling on abortion, gay rights, and the Ten Commandments among evangelical conservatives and I don't think there would be much enthusiasm for Giuliani even if he were nominated. There's also small government conservatives, racists, neo-con diehards, and the country club types.

It may be that conservatives will rally behind the Rudy banner because they see him as more of a winner than the people they agree with. That would make Giuliani the Republican version of John Kerry. But I see Giuliani more as the Republican Howard Dean, someone who makes a big splash early because of the general lack of enthusiasm among Republicans with their candidates. Like Dean, however, Giuliani will probably wilt after his first gaffe or his opponents' first round of negative advertising. In this sense, the Giuliani surge might serve as a stalking horse for a Gingrich candidacy.

Ric,

I think Giuliani has more going for him than John Kerry (at least as far as conservatives are concerned). He's a natural, the proverbial charismatic - not unlike Reagan (who was also divorced, and had been functionally pro-choice as governor of California).

On the other hand, even if Giuliani does manage to win the Republican nomination it doesn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be a third party run from some Judge Moore type, or some other unknown unknown (in the words of Donald Rumsfeld) which could derail his candidacy.

And HRC isn't just another inauthentic DLC hack - she's the first potential female major party nominee for the presidency. I don't know how this will matter just yet, only that it isn't a completely incidental point.

Are there Vegas odds on Dracula becoming the nominee? It's a sucker bet. I think he's more the Republican Lieberman than its Dean- west of the Hudson his appeal is chimerical. His smile is hideous, the ravioli stains barely covered up. Now, if he can somehow prevent McCain from getting the nomination- hallelujah!, but the guy is the Canarsie Elmer Fuddolini- he's too disgusting outside of New Yawk.

Are there Vegas odds on Dracula becoming the nominee? It's a sucker bet. I think he's more the Republican Lieberman than its Dean- west of the Hudson his appeal is chimerical. His smile is hideous, the ravioli stains barely covered up. Now, if he can somehow prevent McCain from getting the nomination- hallelujah!, but the guy is the Canarsie Elmer Fuddolini- he's too disgusting outside of New Yawk.

So I guess I will try one more time for the hard of hearing. Think of it this way: everything in Derbyshire's comment could apply to Dean in '04 as easily as Giuliani in '08 if you switch the parties.

The difference is, Dean was attacking the particular brand of Bush Republicans in power at the time. The timeless appeal of people like Giuliani is that they're willing to take on liberalism, period, as exemplified by cartoonish stereotypes about feminists and spotted owls. Dean was beloved for taking on Bush, but he wasn't beloved for his opposition to "conservatism." There's no real equivalent on the left for the liberal-haters, the anti-capitalism fringe hardly sees the Democrats as their mouthpiece.

Rudy has not done anything to piss anybody off -- yet. Give it a couple of months. Let the Biblle Belt find out who he is and watch the Republican base shred itself. If you remember, they let McCain kiss Falwell's ring just to see the dirt on his knees knowing full well he won't get their vote. They won't vote for Rudy either. Rudy risks the ire of Republican moderates if he tries to embrace Falwell and Dobson. For the moment, let him have his honeymoon. It will be short-lived.

You should all watch Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, "Friends of God" if you haven't already. It really helped to crystallize the importance of the evangelical Christian movement in American politics in my mind. Evangelicals, as you know, believe that every word of the Bible should be taken literally, that Jesus is the savior and son of God, and that you must be "born again" in order to be saved. There is no way in hell (no pun intended!) that they will support Giuliani. Absolutely not. He is none of these things -- not like Bush, that is. It's not a question of evangelical Christians thinking "practically" and supporting a nominee just because he's Republican. That's not what they're about. They're about a literal, fundamentalist interpretation -- and if you're not on board, sorry. You're going to hell. Just watch the doc. You'll see.

It's not a question of "Will Republicans lose the evangelical base if they nominate _________?" If the name that goes in the blank is not an evangelical Christian, they will lose the evangelical base. Simple as that.

