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

April 1, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

U.S. ATTORNEY UPDATE....Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen write:

About one-third of the nearly four dozen U.S. attorney's jobs that have changed hands since President Bush began his second term have been filled by the White House and the Justice Department with trusted administration insiders.

The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.

....No other administration in contemporary times has had such a clear pattern of filling chief prosecutors' jobs with its own staff members, said experts on U.S. attorney's offices.

Knock me over with a feather.

Kevin Drum 4:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

From constitutional to banana republic.

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

[Commentary deleted. It has been refuted repeatedly and is only offered again to derail the conversation.]

Posted by: Al on April 1, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Does this explain why Bushco sends out its trolls to post talking points on liberal blogs? It certainly broadens their experience in promoting disinformation.

Posted by: fyreflye on April 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

The problem with your response that you miss the whole point of this post by KD and the WP article is the departure from precedent. The reason this is notable appears to have escaped you, namely, that in spite of administration protests to the contrary, what they have done with the USA positions is unprecedented. In other words, the administration line used to be that what Bush's Justice is different from the Justice we had before in a significant way.

To answer your points directly, realize that while there may be a benefit derived from experience from work experience, it doesn't follow that the experience they got is beneficial for the USA position.

Posted by: sunship on April 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Commentary]

Posted by: American Hawk on April 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Sunship: The reason this is notable appears to have escaped you, namely, that in spite of administration protests to the contrary, what they have done with the USA positions is unprecedented.

[more handle spoofing by American Hawk]

Posted by: American Hawk, spoofing egbert on April 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show."

Posted by: Okay, Al, apologize for this too on April 1, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Al, are you really comparing the filling of US Attorney positions with blindly partisan Bush loyalists to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves?

Wow...just wow. Every time I think these guys have hit rock bottom in their intellectual dishonesty, they surprise me.

Posted by: SMurph on April 1, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

There sure is a lot of deleted commentary.

Posted by: Patterico on April 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

The U.S. Attorney in Kansas City - where I live - was put here to influence elections in the blue bastions of the state. It looks like he might have succeeded in achieving that end in the Kansas City Mayor's race. The candidate who was hurt was considered a contender for a statewide office or even Washington-worthy.

It pisses me off when my rights to participate in fair and free elections is abrogated by these cheating bastards.

It also cheapens the victory of my mayoral candidate.

Blogwhoring alert: I posted about this yesterday.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Wonder how many of them were appointed to be USAs in swing states.

Posted by: RT on April 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show."

The organs of the State exist to serve the interests of the Party, and not the other way round.

Whether cadres can perform the nominal tasks required by whatever state organ they are assigned to is largely irrelevant.

There is no greater responsibility for any cadre than to protect the Party in its unique role as Vanguard of the Revolution.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 1, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

This is the first I've seen this "delete commentary" business. Not sure what I think about it since the trolls have always been harmless, though they do make the thread very difficult and send it in many different directions, so I see the benefit.

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

[More handle-spoofing by American Hawk]

Posted by: American Hawk, spoofing Disputo on April 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Fat White Guy: Since you lefties would be hard pressed to find someone appointed by Democrat or Republican that is not some sort political hack

Care to back that strawman up with data? Have you got the same internet as me? Then do your own damn homework before talking shit. (or were you hoping to send me off on your errand, tilting at windmills?)

I looked up my US Attorney, and to my pleasure he doesn't seem to be acting under pressure from Washington. But then again, I live in a red state, where there is little need to stir up hornets. He prosecuted one elected official, a sheriff who beat up a prisoner. That seems fair to me. But the 7:1 ratio of Dem:Gop prosecutions is not random. And my newspaper published my letter to the editor that defended my US Attorney and condemned the unscrupulous ones.

So, please go build some more strawmen. It's a lot easier than doing research, Dick-for-brains.

Posted by: absent observer on April 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

i don't mind conservative commentary — but our trolls just spew talking points no matter the facts. oh and fat guy, there is a difference between being politically connected and being a hack. every usa in every administration is politically connected. that's how they got the job in the first place. but there are those that actually know what the hell they're doing and possess skills beyond political loyalty. they are not hacks.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on April 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Bushie has a nasty little setup that looks more and more like organized and syndicated mob style behavior everyday. It's time somebody filed a few subpoenas and did a lot more investigation.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 1, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Fat guy, why don't you employ "teh Google" and back up your bullshit. You made the assertion - it is now incumbent upon you to prove the veracity of your statements.

