Less is More

Disagree strongly that Kinsley is somehow brilliant. This is Kinsley at his worst, but he's always kind of unserious. It's true that his many imitators are much worse though.

Matthew, you are showing some strange judgement. This is the jerk who did his best to ruin the Los Angeles Times editorial pages, and the jerk who pretends to be moderate but is conservative as hell and always ready to kick moderates let alone liberals. Brilliant? Right.

Whenever Kinsley writes a good column, he immediately feels required to write a crappy one. Contrarian centrism is his schtick, and in Bushworld contrarian centrists are idiots. But that's all he knows how to do.

He's younger and prettier than Broder, but he has the same problem. Poor guy.

It's also significant that there's a reasonable amount of suspicion that the white house got the justice department to fire the USAs because the USAs (Yglesias) wouldn't perform a politically motivated hit-job on various aspiring non-republican office holders in the absence of adequate evidence. In tandem with the states detailing the ratios of investigations of democrats relative to republicans, the fact that the push for Carol Lams firing was made most urgently the day after she filed her indictments of republican lawmakers connected to the CIA/congressional bribery scandal suggests that the administration is willing to act in a manner profoundly, almost violently, at odds the spirit of the rule of law.

I agree.

It is a very strange world where Michael Kingsley passes as a brilliant writer.

Matt, do not drink the Kool-Aid!

I'm assuming, David, that you're a young'un. Kinsley, in his youth and well into his middle age, was brilliant - the Matthew Yglesias of his day, one might say.

Unfortunately, if anything here, Yglesias understates the case. Kinsley has become just another imitator now - someone who lacks the talent of the younger Kinsley and who uses formulaic contrarianism as a crutch. (However, I may be a little more sympathetic than Yglesias to the second-rate imitators and knee-jerk contrarians. I still read Kinsley everywhere I can, and I even find Kaus, for instance, highly readable.)

The change for Kinsley is almost as sad as the final years of Mike Royko. Here's a question: Besides Royko, what other columnist in receny decades has aged this poorly?

Kinsley had a hand in making Slate the ocean of talent that it is, did he not? "Brilliant" isn't the word that I'd use to describe him....

Matt, you're spot on with everything except saying Kinsley is a brillian writer.

He's an ignorant moron who knows NOTHING about most things he writes about, and thinks that going against the majority of intellectual and educated opinion by siding with the powerful and criminals is the cool thing to do to be a contrarian/opinion-maker/rebel-rouser/real-intellectual.

Anyone remember his moronically idiotic "review" of Jimmy Carter's book on Palestine. I could fart into my computer's speech-recognition and print out more sense than that.

Was Clinton following historical precedent when he did the firing or was he just doing his own thing? Because if it's the latter and the attorneys didn't do things like run roughshod over civil rights, what Clinton did was still bad. It was not exactly the same, but then again, two murders are never exactly the same (and no, I am not calling the firing of attorneys murderers).

I'm not sure that Kinsley is brilliant, but if I am not mistaken he is a Harvard grad and they're all brilliant I hear so...

Kinsley doesn't seem to have gotten the memo that if it's about Democrats, like the Pelosi airplane story, it's silly stuff if it's silly stuff, but if the tempest in the teapot du jour is about Republicans is serious business that if left unexamined, will cause the republic to collapse into fascism, no silliness there.

I suggest MY shoots him an email so he realizes that.

As a full-blown fan of Michael Kinsley the columnist, I'm quite unimpressed with MK the blogger. First, the Washington's teeth joke is a shockingly lame line from the wit that gave us "a gaffe is when a politician accidently tells the truth."

More substantively, Kinsley's thesis seems to be:

"[The wave after wave of blatant lies are] the best evidence that there is something simply and truly wrong going on. It’s not great evidence. The characteristic mendacity of the Bush administration is the pointless lie..."

Or, conversely, this could be really great evidence of incompetence and nefarious motives, and the lies actually do have a point--ie: concealing said incompetance and nefarious motives.

Kinsley is smart enough to know about at least some of the vast piles of evidence pointing to this "incompentent and nefarious" theory. He's putting on a game of willful misunderstanding, which is disapointing from someone like him.

I think this ties in with something Ezra Klein (I think) was saying on Tapped a while back--every columnist/pundit faces enormous pressure to say something new and unique about issues that are discussed ad nasueam in all corners of the media. It seems the once great Kinsley has fallen into this I-have-to-say-something-different-even-if-it-makes-no-sense trap.

I started reading Kinsley a little before the 2000 election campaign, and over the next two or three years I never saw him write anything particularly "centrist." To the contrary, he had a long and consistent series of pretty great takedowns of candidate Bush. So the centrist accusation seems pretty strange to me. I'm not too familiar with his work before or after, so maybe that was just an unusual period in his overall output.

This blog post is pretty bad though, no doubt.

j mct --
Thing about the Pelosi airplane story is that it was *false*. Remember?

Really Man, Is this where you come to ask questions answered scads of other places? Even a token attempt at research would have answered your question, which I won't.

NB: Everything I'm talking about is from MK's response post on Swampland, not the post linked to from here. Sorry for any blogoshperic confusion.

Reality Man, the distinction here isn't actually a complicated one, despite the sand being thrown up. Every US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. When the Presidency has switched parties, a wholesale replacement of USAs is apparently common; it happened in 1981 under Reagan, 1993 under Clinton, and 2001 under Bush. The 1993 distinction seems to have been that a number of USAs refused to tender their resignations when requested to do so under Clinton (after 12 years of Republican control of the White House), so Janet Reno publically fired them all.

What's signficant here is that a number of USAs were forced from office after the President was reelected. Firing a significant number of USAs after being reelected seems to be unprecedented; the Congressional Research Service was apparently able to identify only two instances in the last twenty-five years.

j mct --

In addition to what SqueakyRat said, just thought I'd make the following point:

As overblown as the rhetoric often is, I think it's safe to say that intimidating prosecutors so that they will go easy on your political allies and trump up charges against your political enemies is a tad closer to a "collapse to fascism" than is taking advantage of the tax payers to fly in a fancy jet (even assuming the Pelosi story was true).

In defense of Kinsley's brilliance, the mark of a genius essayist is the ability to take a subject that many people talk about and render it unnecessary to talk about any more. Nobody need ever ridicule David Brooks again, because the job was taken care of completely in 2004 in this Kinsley book review. I hope the link works.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDB1F3CF930A15756C0A9629C8B63

What's signficant here is that a number of USAs were forced from office after the President was reelected.

I don't think that's it. What's significant here is the motivation. As Josh Marshall has said many times, the key is Carol Lam.

Has anyone ever read The ABC Murders by Agatha Christie? SPOILER! The murderer in that book is an apparent serial killer who chooses his victims in alphabetical order: Alice Ascher of Andover, Betty Barnard of Bexhill, etc. The twist, it turns out, is that he isn't a serial killer at all, but the brother of Letter C. He murdered the others just so observers wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees.

I think Marshall's suspicion, if you read between the lines of his posts, is that something similar was going on here. The administration wanted to get rid of Carol Lam to stop her investigation, which was spreading beyond Duke Cunningham. They thought about firing all 93 US attorneys, but although that wouldn't have seemed suspicious, it would have seemed nuts. So they settled on firing her along with just a handful of others.

But then they got greedy and decided they'd group her not with a bunch of randomly chosen US attorneys, but with other US attorneys whom they didn't particularly like. They had no reason for them to fear Iglesias or the guy from Washington state as they did with Lam, but they saw an opportunity to settle a few scores. But there was enough of a resemblance between Iglesias and Lam to get people suspicious and that blew the cover off the story.

Or at least that's where I think Marshall's going with this. It's all about Carol Lam. He might not have enough proof to report it yet, but the fact that the White House has lied their asses off so far is good reason to suspect they have something to hide.

The hating of non-Atrios-approved writers that goes on in the comment sections of the prominent liberal blogs can get so indiscriminate as to be laughable. Mike Kinsley writes a couple of poor blog posts and all of a sudden he's a talentless hack, and a centrist contrarian? Kinsley has his faults, to be sure, especially when it comes to too-clever counterintuitive arguments like this one. But far more often, Kinsley nails the hypocrisy and muddled thinking of his target (see Brooks piece above), in elegant prose. And while it's unfortunate that he spawned such genuinely wankerific hacks as Mickey Kaus, not all counterintuitives are created equal. Like Matt, Kinsley is generally concerned with the reasoning *process* -- are the positions taken logically sound? Kaus and his ilk are obsessed with taking contrarian positions for their own sake.

And to put Kinsley in the same category as David Broder, who probably hasn't summoned an original since the Ford administration, well, that's a bridge too far.

Compared to Broder, Kinsley is the champ, because he got old younger.

The deep problem here is that there are few areas of our political universe that remain untainted by the GOP method of corruption and pressure. The unbelievable becomes debatable (torture, war, etc.), while pure politics is sniffed at by the likes of Kinsley.

Look at the (sorry) state of our national press corps.

The LAW is supposedly what this nation is built upon and what we fight to protect (and, uh, spread when rhetorically convenient). Many lawyers and US Attorneys (a sub-set of lawyers, obviously) take this duty very, very seriously. Law applies to everyone. It is not perfect, it can be corrupted, but an abiding belief in its relevance, importance, and independence is fundamental to ideas of freedom and justice.

Messing with the US Attorneys for political purposes is a huge deal. It indicates a higher loyalty to party (GOP) than to country (citizens and the rule of law). It is a bad, bad situation for democracy. There are plenty of other bad things going on, but when the only arm of the government that is still considered independent at least part of the time starts getting infiltrated with cronyism, something really stinks. Nevermind Bush v. Gore and other legal shenanigans (refusing to grant security clearances for the NSA investigation, for example), when political enemies are prosecuted, and political allies are spared investigation, the road to hell is suddenly a lot shorter and a lot more brutal.

Remember, Janet Reno appointed a prosecutor to look into her boss's (nonexistent) wrongdoing in a failed real estate deal. The fact that folks like Kinsley are OK with the head of US law enforcement not only acting like, but being acknowledged as, a mere political extetion of the president is a sad sign of how far we have fallen. This stuff is scary, people. The law is what the GOP says it is according to this point of view. Not cool.

"Michael Kinsley is a brilliant writer who, unfortunately, has spawning about four dozen unbearable second-rate imitators."

I agree. I don't have a problem with Kinsley but I am tired of Michael Kinsley wannabes.

Kinsley is a great writer and he is entitled to his opinions but why does Time magazine present him as a balance to Krauthammer and Kristol? It is an insult to Time readers.

Kinsley's point is quite a silly one. Its quite common in the law that people are permitted to do things on a whim or for lots of different reasons but cant do them for forbiden reasons. Employers can often dismiss workers at will; but they cant fire on the basis of race or gender or for other forbidden reasons. A driver obeying all traffic laws might unintentionally hit a pedestrian and kill them without committing any crime; if the same driver does exactly the same thing but intends to hit the pedestrian, its a crime and a very serious one. In other words, "why" somebody does something matters a lot in determining whether an action is right or wrong -- legal or illegal. Its quite odd that Kinsley pretends not to understand this.

Here, I think "why" Bush fired these prosecutors matters quite a bit and may turn out to have rendered his (and gonzales') actions illegal, although not really unprecedented. If they let US Attorneys go who refused to conduct bogus investigations and, even worse, fired US Attorneys who were investigating high ranking Republican officials, that's clearly obstruction of justice. In fact, there is precedent for what exactly that sort of lawless conduct. Its precisely what Richard Nixon did when he fired Archibald Cox. Cox was a member of the Justice Department and unquestionably the President can dismiss any member of the Justice Department at will. But Nixon sought to fire Cox to prevent him from investigating Nixon -- and that was widely recognized as obstruction of justice and in fact showed up in the Articles of Impeachment. What Nixon did may well not be that different from what Bush did here -- force out prosecutors whose investigation threatened the administration -- and it may well have been just as illegal. that's why everyone is lawyering up, in my view, not simply because a slew of folks in Justice also lied to Congress in order to cover-up what they had done.

Though I posted the Brooks review above, I do think Kinsley has slid. Personally, I'd mark this 2005 column as the first genuinely stupid thing that I'm aware he ever wrote. He basically says that news coverage of the Downing Street memo wasn't helpful or even meaningful, because everyone already knew Bush had fixed Iraq intelligence around his preferred policy. (Never mind that vast portions of the media and all of the administration contended otherwise even as Kinsley wrote this.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001705.html

...Nixon sought to fire Cox to prevent him from investigating Nixon -- and that was widely recognized as obstruction of justice and in fact showed up in the Articles of Impeachment. What Nixon did may well not be that different from what Bush did here...

I think this is exactly right. Imagine things on a smaller scale: a police chief fires a detective who is preparing to investigate the police chief's son. Did the firing fall within the police chief's "discretion"? Sure it did. But it's still obstruction of justice.

The bottom line: if Carol Lam was fired in order to derail or slow down an investigation, that is obstruction of justice. It is absolutely a crime and absolutely grounds for impeachment. It doesn't matter if the president has the "discretion" or the "authority" to fire a US Attorney, or whether US Attorney's "serve at the pleasure of the president." It's a crime.

Kinsley is a great writer and he is entitled to his opinions but why does Time magazine present him as a balance to Krauthammer and Kristol? It is an insult to Time readers.

Name begins with K. Not just a good idea, it's the law. Kagan, Kaplan, the whole shitload.

Since I have no life, I went back and skimmed through all 25 Kinsley columns linked on his Washington Post archive. I only spent about 10 seconds on each one so I could be wrong about some of this stuff.

Six were either about non-political topics or about political topics where there isn't a clear partisan split (e.g. the wrongful conviction of Wen Ho Lee).
Of the remaining 19:
* Fourteen were clearly liberal, including all the Iraq columns
Of the other five:
* One criticized Jimmy Carter's book about Israel.
* One criticized Paul Krugman's book about health care. Krugman said we should go single-payer. Kinsley said we should go with some sort of hybrid system.
* One defended presidential signing statements.
* One was a weird column where he starts out calling the Mark Foley scandal a sideshow, and then ends by saying Republicans are not morally superior to Democrats.
* One criticized Nancy Pelosi for not raising taxes.

The columns on Jimmy Carter and signing statements are clearly contrarian. The health care column reflects, I think, a good faith liberal position, if not the most liberal position. The Pelosi column is, if anything, an attack from the left. The Foley column is just weird. All together, they probably add up to about three contrarian columns.

There are a couple of columns where he starts off with an offhand remark "yeah, capitalism is good" or "yeah, pro-lifers don't really hate babies after they're born," but then spend the whole rest of the column attacking Republicans. I don't think these genuinely qualify as criticisms of the left.

In all, he wasn't as liberal as I remember him being in the past, but even today he isn't anywhere near Joe Klein, Mickey Kaus, et al.

In our culture, it is still taboo to talk about the effects of brain trauma on personality and cognitive function. James Brady did a lot to remove the stigma.

There's no need to defend Clinton to justify attacking Dumbya. Partisan or patronage interference in the administration of justice is wrong regardless of who does it. Dumbya's ideological purge was orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's houseburning but this by no means makes Clinton's behavior just.

The message this sends to people working in US Attorney's offices throughout the country is that . . . US Attorneys will lose their jobs if the partisan control of the White House switched. George W. Bush, by contrast, fired a handful of US Attorneys who had displeased the Bush team's political fixers, under circumstances where (contrary to historic practice) the White House got to hand pick their successor. The message this sends to federal prosecutors throughout the land is that US Attorneys' are now considered part-and-parcel of George W. Bush's political team and that those who fail to act accordingly will be sacked.

There isn't really much difference between the messages sent here, Matt, but just in the timing of the sending, and the level of customary hypocritical decorum with which they are sent. Why do you think it is established routine that "US Attorneys will lose their jobs if the partisan control of the White House switched?" It is precisely because it is well-understood by players in the American political system that with a new political regime comes a new legal apparatus that is friendly to the regime, and that includes being "part-and-parcel of the White House political team" - or at least a potentially useful appendage to it. If a Democratic regime replaces a Republican regime, everyone knows you are going to get a new cast of characters who are somewhat more inclined to prosecute Republican crimes and look away from Democratic crimes than the previous cast of characters. And it's the same when a Republican regime replaces a Democratic regime. The appointments are both rewards for favors, and a kind of political homeowner's insurance against damage to the stately White House facade.

However, the matter is usually addressed with more decorum, and hidden among the multitude of chores and debates that are occasioned by a presidential transition. If you fire a guy for backing off on an election probe, the manipulation of the legal system is distastefully obvious. If you simply install someone in that postion whom you can count on in advance not to pursue such probes, then you have acted with commendable propriety, at least according to the grubby democratic standards of American politics.

The political class is rebelling because Gonzales, by practicing the usual corruption out of season, has held this dirty political racket up to public exposure. In addition, these attorneys typically know when their hitch will be up, and plan their private sector jobs on a certain schedule. By firing the attorneys at this non-traditional time, people were thrown "out of the street." (Granted, the pavement on that happy street is not very rough.) That's a violation of the ground rules.

Apparently people must be beaten about the head with the following: W did exactly what Clinton did when he first took office. It is customary for a new President to replace the US attorneys. NO ONE made a big deal of W doing what Clinton did.

The problem is the manner in which W is yanking his own people, coupled with the fact that some have had big successes in indicting Republicans while others did ask "how high" when GOP Senators leaned on them to rush indictments of Democrats. THAT is the issue here.

Of course these distinctions matter not a whit to noise machine that makes every effort to muddle the issues and keep the electorate ignorant.

Michael Kiansley was once brilliant. I remember years ago reading him and marveling at his intelligence. But that was years ago. The writer above who likens his decline to Mike Royko's has it spot on.

For chrissakes, the guy has Parkinson's. That's a consuming physical affliction, not to mention a brain disease. He's not going to have the same kind of focus and spark he once did.

Kinsley is one of the people who helped fatally infect The New Republic with the virus of contrarianism. As a writer, he is essentially unserious.

It is customary for incoming Presidents to replace US attorneys. It's also customary to do this in an orderly fashion as the replacements are approved, so as to not create disruptive vacancies. The charge against Clinton/Reno is not that they replaced US attorneys. It's that they were in such a hurry to get rid of the existing ones, that in some cases they didn't wait until they had replacements available. The inference is that they actually wanted the work to be disrupted in those cases.

This would make the chief difference between the Clinton and Bush firings that Bush took a while to accumulate legal troubles to the point where he had to start obstructing justice, while Clinton entered office already in full blown obstruction mode, because of his dealings in Little Rock. Which observation, while not particularly complementary towards Bush, doesn't exibit enough Clinton corruption denial to satisfy the sensitivities of many Democrats.

And that's Kinsley's problem; He isn't enough of a partisan hack for some people.

[every] columnist/pundit faces enormous pressure to say something new and unique about issues that are discussed ad nasueam in all corners of the media.

There's more than one possible motivation at work here. While the comparison of Kinsley to Broder upthread is outrageous - apples and oranges: Broder has been The consumate mediocrity for longer than he was a good reporter or anything else, while Kinsley has done lots of good work within memory - the similarity and difference is worth teasing out.

There is something inherently overweening about being a 'columnist', or any kind of Fourth Estate Institution. Politicians come and go, the mere history of the Nation flows by, but Journalistic Institutions are forever. The goal of the columnist is different from the pol or reporter in terms of degree: there is a never ending need to prove that their position is warranted, that anyone should listen to what they say; they aren't elected or unelected, and they are rarely fired. You will find few pols who are as consistantly arrogant, smug and self-satisfied - AND crappy - as, say, Tom Brokaw (and that's really saying something!). That's because Tom's job is primarilly aggrandizment of himself and his mileau, not one of any kind of even ancillary service to his country.

Kinsley is different. I suspect he falls into contrarianism - as does Matthew occasionally - as much out of intellectual figgity-ness (boredom?) as anything else. It can be a service to us all, really, a way they actually earn their position. When somebody as smart as Kinsley gets something like this USA thing as spectacularly, ridiculously wrong as he did, it can be clarifying. Likewise, when MY didn't understand the cathartic nature of Colbert's address to the Journalist dinner last year, it was immensely clarifying (he thought it didn't matter because the jokes weren't that 'funny').

But that phenomenon is only salutary when it's the rare exception (as in MY's case, IMO). For whatever reason, I think Kinsley is round the bend. I for one don't rush to read his stuff anymore. Sad.

This would make the chief difference between the Clinton and Bush firings that Bush took a while to accumulate legal troubles to the point where he had to start obstructing justice, while Clinton entered office already in full blown obstruction mode, because of his dealings in Little Rock. Which observation, while not particularly complementary towards Bush, doesn't exibit enough Clinton corruption denial to satisfy the sensitivities of many Democrats.

Nice theory. Too bad it's horseshit.
Clinton was clean and it took millions of dollars and dedicated lieing by an army of Republican agents to make the lies seem real. The books have been written and the reaseach is done. We know how the Republican Party worked the Clintons and what its standards are for the truth.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Clinton did have a women problem and his sins of lust helped legitimize all the other lies that were told about him. At least amongst the Republican faithful. Which ultimately is the long term target of the GOP misinformation. Why stay Rpublican unless your political opponents are reprenensible?