The points about the differences between Rudy and Howard Dean are well taken. But I still think that Rudy's quick rise foretells a Dean-like quick descent.

I agree with Linus about Hillary. Hillary has her loyal apparatus, but I haven't seen any evidence that she's any more popular with the DNC than she is with liberal media elites, the corporate world, the mainstream media, or the left-wing blogosphere. Instead, Hillary seems to be a popular candidate who almost 40% of Democrats respect for her intelligence, knowledge, toughness, or other qualities. Personally, I think that popular opinion is more perceptive than the anti-Hillary elite and activists. It will be extremely interesting to see how the race between Hillary and Obama develops.

Emerson: Conservatives see Hitler and Charlie Manson as liberals.

Too true. There was a guy at LGMoney the other day who said that Hitler was on the left because he advocated Marxism. Apparently he got his "Nazis were Socialists" talking points mixed up. He also said that Republicans weren't really conservatives; I guess he gets a point or two for generalizing beyond Bush.

It's the leadership factor, stupid! After a term and a half of Dubya, a lot of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are questioning their past party-line support of candidates whom they largely agree with on the issues, but who couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. Rudy will be the prime beneficiary of this national feeling. Hardly anyone is gonna agree with Giuliani (or any other candidate) on all or most the issues. However, we perceive Rudy to be a true leader, largely (but not exclusively) due to 9/11. Our desire for big-time leadership at this critical juncture of US history will override our normal desire for picking a candidate who's with us on our favorite issue or two.

Once again, the phony meme that Giuliani is manly and Kerry minces. Jesus, Kerry fought in a goddamned war and was a leader of men under fire. Giuliani talked to the television cameras and cheered on armed men who shoot uarmed men. Quel manly.

The hatred of the "other" has been the defining characteristic of the Republican coalition since at least 1968. The character of the other changes over time, blacks to gays to muslims to illegals(although blacks are alway a good default option), but it is indipensable to the electoral success of the GOP. Otherwise, what is left to vote for? Plutocratic economics. Environmental devastation. Crumbling infrastucture. For 80% of the Republican electorate, these policies are a losing proposition. But throw in the hate and the troops rally round.

My dad is an irish catholic ex-cop, now in his mid 70s. He remains a New Deal Democrat. Virtually his entire circle of cop buddies have gone Gooper. Why? They hate balcks - they hate gays - they hate "uppity" women - and Mexicans and Muslims. So they collect their social security, their rather nice state pensions, enjoy their Medicare coverage and vote Rethug. It's O'Reilly's constituency and it might be Giuliani's. Without the flat earthers though I don't think it's a winning coalition.

By the way, I'd fight Derbyshire anytime anyplace and stick his gestalt up his ass.

And none of it changes the fact that Rudy Guiliani is a corrupt, authoritarian racist.

I believe the authoritarian part is a selling point for part of the country, though. I wasn't denying that he was authoritarian at all. He absolutely was. Simply that he crushed liberals in New York. He didn't. In fact, he went out of his way during elections to pander to social liberals.

I take your point re: the Liberal Party. Nonetheless, I still think it would be a great thing for one of his opponents to raise. If I, a politically interested native New Yorker, didn't know all that about the Liberal Party, how would anyone outside of New York know?

I'm a first-time visitor who has really found this very educational to see what the Left thinks of conservatives. For a crowd that seems to consider itself fairly sophisticated, there seems to be a quite naked search for easy generalizations that will justify loathing the next Repub president just as much as you loath the current one. Do any of you recall how unlivable NYC was in 1992 and how completely wonderful it was by 1997? Do those of us who appreciate 75% reductions in crime, or whatever that number was, really love authoritarianism -- or is it just results? Perhaps this is one of those sites where dissenting opinions on how to deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism are laughed at, but I would suggest you consider that perhaps the majority of conservatives rank this as the most important challenge facing the country, and that they find Rudy to have the experience and the kind of firm resolve that is associated with effective leadership during times of crisis. You may not be generous enough to acknowledge this as a legitimate point of view, but I assure it's one that is widely held, and this will help you understand why Rudy is doing well with groups you thought wouldnt give a fair shake to a northern "liberal."