Or be branded a lying tool.

Your choice.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 1, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Those whose comments are deleted here can always go to The Corner to post their opinions for a more receptive audience there.

Posted by: gregor on April 1, 2007 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Paula Silsby, the USA for Maine, seems to have never been confirmed, just Acting or Interim USA for over six years, apparently.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 1, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

I too had suggested looking at this article, and hat tip to Apollo 13 while we were on another thread for reinterating this point:

"Sampson sought to be a U.S. attorney, too, and he was the administration's preferred choice last year to be chief prosecutor in his native Utah. But he was nudged aside for another GOP lawyer, Brett L. Tolman, who was favored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). Tolman was counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in late 2005 when, at Justice's request, he had language inserted into USA Patriot Act legislation that allowed Gonzales to circumvent Senate confirmation by appointing interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely. Congress is in the process of repealing the provision."

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 1, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hypocracy is the bread and butter of the left. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on April 1, 2007

Fat Headed White Guy, I'm thinking you may want to look at dictionary and shine a mirror on your side of the political spectrum because you assholes have cornered the market on hyprocrisy.
If hypocrisy was money you could all retire and leave the rest of us to fix all the shit you guys have broken. Asshat.

Posted by: FitterDon on April 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Of course my limited experience has shown that lefties have no discipline and attack virtually everyone with a different opinion. So the need for censorship. I love it!

C'mon fat man, I'm not even a "lefty", per se, though definitely a progressive, and I would get banned from every right wing blog just for reasoning differently than the desired standard.

This blog has always been an exemplar in that regard, in allowing free and open discussion, and progressive blogs have plenty of conservative folks commenting, just as long as they reason and not antagonize or just spew talking points endlessly.

If they are changing it around here, there's probably a good reason, since I don't visit as much as I used to. I would only delete comments that distract from the thread subject, whether conservative or progressive or liberal or rightie or lefty. In any particular thread, I'll allow the talking points once but not necessarily allow them to be repeated endlessly after that (in that particular thread).

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Since you lefties would be hard pressed to find someone appointed by Democrat or Republican that is not some sort political hack

Is Patrick Fitzgerald a political hack?

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by fatwhiteguy: "It is amazing that appointing political hacks is a talking point."

As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a former prosecutor, Senator Leahy is investigating inconsistencies in the explanations that Justice Department and White House officials have offered about the firing of several U.S. attorneys, as well as allegations that the firings involved political considerations about their official duties. He is also concerned that the Bush Administration intended to use a new provision of the PATRIOT Act to fill such vacancies – a provision that was supposed to be used during emergencies, such as terrorist attacks -- which would bypass the check and balance of Senate confirmation.

Senator Leahy in March steered through the Senate a bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and cosponsored by Senator Leahy, which would repeal that PATRIOT Act provision.

U.S. attorneys are the chief federal law enforcement officers in their districts, and they have an enormous responsibility for implementing anti-terrorism efforts and taking the lead to fight crime and public corruption. Senator Leahy is concerned that politicizing the ranks of U.S. attorneys has a chilling effect on law enforcement up and down the entire law enforcement and judicial system, from the courtroom to the police officer on the beat.

He wants to get to the truth behind these events to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening again.

From his website

Posted by: consider wisely on April 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

I would probably also delete comments by people who engaged in excessive name calling, so as to cultivate less of that in the site. One example would be overuse of "lefties", but I would apply it to everyone equally, no matter your political persuasion.

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

That's all the meta I got for today, sorry for the diversion.

Posted by: Jimm on April 1, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding Monica Goodling, who is taking the 5th rather than testify--this we over at TPM

"Just look at how Legal Times describes Goodling's role in the interviews to select U.S.A. replacements:

Interviews for U.S. Attorney replacements took place with only a handful of people: David Margolis, the department's top-ranking career official and a 40-plus year veteran; a member of the White House Counsel's Office; the head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and Goodling.
Charles Miller, whom Gonzales appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, interviewed with the panel in the fall of 2005. "They asked me what I'd done to support the president," Miller says. It wasn't a question Miller expected. He told them he'd voted for Bush.

