Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 30, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

RUNNING THE CAUCUS....Sam Rosenfeld comments on Nancy Pelosi's tentative speaking style on political chat shows:

The actual job of managing a caucus in some kind of effective and strategic manner is immensely difficult in its own right. It's only the sheerest coincidence if it so happens that a person imbued with the proper skills, temperament, and ability as a caucus leader also happens to be slick and charming and photogenic. (Tom DeLay was not a good message person for the GOP. Neither is Dennis Hastert.) But the other thing about the job of congressional leader, besides that it's really hard, is that it's really important. Indeed, having someone there who's good at leading the House caucus is simply more important than having one who's good on Meet the Press.

That's right. Pelosi may get beat up about her lack of mad TV skillz, but as Michael Crowley says, "Denny Hastert, is perhaps the least articulate politician in all Washington. He may truly be among the most tongue-tied men who ever lived."

The difference, of course, is that he lets other people do the talking while he runs the caucus. Since Pelosi isn't planning to run for president, that might be the best bet for her too.

Kevin Drum 3:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The difference, of course, is that he lets other people do the talking while he runs the caucus.

Unfortunately, the Dems don't have that many good talking heads. The party desperately needs better media training, some personable shills, and at least some properly outlined & widely distributed talking points... unfortunately, on TV it looks more like they're just showing up for a college bull session. Intellectual honesty & being well-informed are admirable traits in the real world, but they're both duller than dirt and unconvincing on television.

Posted by: latts on May 30, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Pelosi may get beat up about her lack of mad TV skillz

Very good partisan spin on Pelosi Kevin, but Pelosi would be a bad Speaker and would look bad on TV. Her hair is never combed, her taste in clothes is horrible, she doesn't know how to put on makeup, and she looks like she had a bad California facelift. Pelosi would be the kiss of death for House Democrats and would cause revulsion for any American who looks at her.

Posted by: Al on May 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Shee-it, Kevin. Next, you'll say that policies matter, rather than saying FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! JESUS!

All that matters is make-up and the Clenis!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on May 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Talking heads is a red hearing.

Pelosi comes to the TV camera with a gaggle of special interests, an unsound vision of government and a fundamental lack of knowledge; hence the hysterical look.

Wat is she going to do? Speak in different tongue for each special group for which she has promised an impossible program? She would look silly.

So instead she carries all these local govermment style promises, suffers anxiety and is at a loss for words.

I had a girlfriend like her, pain in the ass, it is like you are speaking to 10 different people, each one having her on their speed dial. You can't even go to lunch with the gal for fear that all the interested parties will be calling her up to protect their little chip in the horse manure.

Pelosi will end up driving around in circles with the fear that se will say the wrong thing at the wrong time.


Posted by: Matt on May 30, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

President Hillary as a unrelated but analogous problem.

She as to prove to everyone that she is good as a man, so she proves it by concocting these enormously complicated government programs which have no prospect of getting through the supply and demand of politics.

I mean, if you are smart, start with the limitations of government and go for reducing its burden and assigning the cost to the jackasses in the earmarks queue.

Posted by: matt on May 30, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for your concern Al. Yep, no doubt about it, Pelosi will be a great speaker.

Posted by: Another Bruce on May 30, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Denny Hastert - ooh, what a dreamboat! Who cares if he can talk, when he has that buff body and sick 1970's aviator glasses! What a hunk!

Posted by: two cheerleaders from Santa Monica on May 30, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with "no accountability" Pelosi has nothing to do with being tentative; but, at any rate, leaving aside what she says, and granting, arguendo, that the job of managing the caucus has a required skillset orthogonal to public speaking, where is the evidence that the House Democratic Caucus is being run effectively and with good strategy?

Or is that just something we are supposed to take on faith as part of the worship of Saint Nancy?

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Love the loving remarks by the trolls. Yes, Pelosi looks horrible on TV. She's not a great fit with the medium terrible.

But she's doing a good job as leader - stopped Social Security from getting gutted, holding the caucus together. And what she says looks good in print or on the radio. And, there is nothing stopping her from appointing specific spokespersons on specific issues. Like the parliamentry shadow cabinet members.