Also, I find it amazing that students of politics think there's a contradiction between Giuliani being personally "pro-choice" re: abortion, and being inclined to appoint judges who strictly interpret the language of the Constitution like Thomas and Scalia. If such judges overturn Roe v Wade, it'll kick abortion debates back to the states so pro-Lifers in Mississippi can have it their way in Mississippi, and New York social liberals (like Giuliani!) can have it there way in New York. How is it that this basic understanding of federalism confuses all you?

I know there are wacko conservatives with whom I wouldnt want to take a road trip, but as someone who spends his life surrounded by conservatives, I can assure you that -- in your quest to explain every conservative impulse as some backward lust for authority or evil power-grab -- you're simply inventing strawmen to justify your preconceived notions. (Isn't that what you accuse all those God-talkin Christians of?) Sean Hannity is certainly a moron. But there's a very substantial literature on economics, constitutional theory, foreign affairs, and social policy that supports conservative positions which I really recommend you not ignore... unless of course, you prefer to remain in the comfort of your little lefty echo chamber.

One other comment that's worth responding to is the one about how there's no way Rudy would help Repubs win "blue states" in 2008. Please read Michael Barone's latest for a thorough demolishing of your wishful thinking on that count. Rudy will be competitive throughout the northeast, and perhaps even the west coast... certainly making Dems spend much more on defense than they did v. Bush. It's conceivable Hillary could win Virginia or Ohio, but I dont know where else Dems realistically expect to make up new ground vs. Rudy.

Good luck to you all. It's been very illuminating to visit you for awhile.

It is both resentment with an authoritarian response. Richard Hofstadter's "parinoid style" was unleashed full-bore post 9/11. Fear, may be more important for explaning the right-wing mind at this historic moment.

"I believe the authoritarian part is a selling point for part of the country, though."

I gather it may be the part of the country that elects the next president.

There may be only a few lines of attack against him, and the fascist-racist bit isn't liable to play well outside West LA and a few other select places.

Mr. Plumer is trying out the can you trust a moderate Republican to be moderate bit over at TNR. Maybe that would work. I don't know.

I hope they play the corruption card too (face of Giuliani side by side with DeLay's mug shot, that sort of thing) as there was plenty of it in his administration. There's also the proverbial to in bed with the rich thing, which also has the benefit of being true.

Attcus,

As a frequent visitor to NYC for decades, I reject the notion that the city was unliveable in 1992. Or 1982 for that matter despite the hellacious recession St. Ronnie imposed upon us.

There are indeed honorable, legitimate and reasonable conservative approaches to policy. It's just that they are rarely the glue that keeps the coaliton together - welfare queens, homosexuals who "threaten" the family, godless others, these are the staples of daytime radio talk, the great window into the conservative world.

The notion that Scalia and Thomas are strict constructionists is laughable. The two of them, Thomas in particular, never hesitate to overturn the acts of democratically elected legislatures that run contrary to their ideological predelictions. They define activist judges. If you want a strict constructionist, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Hugo Black.

Finally, Michael Barone is a right wing hack. He has gone from being a fairly astute observer of voting behavior in the 70s to being a complete kool aid drinker. Rudy will do as well in the Northeast as all those Republican congressman did in 2006. That's why there's one left -- Chris Shays -- and he's going down in 2008.

Dear Atticus,

Way to completely misinterpret, at the very least, my comment. Please point out where I spoke about all conservatives. You can't, because I didn't

XOXO

Lesley

PS, I do remember what New York City was like in 1992, and while it was absolutely better in 1997, it wasn't unlivable in 1992. I managed to live here without problem.