But a former prosecutor who did not get a U.S. Attorney post was left with a sour feeling after his interview in 2006. "Monica was in charge, in essence, of the interview," recalls the former supervisory assistant U.S. Attorney. "I walked out of that room and thought, 'Wow, I've just run into a buzz saw.'"

Posted by: consider wisely on April 1, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm-- If they want to make conservative commentary, they can go to conservative blogs.
Posted by: Disputo on April 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

***********************

Once again the fuckwit conservatard professional troll AH is stealing my handle.

Can we just kick his ass off once and for all?

Posted by: Disputo on April 1, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

I for one am glad to see a little troll control exercised on this site. Although I enjoy debating with legimate conservatives, I can't recall one single comment posted by Al or Chicken Hawk that makes any sense. Their sole purpose is to disrupt this site.

Posted by: trublu on April 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK


Is Patrick Fitzgerald a political hack?

The problem is that Patrick Fitzgerald was recommended as USAtty by one of the last honest Republicans, Peter Fitzgerald, who was subsequently /de facto/ kicked out of the party for his efforts.

Posted by: Disputo on April 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Diversity" is one word that is rarely associated with the conservative movement in general and the Republican Party in particular. But when it comes to efforts by Hispanic Republicans Alberto Gonzales and Lurita Doan to convert their federal agencies into entrenched partisan redoubts of the GOP, the right has been very quick indeed to turn to the "diversity defense."

For the details, see:
"Gonzales, Doan and the Republican Diversity Defense."

Posted by: AngryOne on April 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Even Arlen Specter thought Alberto was an unqualified twit when they had Congressional hearings on the suspension of habeas corpus for Gitmo prisoners.

But I’m wondering what kind of device crashed in Somalia? CIA? Mossad? Or contact with aliens?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK
This is the first I've seen this "delete commentary" business. Not sure what I think about it since the trolls have always been harmless, though they do make the thread very difficult and send it in many different directions, so I see the benefit.

None of this would be necessary if the comment threads here had the kind of features you'd expect in a early-1990s Unix based newsreader; Moderation is a poor solution and user-centric controls wouldn't be that hard to implement. But it seems with every new internet communications system, people are determined to ignore the past and start over from the beginning, rather than learning lessons from previous systems used for essentially the same purpose.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 1, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

FWG: "Hypocracy is the bread and butter of the left. I love it!"

Gosh, and we love you, too, Fat White Guy. Your eloquence, your spelling, your sentence structure. And, of course, your almost Olympian missing of the point.

Yes, everyone politicizes the rank-and-file over the length of an administration. But no one -- not Nixon, or Reagan, or FDR -- pursued political aims at the expense of every, and I mean EVERY, other policy and law-enforcement consideration. This is new and the American people don't like it.

The real question now is, why are you so out of step with tne majority now that we've figured out these guys are crooks masqerading as conservatives.

Posted by: Kenji on April 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

I see Fat White guy has returned, I wonder if there is any connection to Al and AH suddenly finding their talking points no longer being left alone? Seems like the last time I remember seeing FWG regularly was a couple of years ago, and seeing that some here are acting like he is a new alias I thought I should point out he has a history as one of the Trolletariat from way back.

As to the topic itself, I cannot say this comes as any surprise to me. I have been expecting this sort of thing to crop up once real examination and oversight was finally begun, I have suspected for years now that the Bushies were twisting the Justice department to their own partisan ends first. There were signs of it after all, but who really wanted to believe that any American President, even one as bad as this one would commit such an act of treason against one of the foundations of American democracy and the Constitution itself? For when the rule of law is no longer blind to those in facing it then it is no longer truly the rule of law. Indeed, in many ways this is an evil worse than the Iraq war, for while that is bloody destructive and slaughtering of tens to hundreds of thousands over the last four years this is something that threatens the very existence of the American free society/culture that has existed for over 200 years now. Worse, it is a direct betrayal of everything the President is sworn to uphold.