But to state the obvious, Hoyer's worse on TV because it's pretty obvious that he's bought and paid for. Do the trolls really want to make the case that Pelosi comes off worse than Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden?

Second, I'd be all in favor of the Dems just ignoring those stupid Sunday morning gabfests. They're stupid, their moderators are biased and un-informed, and no-one watches them. Go on local TV instead. Or go ahead and tell Russert, Will or Stephanolopolous what an idiot they are, live on TV! And then never get invited back again.

Seriously, TV isn't everything.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on May 30, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

And what she says looks good in print or on the radio.

Her promise not to hold the criminals in the White House accountable under any circumstances wouldn't look good even if you wrote it out, one letter per bill, on $100 bills and gave me the stack.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Her promise not to hold the criminals in the White House accountable under any circumstances wouldn't look good even if you wrote it out, one letter per bill, on $100 bills and gave me the stack.

Bravo, sir.

Posted by: Gregory on May 30, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hastert and Delay are conservative pigfuckers.

Come on Kevin, join in, spread the meme!

Posted by: jerry on May 30, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not worried about how she says things, but what she says, just as CM points out. Her "impeachment retreat" showed timidity and will be blood in the water for Rethugs.

Stop enabling this behavior. Vote Green.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 30, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Her promise not to hold the criminals in the White House accountable under any circumstances wouldn't look good even if you wrote it out, one letter per bill, on $100 bills and gave me the stack.

I'd be right there with you if this was even remotely what she said. cmdicely and Gregory, you need to go read her statement about investigations and impeachment and actually read it. She didn't even come close to saying that Democrats wouldn't hold the administration accountable.

Reading comprehension: it's a beautiful thing.

Posted by: Rick on May 30, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Huh?
Rep. Pelosi looks great on the tube. I can't think of any nice lookin' gals on the con side except that mean ol' southern lady from Tenn.
(I think it's tenn.?)
I think Pelosi did get a little face lifting but it's a helluva lot better the Laura's....yikes! (but maybe that's a natural terrified expression. it'd be understandable).
The cons trash all strong liberal women. They don't know their place! Their ugly and loud and shrill. Make me a cocktail woman and remember that I'm the decision maker around here!
First you guys say she's a nutty liberal then you claim she has no guiding philosophy. More cognitive dissonance from the right. And let me tell you, she doesn't "pander to special interests" unless you mean her San Francisco constituency is a "special interest". You guys just fling cliches around. And look where it's gotten us.

Posted by: sarah on May 30, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be right there with you if this was even remotely what she said. cmdicely and Gregory, you need to go read her statement about investigations and impeachment and actually read it. She didn't even come close to saying that Democrats wouldn't hold the administration accountable.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's effort to oust embattled Rep. William Jefferson from his influential committee seat is the second time in two weeks she has angered her core supporters in a way that may solidify her credentials as a leader -- or perhaps speaker.

On Wednesday, she distributed a letter calling on Jefferson, a Democrat from New Orleans, to resign from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, a step that some members of the Congressional Black Caucus viewed as premature, if not a betrayal.

On May 10, Pelosi told her Democratic colleagues that impeachment of President Bush is off the table, a move some liberals decried as cowardly. (emphasis added)

Reading comprehension: it's a beautiful thing, indeed.

Posted by: Gregory on May 30, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Vote Green

WTF ?

Posted by: cleek on May 30, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Rick: Reading comprehension: it's a beautiful thing.

but, but, but the TeeVee said there wasn't going to be any accountability-holding. Are you telling me that I can't believe FoxNews now?

Posted by: northzax on May 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin must have been sent up to the corporate offices and told he must get bacl on the Reality Based ticket or he would be out of a job.
So what is it Kevin?

Are you now a typical Centrist Pundit whose job it is to create Oprah Winfrey Style political mental masturbation?

Has Kevin turned into a Malkin-esque Corporate Whore?
Are you gonna start Posting like AL does Kev?
Doesn't matter I suppose, because this blog has lost whatever direction it had, likely due to some Big Whig who pays Kevins Salary.

that bout right Kevvie Boy?

Posted by: Fristfecker on May 30, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

and she looks like she had a bad California facelift.

As opposed to what, an excellent Kentucky facelift?

reach and stretch and reach and stretch...