PPS, Please scroll further up and see my first comment, in which I said I voted for Giuliani twice.

Atticus: Do any of you recall how unlivable NYC was in 1992 and how completely wonderful it was by 1997? Do those of us who appreciate 75% reductions in crime, or whatever that number was, really love authoritarianism -- or is it just results?

See, the problem here, iirc (and other issues aside) is that while crime went down in NYC, it also went down across the board, and in all sorts other cities that didn't have Giuliani (or Guiliani-clones) as mayor. It seems fairly likely that a good bit of the credit goes to the end of the early 90's recession and the subsequent tech boom. When enough money starts sloshing around, crime goes down; when the money goes away, duck. And, of course, there are all sorts of other possible and interacting factors . . .

There may be only a few lines of attack against him, and the fascist-racist bit isn't liable to play well outside West LA and a few other select places.

The fascist-racist bit only works to the extent that it's connected to his stubborness. Thanks to Bush, we have the chance to link authoritarianism with incompetence in the public's mind. Since those two things actually are correlated throughout history (answering to no one means never having to say "whoops"), that would be a very good thing.

If authoritarian's what they're after, McCain should be the man. Instead, Rudy gets interest because he considers himself the winner already and because the GOP base can forgive the gays and adultery in exchange for shooting a few more brown folks.

What the hell is wrong with these people. If a liberal is for it, they are against it. We should start talking about how much we love the internet and electricity. They will then get their power shut off and stop using the Net. That'll teach those nasty libruls, right?

The only reason Giuliani is on any sort of radar at all is because of 9/11. He's running on 9/11, and if he gets the nomination the Republican will once again be running on 9/11. Period. That ought to be transparently pathetic at this point, but what do I know.

Its all about 9/11 porn. Giuliani is the pornstar, these people litterally get off on this stuff.

See:

"Mary Gail Swenson, 63, could scarcely take her hands off him as she posed for pictures with Mr Giuliani and whispered in his ear. What did she say? “I wanted to thank him for being so strong in the face of fear. When 9/11 happened he made us feel safer.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1449743.ece

So, I would say its a bit of the authoritarian impulse and the resentment impulse . . . but are they not different sides of the same coin?

Anyone who wants a brief glimmer of insight into the GOP electorate should watch last night's Daily Show piece on an attempt to build a mosque and Islamic community center in a rural Texas town. The enlightened neighbors, who have decided to hold Friday night pig races on the periphery of the property, are really quite a sight. Hateful, ignorant, small-minded, and proud of it.

Do any of you recall how unlivable NYC was in 1992 and how completely wonderful it was by 1997?

Not at all. NYC was fantastic 1989-1992 when I spent a lot of time there. In many ways it is far less interesting now. And you really have to ask, wonderful for whom? A lot of young people who could have lived in Manhattan in the 1980s are now forced to go to Williamsburg or even further afield. The city is rapidly turning into an expensive boutique playground for the upper and upper-middle class and their servants. Of course this is a long term trend that actually has very little to do with Giuliani, and the same thing is happening in Boston, SF, Paris and London, but his personal contribution to the "revitalization" of New York is vastly exaggerated.

"Also, I find it amazing that students of politics think there's a contradiction between Giuliani being personally "pro-choice" re: abortion, and being inclined to appoint judges who strictly interpret the language of the Constitution like Thomas and Scalia."

What is so amazing? If Guiliani really does appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas then that means he is de facto anti-choice. In the past, judges appointed by presumably pro-life Republicans don't always work out that way (e.g. Souter) while judges appointed by self-described pro-choice liberals are *always* reliably liberal.

How *sure* can one be that a guy who cavorts like a liberal and personally supports killing babies *will* appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas? If Guiliani is wrong on the most important issues, why does it matter if he was a strong leader? I suppose you could say Stalin, Mao or FDR were strong leaders. Does this make them desirable as a candidate for president?

