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

September 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

INDEPENDENCE DAY....David Broder has been getting beat up pretty well in the blogosphere for his continuing paeans to "independent" Republicans (try here, here, and here, for example), and I don't have much to add. I think John Holbo captures the thing that mystifies me the most about Broder when he confesses:

I used to be a practitioner of the Higher Broderism myself, in some ways....

Exactly. Me too. If Broder had written today's columns fifteen years ago, I would have nodded along approvingly.

But then the Republican Party turned over its leadership to guys like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Karl Rove. During that same period, the Democratic leadership was made up of people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt. If American politics has become more extreme and more polarized over the past decade, which group of men do you think was largely responsible?

The question answers itself, and Broder was around the entire time to watch this saga unfold. So how is that after all this time he can still pretend that both parties have drifted equally away from centrism, and that it's Republican pseudo-moderates who might save us? It boggles the mind.

For more on this subject, try reading "Perverse Polarity," a piece written a couple of years ago by Paul Glastris. It spells out the whole sorry spectacle pretty well.

Kevin Drum 12:16 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Kevin,

the INDEPENDENCE of your title is missing an N.

Just so you know.

Cheers.

Posted by: exasperanto on September 25, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is right of course.

It was the Democrats who tried to allow gays in the military. It was the Democrats who support partial birth abortions. It was the Democrats who defended Bill Clinton even though he perjured himself by lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. It was the Democrats who are defending Bill Clinton's shameful neglect of Osama Bin Laden because of his preoccupation with having sex with Monica Lewinsky as exposed in the ABC documentary Path to 9/11. It's the Democrats who are the extremists who polarized American.

Posted by: Al on September 25, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Armey, btw, has recently dissented strongly from some of his theocrat republican peers.

Posted by: steve s on September 25, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

Does the Dean do interviews? Do you think anyone would ask him this? Do you think he would answer?

Broder's been taking the flack for the last few days, and he deserves every bit of it, but he is not alone. What is true of him is true of nearly every member of what is known as the Washington press corps. They became courtiers to the Republican Party.

The trend toward divisiveness that you refer to did not start in the early 90s, but with Reagan. I am too tired to recount it, but you could look it up.

Posted by: James E. Powell on September 25, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is right of course.

But, of course.

Without a doubt.

By all means.

No question.

Indubitably.

Couldn't agree more.

sex with Monica Lewinsky

sex with Monica Lewinsky

sex with Monica Lewinsky

Posted by: exasperanto on September 25, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder what Kevin means by "guys like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Karl Rove." What common characteristics do these men share, characteristics that presumably weren't shared by earlier Republicans like Dick Nixon, Joe McCarthy, and Dwight Eisenhower?

The first group is unusually well educated (except for DeLay.) I don't think that's what Kevin was driving at.

In the last 15 years the Democratic Party has moved quite far left. The Dems Kevin mentions (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt) are a lot more centrist than the current Dem leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Joe Lieberman used to be a middle of the road Democrat; now he doesn't fit the party.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

The amazing thing is that you repukeliscum actually think that people believe you.

Is thomas1 just a sibyl for Al? They always have the same opinion. They're always wrong.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 25, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

Good luck naming one thing dems have moved left on.

Posted by: Aron on September 25, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal is really stupider than Al. That's hard to believe of course.

Lieberman has never been a liberal or in the middle of the Democratic Party.

And Nixon tried wage and price controls.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 25, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal also seems to be an Al sybil.

Come on, Al, why are you faking so many different IDs?

Posted by: POed Lib on September 25, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

There is one and only one clear trend in politics.

In the last 5 years, the Repukeliscum party has become a party of fascists.

Al, thomas1 and ex-liberal are all fascists.

You can all put your brown shirts on, boys, and sing Detschland uber alles until the cows come home, and you fascists will still lose the House and Senate in 47 days.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 25, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Aron - you asked for issues Dems have moved left on. Here are three.

Obviously the Dems have moved left on defence. Lieberman is out because he supported the war in Iraq. Most leading Dems oppose the war to a greater or lesser degree.

Compare this with JFK who ran to the right of Nixon in 1960, complaining about a "missile gap", which turned out not to exist. Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson favored a strong defence as did Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman. These people would be unwelcome in the Democratic Party if they were alive today.

Another issue is taxes. JFK enacted a huge tax cut, which particularly favored the rich. It favored the rich to a greater degree than did Bush's tax cut.

A third issue is sympathy for our enemies and doubt as to America's righteousness. Dems like JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman had no doubt that America was the "good guys." They opposed Communism as strongly as anyone. To their credit, they fought against Communist influence at home and abroad, but they didn't use the issue to demogogue their opponents, as Joseph McCarthy did.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 25, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

"It's the Democrats who are the extremists..."