The damage done by politicizing the justice system like this over the last decade and especially once GWB came to power goes a long way in explaining why clearly questionable voting problems were never really taken up for examination by the Justice department, but that there was always someone willing to look at so called voter fraud. Indeed, it was that lack of action that was one of my first tip offs that something was changing within the US DoJ, and I fear that as bad as things look now there is still far worse to be discovered. Which is why I believe we have seen the fiasco of the last several weeks. Bushco knows it cannot afford to lose this one, because if it does it will alienate almost all support even within the GOP for him and his policies, because I suspect most GOP voters (as opposed to operatives and leaders) will find the idea of the State acting as the tool/Arm of the current party in power a terrifying thing, especially when they consider what happens when the other side inevitably comes to power. Personally, I do believe most GOP voters are believers in democracy; they simply placed too much blind faith in their leaders and are slow to acknowledge the gravity of their mistake. However, perverting one of the pride and joys of American culture, the impartial fair judiciary is not I suspect something even most of Bush's remaining supporters in Congress and out can support, not once the full extent is known and irrefutably so at that, which is of course why the fear of the public testimony under oath and especially of an official transcript.

Posted by: Scotian on April 1, 2007 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

That goofball Bill Kristol just said America could handle having the price of a barrel of oil at $100.00. That is nuts.
I accidently flipped the channel to Faux News with Brit Hume and heard that gem

Posted by: consider wisely on April 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. Leahy talked today about the interim USAs on MTP:

SEN. LEAHY: We have about 20 vacancies for U.S. attorneys around the country. I’m waiting to see [the Bush Administration] send them up. They have not sent any of these people up for confirmation. The one in Arkansas [Tim Griffin] was a former research assistant at the Republican National Committee. He was a protege of Karl Rove, and there’s heavy pressure from Karl Rove to place him in there, replacing [Bud Cummins] one of the best U.S. attorneys in the country.
John Amato at Crooks and Liars posted MTP video (and transcript) of Sen. Orrin Hatch's song and dance defending Gonzales. Halfway through, Russert asks Hatch if he would consider the AG nomination if asked and if Gonzales resigns. Oh, the sputtering of Hatch to that question... and then Leahy's response. I love it!

Anybody know of a complete list of the interim USAs that have yet to be confirmed by the Senate?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hell, we didn't need their damn oil in the first place. It's just that Saddam kept taunting us with it! How the hell could we have known it would all be a huge, expensive mistake? Damn you, Saddam!

Posted by: Kenji on April 1, 2007 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of "Republican diversity", does anyone know if Strom Thurmond, Jr. -- whom I believe was confirmed by the Senate as U.S. Attorney for Columbia, SC when he was all of 28 years old -- still on the job?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 1, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

a complete list of the interim USAs who...

CWA: That goofball Bill Kristol just said America could handle having the price of a barrel of oil at $100.00. That is nuts.

Yeah, that is nuts. Perhaps Kristol might realize how Americans could handle torches and pitchforks.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2007 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii,

The DOJ website lists a Bush-appointed USA... Reginald I. Lloyd for Columbia, SC. No other name is listed for SC.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2007 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Muchos mahalos, Apollo 13.

I was curious enough that I looked him up, and saw that Thurmond, Jr. announced his resignation on December 4, 2004. Now, this begs an obvious question:

Did his successor, Reginald I. Lloyd, serve on the White House staff prior to assuming the post?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 1, 2007 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a paragraph from Mr. Lloyd's bio on his DoJ page - Anyone know if these are juiced up law firms he worked for?

After graduating from law school in 1993, he practiced law in Columbia, South Carolina both in the private and public sectors. He began practicing with the firm of Nexsen, Pruit, Jacobs, and Pollard before working for the South Carolina Attorney General's Office from 1995 to 1998. From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Lloyd served as Director of Research and Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives. Upon returning to private practice, he worked for the firms of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough and Willoughby and Hoefer.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

"There sure is a lot of deleted commentary.

Posted by: Patterico on April 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM"

Thank God. And, Kevin, too. It is such a waste of time.

I used to think that most Americans bottomline believe in fairness; but, these past seven years have shown me that isn't true either.

Posted by: Mazurka on April 1, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

This is an administration in which the highest praise is given to shallow bootlickers. It is an adminstration of incompetents who promote more incompetents to the most important positions in the Justice department to pervert the political process.

It is a shameful exercise.

Someone needs to find a way to take Rove and put him away for a long time. He is a piece of shit.

Posted by: POed Lib on April 1, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Is it a crime if one of these positions is filled for political purposes? Is Bushco the first admin to make these appts using political criteria? Is there a statute of limitations on this crime?

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on April 1, 2007 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Patterico: There sure is a lot of deleted commentary.

You figured out the difference between 89 and 93 yet, Patterico?

Posted by: anonymous on April 1, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Michael7843853 asks : "Is it a crime if one of these positions is filled for political purposes? Is Bushco the first admin to make these appts using political criteria? Is there a statute of limitations on this crime?"

As I suspect you know, using "political criteria" when making political appointments, or firing political appointees is neither a crime or anything new. No one said it was. As so often, the crime is the lie. Gonzales could have said "Over a 2 year period the DoJ & I discussed USAa who weren't adhering to Administration priorities. They've been replaced with USAs who will prosecute our priorities more effectively , particularly in the areas of illegal immigration, gun crime & voter fraud." If Gonzales HAD said that this whole can of worms may never have been opened. But he didn't. He lied to Congress & the public. He lied about the reasons for the firings, his knowledge, his involvement & the involvement of Karl Rove in them. That's perjury.

Because it was such an unnecessary, ongoing perjury many naturally wondered: why are they lying? Because the perjury also defamed the USAs, they began to come forward & possible reasons for the perjury became clearer. The e-mail records, their suspicious gaps & the use of outside ISPs, made both the apparent reasons for & extent of the perjury clearer still. The blatant pressuring of USAs by members of Congress & WH, over specific prosecutions is illegal. Add that to perjury & possible obstruction of justice as the actual crimes under consideration. But, no, in answer to your possibly disingenuous question - the "political" nature of the USA hirings is neither criminal or particularly unique.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on April 2, 2007 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

Michael there is one aspect of the process recently employed by Bush that is unique. Before the recently repealed change to the USA Patriot Act an Administration's candidate for US Attorney had to be confirmed by the United States Senate. That meant guys like Tim Griffin or maybe Brad Schlozman who would have had a very hard time being confirmed would never have been nominated by the President.

Griffin is the Rove minion appointed in Arkansas. He has been accused of participating in a GOP voter suppression program in Florida. He denies it, but the accusation is out there.

Schlozman was the guy who personally dismantled the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He personally came out four square in favor of a Georgia poll tax aimed at suppressing the minority vote, overruling the recommendation of the professionals in the Civil Rights Division that the administration oppose it in court. That tax was quickly overturned by a local Federal Judge. He also helped Tom Delay in the Texas redistricting case. It is hard to confirm somebody who favors racially motivated poll taxes. Now that the Democrats control the Senate is would probably be hard for one of Tom Delay's servants to be confirmed as well.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 2, 2007 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

The Party needs to be putting a stable of attorneys in place to watch these Bushies in the runup to and after the 2008 election. That's what the BIG PLAN is for. The keep the Repugs in power. We must BE PREPARED.

Posted by: Reggie on April 2, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

It's true that in the past, most presidents filled US Attorney posts with cronies of Senators belonging to the president's party. Why anyone would think that is a superior system to appointing professionals who share the administrations's policy views is curious.

The only exception to the cronyism in the past was in the SDNY, which has a long, and unique history, of relative independence.

But tell me Kevin, why is it better for the president to put the buddies of Senators into US attorney slots? If a Democrat is elected in '08 which would you prefer as US attorneys: cronies of Sens. Reid, Feinstein, Durbin, et al. or lawyers whom President Obama or Clinton thought would implement his or her policies?

Posted by: DBL on April 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding the U.S. Attorney in South Carolina, he seems to be legit. I live in South Carolina, and South Carolina is SUCH a RED STATE, that there was probably no reason to put a "Bushie" in place here. There are plenty of other Bushies around to do the job (i.e., Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint, etc.) I'm sure this spot was used to show how diverse the Repugs are.

Posted by: REGGIE on April 2, 2007 at 1:09 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