I read a good sampling of these comments. Almost without exception, the commenters ascribed negative or demeaning motives (authoritarian, hate, tribalism, resentment, bigotry, etc.) to Republicans. You clearly have no respect for Republicans. One commenter stated that he was a liberal and thus committed to honesty and empiricism. I would have you know that there are also many Republicans who also share those commitments.

I suggest that it would be better for Democrats if they would focus on persuading the electorate that their ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas, rather than focusing on essentially insulting Republicans.

I am a Republican who supports Barack Obama for President because I believe that he is focused on respectful debate and inspiration rather than on the type of petty mud-slinging I see here.

"Not at all. NYC was fantastic 1989-1992 when I spent a lot of time there. In many ways it is far less interesting now. And you really have to ask, wonderful for whom? A lot of young people who could have lived in Manhattan in the 1980s are now forced to go to Williamsburg or even further afield."

Interesting? If by less interesting you mean less dangerous and crime ridden you are right. I lost count of the number of friends I had in NYC during the "Intersting" years who were mugged, raped, etc... Then of course, getting the police to do anything about it was another hurdle. Rudy came in and I remember well that pretty much ever friend I had, Democrat, Gay, Black, White, Asian, was voting for him simply because NYC was now a place where you could actually live. If making NYC safe falls under the phrase "Boring" for you, then I hope all of our lives are a bit more "Boring"

So FDR is comparable to Stalin or Mao and Giuliani supports killing "babies." Ah, the smell of wingnuttery in the morning.

Eric,

The commenter above and his ilk are illustrative of the reason that most of us have little respect for Republicans. We also dislike the way that they have cynically demonized classes of people, e.g. the gay marriage issue, while attacking the patriotism of those of us who question the war in Iraq. Most disturbingly, so-called moderate and reasonable Republicans have gone along with these electoral tactics for years. I see very little attempt by the GOP to discuss matters in reasonable logical public policy terms, relying instead on hot button cultural issues and attempting to play to people's prejudices and worst tendencies.

Just wait and see if Barack Hussein Obama is the Democratic nominee. I predict a display of mind boggling ugliness.

Eric - see this old Kung Fu Monkey post, entitled "I Miss Republicans.

I would say that pre-Rove, the demagoguery level was much closer between the Republicans and Democrats (though I would concede that the R's still had an edge mainly because they employed the tactics more successfully). During this Rovian era, I will make no attempt to defend the R's.

I voted for Kerry, because of (in order) the Bush administration's: fiscal irresponsibility, foreign policy incompetence, executive incompetence (ideology trumping competence), war prosecution incompetence, and their lack of respect for any opinions but their own.

I think that an Obama administration would be far superior in all of these matters. I want to see Respect, Responsibility, and Dedication to Competence in my next President and I think that Obama has these qualities. I know that it will be difficult for him to be elected for a number of reasons. I have faith that it is possible (the Audacity of Hope!). Even if it does not happen in '08, I will still have that faith (that our country will choose to select these qualities in our leaders).

I probably disagree with Obama on more specific policies than I agree with him on. And I wish that it were a Republican displaying the kind of leadership that he does. Alas, it is not. So, I will support Obama financially and as a campaign volunteer. That is what I can and will do at this time. Will you join me?

I never found Kerry mincing or guilt-addled, but then again I voted for him. Then again, most Republican icons look to me born bullies and bullettes, so maybe it's largely your Icon of Loathesomeness that comes into play regardless.

I would rather my leader minced, apologised for wrongs actually done, could feel guilty (though not be addled by it---guilt demands redress, and you can't do that addled-pated or ninnie-hammered), and could think reasonably and rationally and realistically. I wouldn't even mind if he came from élite schools like St Paul's and Yale (as opposed to solid-yeoman schools like ANdover and Yale) if they hadn't extinguished rational thought about the world-as-it-is and -might-credibly-be in her.