Posted by: craigie on May 30, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK
I'd be right there with you if this was even remotely what she said. cmdicely and Gregory, you need to go read her statement about investigations and impeachment and actually read it.

I think you are referring to the May 13th MTP appearance, where she backed of the "off the table" language when confronted with it head-on. Which, of course, gets back to my statement that the main problem isn't that she is tentative, or that she performs poorly on the talk shows (though her response again missed the chance to put the Republicans on the defensive), but that she shoots off her mouth out of reflexive fear of the Republicans without thinking things through.

There should never have been an "off the table" statement for her to go on MTP to hedge.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think Nancy Pelosi is a poor messenger and I think we Democrats often avoid admitting our weaknesses. I've watched her for some time now and I saw her on Meet The Press a couple of weeks back...she simply doesn't have the presence of a strong messenger. Her answers were hesitant and pensive and she appeared to be taken aback time and again by Russert. I know many don't like Russert...but blaming him for being able to put politicians on the spot is a cop out. Comparisons to Hastert may make us feel better but do they actually help the Party? I don't think so.

Harry Reid is better, but not by much...I often feel he lacks any believable passion when he speaks...it seems too rehearsed. And while I'm putting my neck out on the chopping block, I don't see Howard Dean as an effective speaker. Sometimes he nails it...but many times he gets nailed for speaking before thinking. IMHO, I think his ego gets the best of him at times.

My comments may not be popular but I think we need an honest dialogue that doesn't skirt the tough reflection that is needed to turn the Democratic Party into a believable force to be reckoned with.

If these individuals are effective in administering the daily duties of their positions, and I'm more inclined to beleive they are, we still need some strong messengers to be on the front lines. Absent some credible messengers, we run the risk of being perceived as having no message...hmmm...where have I heard that before?

more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on May 30, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely says:

There should never have been an "off the table" statement for her to go on MTP to hedge.

This is exactly what makes her a good leader. She diffused the GOP Nov 2006 rallying cry by telling everyone that impeachment is off the table.

Now if you really believe that impeachment is off the table, I got some swampland for ya....

Come on folks, don't be as gullible as the wingnuts.

Posted by: Disputo on May 30, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Washingtonmooniemonthly

The third, and probably the best, means of survival is to be owned by an individual, or a group of individuals, who run the publication on a relative shoestring, as a borderline for-profit. That's how the Washington Monthly, New Republic, and National Review have survived these many decades. They don't make money for their owners, but neither do they bleed so much red ink that they bankrupt them. Occasionally, they can provide useful tax losses, but the rewards of owning a Little Magazine aren't financial. They're psychic and emotional: the prestige associated with running a high-brow publication [HAHAHAH High Brow? Like AL?] the pride in helping to launch journalistic careers, and the frisson derived from influencing public debate on important matters.
-----------------------
A useful Tax Loss. Pretty much sums up my gut instincts on this Little 'Magazine' blog.
Keep up the Good Work Kevin, your a GREAT TAX LOSS!!
I bet AL is a great tax loss as well, heckuva job AL!!

Posted by: Fristfecker on May 30, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

hey Kevin can you say

YES MASTER?
or
YOU RANG?
or
JEEVES HERE!

Posted by: fristfecker on May 30, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I love Nancy Pelosi, but she should stay OFF tv.

She was absolutely horrible on Press the Meat.

You know who I like? Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Great speaker, good looking. Get her to be the spokesperson for the Dems. After all, she's from FLORIDA, swing state extraordinaire.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 30, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK
This is exactly what makes her a good leader. She diffused the GOP Nov 2006 rallying cry by telling everyone that impeachment is off the table.

No, she did exactly what the Republicans wanted Democrats to do, weakened any future impeachment effort by validating the idea that impeachment was a priori wrong. Had she made a statement similar in outline to what she later said on MTP first, it would have been better.

Had she forcefully said that Congress would do its job in overseeing the Executive, that no one was above the law, but that the caucus had no desire to prejudge without all the facts, and asked why the Republicans were so afraid of Congress doing its job, that would have been even better.


Now if you really believe that impeachment is off the table, I got some swampland for ya....