Al, you're an idiot and your grammar stinks.

Posted by: Kenji on September 25, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Mr. Broder isnt just losing it. I am not being cavalier or flippant. I have noticed that some people as they approach advanced age lose flexibility in their cognitive processes.

My dad spent a life time being moderate in both his politics and in his personal consideration of others. Yet as he progressed into his 70s, he would rail out against topics and conditions he hardly would give a thought to in previous times.

As we became more aware of this nettlesome process, we kids would just silently nod our heads as he announced his latest complaint. When I read some of Mr. Broders current output, memories come flooding back.

Dads rhetorical reach was limited to the kitchen table and the living room; not so for Mr. Broder.

Posted by: Keith G on September 25, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the President told his PRESS SECRETARY what thinks about when he lies awake at night?
Posted by: Thomas1

which one's the big spoon?

Posted by: Nads on September 25, 2006 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah. The Democrats have been the very soul of moderation and rationality lately.

This failure to see reality is why your jaws end up on the floor on election days, and you have to come up with tinfoil hat conspiracies to explain it.

Posted by: mountaintop on September 25, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sick of flat out lies, guys.
In the '92 election season, Gore was a liberal in the center of opinion in the Democratic party. Clinton was a centrist near the right edge of the party. After they got in office, Gore's issues (except for health care) got put on the back burner in favor of Clinton's law-and-order, domestic economy, and international trade agenda which were to the right of most of the Dems. sitting in congress but pretty much spot on centrist compared to congress as a whole.
During the '94 campaign it was the GOP that took several big steps to the right. The Dems. moved slightly to the right in '96, but the GOP again moved strongly to the right.
That pattern has been consistant in every election since. The movement has now gone so far to the right that the last Dem. presidential candidate, Kerry, was actually a solid right-wing candidate when evaluated by the platform on which he ran.
Oh, and cutting the top marginal rate from 90%+ down to around 70% (as Kennedy did) is not the same as reducing it further and further until now the wealthy's total % tax burden is actually lower than the middle class or allowing bracket creep during the high inflation of the late '70's put the screws to the middle class (and thus make tax-cuts the viable political issue it was in the 1980 election). While cutting the top marginal nearly in half to 35%, the Regan admin. and congress gave a trivial tax break to the upper middle class and raised taxes for the rest of the middle class and the poor by more than doubling the payroll tax (social security) and then borrowing from it for the general budget. I remember when the SS tax was 6.67% Thomas1, do you?

Posted by: joe on September 25, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."

"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."

Posted by: jonathan on September 25, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

oops

meant to put the link in there

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

Posted by: jonathan on September 25, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not getting the import, jonathan.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 25, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

I seem to recall that it was Bill Clinton who instructed his aids "If your plan depends on moderate Republicans, bring me another plan."

Meaning, of course, that there is no such thing as a moderate Republican. They posture a bit, then cave. Every time.

But oh yeah, the Dems have moved "far left" - ha! That's hilarious. The Dems have moved Right, just not fast enough for the National Socialist Party that is currently telling us, despite all evidence to the contrary, that we're all gonna die unless we keep them in power.

Posted by: craigie on September 25, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

If beauty is in the eyes of the beholder then polarization is in the eyes of the polarizer.

Anyone trying to characterize Bill "Mr. Triangulate" Clinton as a polarizer is ignorant of history. Republicans can't complain about Clinton's co-opting of the center right and also say he polarized the electorate.

Rather, the GOP found that polarizing the electorate was the only effective get-out-the-vote strategy in the face of Clinton's astute political instincts and overwhelming popularity, even as GOP operatives single-mindedly pursued impeachment.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on September 25, 2006 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Yeah. The Democrats have been the very soul of moderation and rationality lately."

That you apparently believe this to be apparent sarcasm says more about your limited grasp of reality than it does about current events.

Posted by: Calton Bolick on September 25, 2006 at 4:36 AM | PERMALINK

性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: amr铃声 on September 25, 2006 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK

Fifteen years ago the Republicans were a bunch of crooks and criminals who needed a storm of 'pre-emptive pardons' to safely leave office. 25 years ago the Republicans were crooks and criminals- 200 of Reagan's appointees were convicted of felonies during his first term. 35 years ago- well, that was Richard Nixon.

Seems to me the reaction against Broderism has been seriously delayed among the well-to-do.

Posted by: serial catowner on September 25, 2006 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't that sweet Al and thomas1 in a mutual masturbation session.

Posted by: klyde on September 25, 2006 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

The essential feature of Broderism is a disregard for political substance. I'm not a mind reader, and I don't pretend to have any insight into (or interest in) how the guy comes to his views as a psychological matter. But if you read a few of his columns, you'll see a pattern: the reasons he gives for the views and preferences that he expresses generally have nothing to do with substantive issues. War, peace, Iraq, Iran, the economy, social security, whatever. He doesn't seem to care.

Two columns ago, Independence Days, Broder did cite a substantive issue -- the Geneva Conventions / torture issue. But read his column carefully. He wasn't arguing that McCain et al. deserved support because of the particular stand they were taking on that issue. Rather, Broder's argument was that the defiance of their own party by the Mavericks was important in that it "...signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government." And what was the meaning of the Rebel Revolt? That torture is wrong? That America is better than this? Er, not even close. Broder: "What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party." For Broder, the particular issue at hand was important only to the extent it reinforced the "signal" the Independents were sending: "This movement is not new, but the moral scale of the issue -- torture -- and the implications for both constitutional and international law give it an epic dimension, even if it is ultimately settled by compromise." Epic moral scale bonus points in the cause of restoring civility to Washington! MORE.

Posted by: Eric on September 25, 2006 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I see that the fascist three (Al, ex-liberal, thomas1) are now the Nazi 4.

Mountaintop, SEIG HEIL!!! ARBEIT MACHT FREI!!

Scratch a conservative today, you have a nazi.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 25, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Eric,

Good observations.

I was struck by the last line you quoted from Broder. What kind of person would label torture an "issue?" Is murder an "issue?" One either tortures or does not torture. Is there a compromise position on this? Is that something to be admired? Apparently, Broder thinks so. I find that chilling.

Posted by: James E. Powell on September 25, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

"Thomas1 is right of course."
"Thanks, Al."(Posted by: Thomas1)

For the reacharound?

Posted by: Steve paradis on September 25, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum seems to believe the Dems, led by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, are good-natured centrists.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 25, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

If Broder would attack both right and left wing bloggers, instead of only the left wing, I wouldn't be in my present angry state re:David. He could be clueless regarding the Plame case and Rove, but I think it must be a shock for old guys like Broder to have their opinions/positions challenged in real time.

Posted by: kim on September 25, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: If I told you what I thought about last night, that means we physically slept together?

Of course not, Thomas. But do you think you could tell us what you think of before falling asleep at night in a manner that would ring true?

When Bush says he lies awake nights asking himself how he can "get our people home," -- if he actually loses sleep while asking himself that question -- isn't it reasonable to suppose he (or a competent president) would have come up with an answer by now? Instead, they get their tours extended or sent back for another one.

Are we to believe he lies awake asking himself this question and the only answer he ever comes up with is "Stay the Course"? -- which, btw, is an answer that absolutely does not "get our people home."

Posted by: Christopher on September 25, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

From a week ago:
"Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself."

A week at the ancestral hovel on Beaver Island and he's a Midwesterner. You might not know that not two hours from Grand Rapids, Broder's Bedford Falls, rests the campus of the University of Michigan, a noted hive of arrogant know-it-alls where you'll find the person to do your heart surgery or plan your economy, where are more languages spoken knowledgably than at the UN.
It's in a state that twice rejected Bush as president, a state that Broder hasn't lived in since Nehru jackets went out. He's not a Michiganian; he's not even a Midwesterner.
He's a bumpkin Saint-Simon, cringingly gratified by the condescension of the great, as defined by Madame Duchesse La Quinn.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on September 25, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

He's a bumpkin Saint-Simon

Ouch!

Posted by: Stefan on September 25, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Another issue is taxes. JFK enacted a huge tax cut, which particularly favored the rich. It favored the rich to a greater degree than did Bush's tax cut.

You should really stick to vague generalities, ex-liberal. When you make a stab at "facts" you only prove how wrong you are about them.

Posted by: chasmrich on September 25, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Why does anyone pay attention to Broder anymore? He's proven himself to be a doofus and a fool time and again.

Remember his mastabatory peaan Bush in the flight suit? His column asserting that Katrina showed the decisive leadership of Bush.

Again and again, you read him and just think, "Huh?"

Here's the deal: everytime we talk about this hacks, we legitimize them. In the process, our ability to tell honest actors from dishonest ones corrodes.

Posted by: mackdaddy on September 25, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

It is the mis-understanding of economic science by the Republicans themselves that pushed them toward the Stalinist position.

Ever since Reagan, they failed to understand the 200 year old American economic law, taxes are lowered to increase government in support of business interests. Somewhere the Reagan idiots got the idea that making taxes flat for the rich caused the rich to rely less on government, not more. They have not corrected this mistake, and even the Heritage foundation has become a believer in big government Stalinism.

This debate, as I say way more than I should have to, goes back to the animosity between Hamilton and Jefferson, arguably the beginning of the two party system. Hamilton wanted flat taxes, government subsidies of the wealthy, one of the reasons he was shot. Hamilton was the first big government socialist Republican. Lincoln revived the concept.

There is a reason that the Heritage foundation, the National Reveiw group and the Freepers were able to revive the Hamilton big government, Stalinist socialist position. First, the Libertarians were too god-damn stupid to read history, and second the religious right pushed the socialist, nationalist, big government position, because fanatic Christians suffer masturbation anxiety.

So, starting with Reagan, we have a very serious communist threat, born internally, to our nation; and not for the first time. Lincoln and that same policy caused the civil war.

Now we have Christian masturbaters, uneducated libertarians, and Heritage Foundation socialists destroying the private sector and creating a Stalinist failed state.

Posted by: Matt on September 25, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Much of what Broder writes is hard to fathom.

How can Broder and the dc establishment claim in great self-righteous indignation that "Clinton trashed the place and it's not his place" and try to play up Giuliani, who IIRC had a mistress living in the mayor's mansion? (btw where is that moral indignation on torture, which Broder calls "a freehand in questioning and trying alleged terrorists"?

How can Lieberman and McCain be mavericks and independent? Despite some faint hearted attempts at disagreement with the Bush admin, they've been more like bush admin cheerleaders and as closely tied to bush as a parasite to a barnyard animal.

How can a serious writer label people and groups of people extremist or centrist without any real effort to define what constitutes either? There's no substance or supporting evidence for these labels. It seems the definition in the dc establishment is whoever we disagree with is extremist, whoever agrees with us is centrist. Giuliani and McCain support a war opposed by the majority of the American people. That's centrist?

Posted by: Chrissy on September 25, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

The lowering of political discourse in this country (poisoning Supreme Court appointees) coincided with the rise of the Republican right. 'Nuff said, spin all you want.

Posted by: Boorring on September 25, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

This is like the situation you have with Falwell recently saying that if the Dems run Hillary, his crew will be more energized to turn out to vote than if Lucifer himself were the candidate. So, to break down his "logic": the folks who get so worked up about evil and sin are more exercised over high heels and a blue dress than cloven hooves and a red suit (i.e. in their worldview, Lucifer IS the actual personification of all evil...the author of all evil but of all persons dead or alive, Hillary ranks beyond Satan?!). But, then, take another loose cannon nutjob, Hugo Chavez. He makes similar idiotic remarks likening The Evil One to Bush, and all hell breaks loose, pardon the unfortunate pun. It boggles the mind--- but only if one has a mind to boggle, I suppose.

Posted by: mama on September 25, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Who loves the devil more than evangelists?

Posted by: cld on September 25, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs. Then this becomes a different town." -- Grover Norquist - National Journal 7/29/95


Posted by: nowthatsfunny on September 25, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal writes:

Aron - you asked for issues Dems have moved left on. Here are three.
Obviously the Dems have moved left on defence.

No, they haven't. Almost the entire Democratic representatives and Senators supported the war in Afghanistan. The majority now oppose the Iraq war, as do the majority of the American people, because it is a stupid, destructive war that makes America less safe.

Another issue is taxes. JFK enacted a huge tax cut, which particularly favored the rich. It favored the rich to a greater degree than did Bush's tax cut.

Again, wrong. The tax rate under JFK was much higher than the tax rate today.

A third issue is sympathy for our enemies and doubt as to America's righteousness. Dems like JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman had no doubt that America was the "good guys."

Again, wrong. Democrats don't doubt that America is the good guys. Disagreement with the current course that our government is taking is not siding with our enemies.

So, clearly, you don't have any actual (that is, non-idiotic) examples where the Democrats are farther left today than in the past.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 25, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Real Estate Listings, Homes for Sale, Mortgage Rates, Loans and Refinance. Comprehensive real estate and property listings. Includes information on buying, selling or renting a home, mortgage rates, home loans and refinance information. Plus free instant home valuation.

Posted by: real estate on September 26, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

We offer a variety of travel related services, including cheap travel, travel guides, cheap car insurance quotes,discount hotel reservations, hotel chains, lowest airfare, and discount car rental.

Posted by: cheap travel on September 26, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Discount Wedding Dresses, Bridal Gowns, Wedding Gifts, Wedding Favors, Wedding Decoration, Wedding Supplies, Wedding Store, Wedding Planning... All you can get at Support my wedding com.

Posted by: wedding dresses on September 26, 2006 at 12:38 AM | 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