Jeez; it's "Who affects the lives of everyone on Earth?", not "¿Quien es mas macho?"---or rather, it should be so.

Were Stalin, Mao Tse Sung and FDR *not* strong leaders? How can anyone say this? Just because a leader is *strong* doesn't mean he is desirable. One has to consider *what* he would use his strength for. I put in Stalin and Mao as examples of strong leaders who *any* American, Left or Right would disagree with. I put in FDR as an example of a leader who Americans on the Right disagree with. My point was that just because Guiliani is a strong leader doesn't mean that conservative Americans will *want* what he *might* use his strength for?

Remember Bush's calling card was his "strong leadership". Turns out it was a chimera. How can one know whether Rudy is any more of a real deal than Bush was? You can't. But at least with Bush the home team added one Justice to the anti-Roe contingent. I don't think Guiliani can be trusted to do the same--especially with the Democratic Congress. Might he be more likely to save his political capital and nominate and "easy to confirm" moderate?

As for Guiliani being in favor of baby killing, isn't he pro-choice? If you honestly believe that a fetus is a person, then killing a fetus is no different than killing a baby. The term baby-killer is perfectly apt when considering how Guiliani will be viewed by pro-lifers.

very good

very nice post

I will also say this: Hillary is the perfect foil for the politics of resentment. Republicans love to hate her and they will feed off that hate if she wins the Democratic primary.

That's not to say that liberals shouldn't vote for Hillary. If she's the right person for the job, who cares what Republicans think? But there's no question that she presents a more attractive target than almost anyone when it comes to this brand of politics.

It's ironic, I suppose, that HRC is more conservative than either Obama and Edwards. Her campaign would have us believe that her moderate stance on foreign affairs will insulate her from the right and make her more electable in the general. But the reality is that her policy positions are irrelevant for a lot of people. They hate her on a personal level.

very Good Site Thanks You

very Good Site Thanks You

Arabam
Güzel Sözler
porno
sex
Oyun
Oyun
sextube
89
mobilya
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
Site ekleSite Ekle
arkadaş
Mirc
türkce mirc
Sohbet
Sohbet
amerikan kapı
tosya ahsap
Pimapen
Oyunlar
Oyunlar
forum
Resimleri
redtube
Sohbet Odaları
Bol Sohbet
arabam
pornotube
Aşk
Ahşap
Arkadaş
Aşk mesajları
Sevgi mesajları
Bayan Arkadaş
kapı
kapılar
thank you grup

Arabam
Güzel Sözler
porno
sex
Oyun
Oyun
sextube
89
mobilya
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
Site ekleSite Ekle
arkadaş
Mirc
türkce mirc
Sohbet
Sohbet
amerikan kapı
tosya ahsap
Pimapen
Oyunlar
Oyunlar
forum
Resimleri
redtube
Sohbet Odaları
Bol Sohbet
arabam
pornotube
Aşk
Ahşap
Arkadaş
Aşk mesajları
Sevgi mesajları
Bayan Arkadaş
kapı
kapılar
thank you grup

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu

thanks for all

thanks ;)

thank you !

sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
sexshop
sexshop
facebook
face book
face turk
arkadaş
sex shop
sex shop
seks shop
seks shop
sex market
sex market
shop shop
erotik shop
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
sex shop
muhabbet
trkadin
hikayen
sex
porno
chat
sohbet
lokum
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat

thank you !

thank you

thank you

thank you

Oyun
Oyunlar
Oyun
Oyunlar
Oyun
Oyunlar
Sinema
Sinema
Sinema
Video
Video
Video
Galeri
Galeri
Galeri
Resim
Resim
Resim
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Resim
Galeri
Video
Sinema
Oyun
Oyun

thank you

mirc

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
www.youtube
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup

Good to see the polls catch up with reality, now that everyone has realized that the straight talk ship has sailed out of the McBush camp we just might get some real change!

thakx

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
yutup
izlesene
yutub
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup
youtube.com