I believe that by acting as she has, Pelosi has made impeachment less politically viable, adn therefore less likely, regardless of the facts, and undermined the credibility of any Democratic call for impeachment that might occur in the future with her as speaker.

It takes a real idiot to just jump and take the opposite position whenever the Republicans accuse the Democrats of wanting something, especially as it validates a frame that the Republicans want -- they've made the issue about a preconceived drive to impeachment vs. no impeachment, and Pelosi aided and abetted that. Sure, she qualified that with some intelligence in later comments that were less well reported, after the damage had been done.

We need leaders that are smart enough not to validate the frames that the Republicans are pushing.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Just discovered The Political Compass,


http://www.politicalcompass.org/


It's a six page questionaire that calculates where you end up on a chart. I came out left of the Dalai Lama and south of Nelson Mandela,


Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79


I took a different questionaire a lot like this about a year ago where I scored about the same, but it was a lot longer and more complex and I've spaced off where I found it.

Posted by: cld on May 30, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

No, she did exactly what the Republicans wanted Democrats to do, weakened any future impeachment effort by validating the idea that impeachment was a priori wrong.

Again, if you actually believe that the GOP is more worried about GWB's ass in 2007 than the Nov 2006 elections, I got some swamp land fer ya....

I believe that by acting as she has, Pelosi has made impeachment less politically viable, adn therefore less likely, regardless of the facts, and undermined the credibility of any Democratic call for impeachment that might occur in the future with her as speaker.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but politics ain't beanball. Pelosi has simply -- FINALLY -- learned from her opponents and is saying the politically expedient thing while meaning another. You are obsessed with GOP frames but cannot see that Pelosi is creating her own frame, one that has neutered the GOP's most powerful talking point that they need to get their minions out to the polls in Nov.

That some on our side don't get this is and expect Dems to always be honest and keep to their word is to be expected and is actually desirable, since it lends credibility to Pelosi's "position".

Thanks.

Posted by: Disputo on May 30, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
Again, if you actually believe that the GOP is more worried about GWB's ass in 2007 than the Nov 2006 elections, I got some swamp land fer ya....

Its not either-or. The GOP set up the Democratic leadership with an opportunity to blow it on both of those fronts, and Pelosi obliged, taking a position which validates a Republican frame which preemptively undermines a potential strong campaign strength of Democrats -- a push for accountability -- while at the same time undermining any actual effort to impose accountability should Democrats take the House.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but politics ain't beanball.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Pelosi has simply -- FINALLY -- learned from her opponents and is saying the politically expedient thing while meaning another.

If she had said the "politically expedient" thing, she wouldn't have then tried to backtrack and hedge when confronted with it three days later. She acted out of simple, poorly thought out reflex, and said a politically stupid thing, and then made an inept attempt to recast that statement.

You are obsessed with GOP frames but cannot see that Pelosi is creating her own frame, one that has neutered the GOP's most powerful talking point that they need to get their minions out to the polls in Nov.

Pelosi has created no new frame. She has simple staked out a position within the Republican frame that essentially states that the Democrats are no different than the Republicans on an issue that could have been a strong campaign position differentiating the parties and providing a reason to vote Democratic. Of course, to do that, the Republican frame would actually have had to have been attacked.

Creating a new frame would have been recasting the issue in, well, a new frame. Like accountability, which she, perhaps, tried to do with the May 13th MTP appearance, but which was drowned out because of her foolish May 10th "off the table" statement.

We need leadership that attacks the Republican frames out of the gate, rather than validating them and then scrambling to add nuance to a position once people within the Democratic Party tear them to pieces for it.

That some on our side don't get this is and expect Dems to always be honest and keep to their word is to be expected and is actually desirable, since it lends credibility to Pelosi's "position".

Putting "position" in quotes is quite appropriate, since Pelosi apparently has no position besides abject fear -- first of Republican accusation then of internal criticism.

She demonstrates an absence of character or commitment which doesn't help, and at the same time her poorly thought out statements that are counterproductive for the Party.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Pelosi would be the kiss of death for House Democrats and would cause revulsion for any American who looks at her."

Whereas... Americans were so enthralled with Barbara Bush's looks that they decided to put her on the $1 bill.