Don't be a liar for the right wing noise machine Brett.

I've said from the beginning that if W had fired all 93 US Attorneys shortly after his re-election, it would have been a two-day story of the "isn't this odd" variety. The real story would have been buried.

I think that Kinsely, by his own addmission, has always been much more in the moderate to neo-liberal camp rather than a truly liberal voice. Nevertheless, I have always thought him the best stylist on a day to day basis in the op-ed world and a pretty elegant thinker. This post of his, however, was deeply
unserious by any measure and rather disappointing. Of course, he had a similar bad moment with the column about the Downing Street memo, which may show that he is losing it a bit. Any way my comment to him:

Mr Kinsley,

This is glib contrarianism, masquerading as thoughtful, even-handed wisdom. The facts teased out to date would suggest that the Bush administration is punishing US attorneys for being overly aggressive vis a vis Republicans, e.g. Carol Lam, or not aggressive enough vis a vis Democratis, e.g. Iglesias. Most people find the politicization of prosecutions to be problematic, although you are evidently above this sort of thing.

Plus your naive, give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt posture suggests that you have been sleep walking through the last six years. If they are lying (as they appear to be) it seems reasonable to assume that there is something worth lying about.

I've always been an admirer or your thinking and writing, but this is a weak, weak effort.

I would just like to salute JP for the "The ABC Murders" reference. It was always one of my favorite Agatha Christie books.

In other words, "why" somebody does something matters a lot in determining whether an action is right or wrong -- legal or illegal. Its quite odd that Kinsley pretends not to understand this.

Odd, but not unusual. Such feigned ignorance is de rigeur, e.g., among opponants of anti-hate-crime legislation.

They had no reason for them to fear Iglesias or the guy from Washington state as they did with Lam, but they saw an opportunity to settle a few scores.

It's a little more complicated than that with Iglesias, though. To the extent the issue focuses on Iglesias, the GOP figures they can frame (all) the firing(s) as relating to US.A.s not doing their job of, e.g., prosecuting voter fraud. The flaw in their strategy is that the reason why Iglesias would be the lightening rod they figured he would be is that he's as well-respected (i.e. Tom Cruise played him in a movie once ... then again he also played Duke Cunningham, so to speak: what ya learn from NPR -- the Scientologists are staging their coup now it seems!) -- i.e. people will believe him over the obviously less than trustworthy GOP. And, as many have pointed out, this blows the GOP strategy right open: they for so long have been alleging voter fraud in order to give them cover for disenfranchisement activities.

So, firing Iglesias wasn't just settling a score while diverting attention from the firing of Lam: it is a key part of diverting the attention where the GOP wants it -- to their claims of massive voter fraud. 'Cept after being chicken-little about WMDs, etc., ain't nobody trustin' the GOP no more. So let's use some of that Rovian jujitsu against even Rove himself, nu? Let's give the GOP what it wants and focus this whole mess on Iglesias and blow the whole disenfranchisement strategy of the GOP right out in the open.

'Course the problem is that the GOP's keeping "undesirables" from votin' helps them in certain constituencies, alas.

What's significant here is the motivation.

Exactly. The thing that happened here is that the administration expected to be able to take what should be a law enforcement tool and utilize it as an essentially political one - shielding allies, hurting opponents and messing about with voter turnout and election results. The ones who didn't play ball got fired.

It's a nasty little piece of third-world thuggishness that serves as a model for the way the administration does business.

For chrissakes, the guy has Parkinson's. That's a consuming physical affliction, not to mention a brain disease. He's not going to have the same kind of focus and spark he once did.

Then it's time for him to stop writing opinion pieces. Especially because of his poor record of prediction in the present political climate; he has consistently overlooked and discounted the radicalism of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Actually, I think there's some merit to the Parkinson's theory. One of the clinical signs of Parkinson's is perseveration: the inability to change your behavior to adapt to novel circumstances. Kinsley's perseverating both in his reflexively contrarian centrist "insights" and his imitative writing style.

n.b. IANAC (I am not a clinician) but I'm more informed than, say, Dr. Krauthammer.

If I were a thinking Republican, the FIRST thing I'd want to do is get this investigated properly. Because from now on, any Democrat who is investigated is going to be able to say with great fairness that whatever they're being charged with is politically motivated.

This is a list of web hosting providers (WHP) and internet service provider (ISP) that had included AWStats in their services (When someone reported to me a such provider i add it in this list with the LogFormat parameter value required to make AWStats work).

Nice theory. Too bad it's horseshit.

thanks ok

i am reading all word

There's no need to defend Clinton to justify attacking Dumbya. Partisan or patronage interference in the administration of justice is wrong regardless of who does it. Dumbya's ideological purge was orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's houseburning but this by no means makes Clinton's behavior just.

thanks..

hello

selam

selamlar

oldu

seksi

farz

tsklerrr

tsklerrr

tsklerrr

tsklerrr

tsklerrr

tsklll

tsklerr

thank you

thank you

Sohbet
almanya sohbet
izmir sohbet
msn sohbet
Sohbet odaları
Chat
chat siteleri
free CHAT
sohbet siteleri

- Alt Linkler - * sohbet *

Kelebek Sohbet
Liselikızlar
ingiltere Sohbet
islam sohbet
islamkent
Arkadaş
Dost Chat
Chat Sohbet
Reklam ver
Avrupa Chat
Yazılı Sohbet
Yazgülü
Bolsohbet
izmir sohbet
Hollanda sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohpet
sohbet.com
msn sohbet
mynet sohbet
cet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline

- Alt Linkler - * Chat *

maynet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline
seslichat

- Yeniler -

Gurbet
Sevgi
Ask
antalya sohbet
sex sohbet
girl

- Amsalak Linkler -

Komik Videolar
Komik vidiyolar
bedava Videolar

her hangi bir sorun oldugunda pm atınız ...

- Bglog - * webmaster blog *

webmaster
komik blog
komik
komik Resimler
komik yazılar
komik videolar
komik fıkralar

- Sohbet5.Net -

Sohbet
chat

girl

hosting

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Sohbet Chat Muhabbet

this web site 10 numara:)

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Thanks
Best regards
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

tsklerrr ederim

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

seks shop

seks shop

erotik shop

erotik shop

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü

Thank You
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması -
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması -
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması -
ankara nakliyat -
Mortgage -
Toplist -
oyun -
izlesene -
Rize -
Güzel Sözler -
pusat -
netlog -
hikaye
seo
küresel ısınmaya
hayır
r10
car

sex hikayeleri thanks all..

seks hikayeleri thanks all

http://www.vaymuhabbet.net

Thanks for you sites..

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

this force was authorized as a training and protection force for the Transitional Federal Institutions. Its approval takes place within the context of policy that we believe that the way

authorized as a training and protection force for the Transitional Federal Institutions. Its approval takes place within the context of policy that we believe that the way

training and protection force for the Transitional Federal Institutions. Its approval takes place within the context of policy that we believe that the way

thanmks

thnk

thanks

thnk

Matthew Yglesias _ proudly eponymous since 2002e e e eee eee

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

thank you

thank you !

thank you

thank you

thank you !

thank you

than you

teşekkürler yararlı bir yazı olmuş bloğunu takip ediyorum.
Turkey ;)

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

thank you nice sharing

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

thanks

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

thank you

thanks

thanks

Thank you very much for this information

thanks a lot

thanks a lot

Dış Cephe
Fibercement
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe

Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik Plastik Cerrahi
Kulak Estetigi
Kulak Estetigi
Gögüs Büyütme
Gögüs Estetigi
Burun Estetigi
Burun Estetigi
Meme Büyütme
Gögüs Küçültme
Meme Küçültme
Estetik

botoks
burun ameliyati
burun estetigi
cinsel estetik
dogum yirtigi
estetik videosu
goz estetigi
gogus kucultme
gogus estetigi
meme estetigi
meme buyutme
meme kucultme
gogus buyutme
kulak estetigi
kulak ameliyati
burun estetigi
burun ameliyati
labioplasti
vajina
liposaksin
kas estetigi
burun videosu
karin estetigi
kizlik zari
meme ucu
botoks
meme buyutme
meme estetigi
silikon
burun
burun dusmesi
kizlik zari
vajina
estetik
meme buyutme

meme kucultme
meme kucultme
meme kucultme
meme buyutme
meme buyutme
kulak ameliyati
gogus buyutme

thank you wery much sites. I think this ties in with something Ezra Klein (I think) was saying on Tapped a while back--every columnist/pundit sohbet faces enormous pressure to say something new and unique about issues that are discussed ad nasueam in all corners of the media. It seems the once great Kinsley has fallen into this I-have-to-say-something-different-even-if-it-makes-no-sense trap.

thanks you wery admıns...

thnks

thjks

Thanks a lot admin

For those of you thinking that if they implement this it will eliminate some of the waiting and lines…

Fibercement
Dış cephe
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dış cephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html
http://www.izokon.com/fiberust.doc
http://hekimboard.blogcu.com
http://www.izokon.com/style.css
http://www.izokon.com/sitemap.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunlergiris.html
http://www.izokon.com/hbteknik.doc
http://izokon.blogspot.com/2008/06/hekimboard-fibercement.html
http://izokon.blogspot.com

thanx

It’s an interesting theory but it doesn’t make sense to me. There are much simpler ways for Oracle to give Red Hat patent protection, such as joining the OIN and it doesn’t explain Ellison’s bad-mouthing of Red Hat.

Thanks..
| Filmizle | Film izle | Vizyon Filim | VizyonFilmi | Seyret | Filmini | Full izle | Dizi izle | Online izle | Filmini izle | Film izlemek | Online Full Seyret izle | Bedava Film izle | internetten Film izle | Online Sinema izle | Videoizlesene | Online Dizi izle | Erotik Filmler | indirmeden Full izle | 18 Filmler | Son Bölümler | SinemaFanClub | Dini Filmler | Video Klibler | Serdar Ortaç | Online 2009 Filmleri | sinemafan | Online Sinema | Hadise | Kavak Yelleri | 2009 Filmleri | Film Seyret | Süper Sinema | videocenter | 18 film izle | 2008 Filmleri | Sinema Filmi izle | Sinemalar izle | Videoları izle | Dizifilm izle | indirmeden Film izle | Netten izle | Film izlet | Lost | Maç izle | Canlı izle | Full Film izle | Sinema izle | Yeni Filmler | Vizyondakiler | Vizyon Filmleri | izlesene | Direk izle | Kurtlar Vadisi Pusu | Canlı Yayın Maç | Tekmekan Sinema izle | Netten Bedava izle | Sinema Seyret | Aksiyon Filmler | Yabancı Sinema | Beleş izle | DVDRip Film izle | Canlı Yayın Film izle | XviD Film izle | DivX Film izle | Cinetr | Full dizi | Korku Filmi | Kesintisiz izle | Direkizle | Korkufilmi | Online Film izle | Çizgifilm | Animasyon izle | izle | Canlı Yayın Maç izle | Canlı Yayın Film izle | Kurtlar Vadisi Pusu izle | Vizyondakiler izle | Eski Türk Filmleri | Yerli Dram izle | Yerli Aksiyon izle | Yerli Komedi izle | Yerli Korku izle | Yerli Romantik izle | Yerli Savaş izle | Yerli Dizi izle | Yabancı Dram izle | Yabancı Romantik izle | Yabancı Aksiyon izle | Yabancı Macera izle | Yabancı Gerilim izle | Yabancı Korku izle | Yabancı Savaş izle | Yabancı Polisiye izle | Yabancı Dizi izle | Belgesel izle | Fantastik Film izle | Tiyatro izle | İslami Film izle | Çizgi Film | Videoizle | indir izle | Link Değişimi | e-film | e-sinema | islami Filmler | Tiyatro izle | Belgesel izle | Romantik Film izle | Komik Film izle | Seks Filmi izle | Vizyondakiler | Türk Filmi izle | Kemal Sunal Filmleri | Show | imeem | Justin.tv | Tv izle | Tv Seyret | Netlog | Facebook | Youtube | Site Ekle | Siteekle | Link Ekle | Link Değişimi | Toplist | Hit Siteler | Oriflame | Oriflame Kozmetik |Oriflamekozmetik |Oriflametr |Kozmetik |Parfüm |Koku | Cilt Bakımı |Saç |Makyaj |Ruj |Katalog |Üyelik |Satış |Sipariş |Hediye |Kampanya |Kariyer |Kazanç |Fırsat |Oje |Krem |Losyon |Jel |Kazanç |iş |iş i