Posted by: koreyel on May 30, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

cmd,

I see alot of deflecting verbiage, but no attempt to respond directly to anything I said.

Pelosi *neutered* the GOP's primary campaign issue. You should be thanking her instead of attacking her for not bringing you in on the con.

Posted by: Disputo on May 30, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney,

Duly noted. :)

Posted by: Disputo on May 30, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Any Democratic house or senate leader, minority or majority, who couldn't maintain party discipline to oppose the most anti-middle class bill since Taft-Hartley (that would be the bankrtupcy bill) not only doesn't deserve the job, but probably deserves to be thrown out on their patard.

Posted by: Linus on May 30, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK
I see alot of deflecting verbiage, but no attempt to respond directly to anything I said.

Okay, well, I'll try to say it more simply since you clearly aren't getting it.

Pelosi *neutered* the GOP's primary campaign issue.

No, she didn't. She neutered a powerful Democratic campaign issue by flinching at the shadow of the threat of a GOP argument, by doing exactly what the GOP sought to provoke when they waved the suggestion around.

You should be thanking her instead of attacking her for not bringing you in on the con.

Con or not, Pelosi has hurt the prospects of victory in 2006 with this action and, whatever the results of the election, undermined the viability of Congressional efforts to hold the executive accountable. I see no reason to thank her for anything, and it has nothing to do with "bringing me in" on anything.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 30, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This particular identity of mine is slightly right, mostly libertarian.

---------------

The woman suffers poltical anxiety, trying to collapse conflicting promises in her brain. Mostly the result of dingbat dem leftists with no theoretical sense.

Posted by: Matt on May 30, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I am in agreement with cmdicely.

The problem for people who live and work in Washington is that they can hear nothing but the Republican noise machine, so they end up, by osmosis, absorbing much of the Republican stink and crap as if it were real and in doing so miss the fundamental thing about people in the US.

People want Republicans and people like Republicans gotten rid of and they want the power base that created them gotten rid of. The problem that people see is that no one even tries to address it, so they assume it's an impossible dream, and no Democrat even tries to address it, so they assume the Democrats are incapable.

In this circumstance you can't even try to meet Republicans halfway, or partway, on anything --because of who they are. They are a function of corruptedness, parasitic, treasonous and evil and are opposed in everyway to everything good in our history and society. They are the Dorian Grey's portrait of the US, but unlike Dorian Grey, we can get rid of them by directly addressing them as the problem they are, and acting as if we might be able to work with them won't help.

Posted by: cld on May 30, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Any Democratic leader, house or senate, minority or majority, who could not enforce party discipline against the most anti-middle class bill since Taft-Hartley (as in the bankruptcy bill) not only does not deserve to be leading their party's caucus they probably don't deserve to be in Congress at all.

Posted by: Linus on May 30, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. I posted that twice.

I swear to you the first one wasn't there when I just checked.

(Really! Swear!)

Posted by: Linus on May 30, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Her hair is never combed, her taste in clothes is horrible, she doesn't know how to put on makeup, and she looks like she had a bad California facelift. Pelosi would be the kiss of death for House Democrats and would cause revulsion for any American who looks at her.

But Dennis Hastert is one sweet piece of ass? Is that what you're trying to say, Al?

Posted by: Doug on May 31, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

"...is perhaps the least articulate politician in all Washington. He may truly be among the most tongue-tied men who ever lived."

Is it just me, or does there happen to currently be someone else who is a much, much better fit for this description than Denny Hastert?

Posted by: Brad on May 31, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Attacking an older woman on her looks? Boy, you Republicans sure are classy.

I guess that's all you have to talk shit about considering your policies are disastrous failures, your (butt-ugly) leaders are criminals, and your lies aren't working anymore.

Posted by: Tim B. on May 31, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

May I recommend as spokesperson my rep, Linda Sanchez? (NOT her sister Loretta!) She's funny, smart, easygoing, non-threatening, charming, young, a working-class populist...

Posted by: jim 7 on May 31, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Barney Frank lives up to his last name, and is funny as hell. Why not send him around to the gabfests?

Posted by: Nell on May 31, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

手机铃声 和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载手机铃声 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声

Posted by: buyu on May 31, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly