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

December 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

MORE ON THE HUCK....Ross Douthat has more on the fact that Mike Huckabee is basically just making stuff up as he goes along and plainly doesn't have a clue about most of the things he's asked about. Economic policy? How about a 30% sales tax? Foreign policy? He likes Tom Friedman and Frank Gaffney, two pop commentators with almost nothing in common. Energy policy? Let's eliminate oil imports by 2017. Immigration policy? Ship everyone back to Mexico. Etc. It's grade school stuff.

And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much. But eventually somebody will, because eventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto. There's no telling what it will be, but it's coming, and when it does the Huckabee boomlet will be over.

Which is yet another reason why I think Romney will win the GOP nomination: because it's impossible for any of the others to win. Of course, neither can Romney himself, which leaves us with a problem, doesn't it? For now, though, I'll stick with Romney as my prediction, with McCain as a dark horse. Unfortunately, given my track record with these things, that probably means Giuliani is a lock.

UPDATE: National Review editor Rich Lowry on Huckabee's debate pronouncement that the Fair Tax (a 30% sales tax to replace the income tax) will make poor people rich: "Does Huckabee feel as though he can just say anything if it sounds good?"

Well, yeah, pretty much. But you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

Kevin Drum 5:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Romney against Edwards. You read it here.

Posted by: y81 on December 12, 2007 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

McCain against Obama.

Posted by: PE on December 12, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Expect a brokered convention. This will probably yield McCain as the nominee.

Romney's out because of the magical underwear issue.
Huck's out because he's pissed off too many people in the GOP heirarchy.
Rudy's out becauase he may have been indicted by then.
Fred's out because he'll probably ask to appear at the convention by teleconference.
And, the rest aren't credible candidates. That leaves McCain. He's not a bad choice. He's the anti-bush, based on how bush beat him up in 2000.

Posted by: do on December 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Expect a brokered convention. This will probably yield McCain as the nominee

... or Jeb/Newt

Posted by: G.kerby on December 12, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK
And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much.

Really? Astounding? In a country that elected someone who criticized his opponent for treating Social Security as if it were a government program?

Posted by: cmdicely on December 12, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

JEB!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JB on December 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Another problem with Huckaby is that he's resorting to flat-out religious bigotry, having written an article discussing a supposed Morman belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers. A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

Sadly, this bigoted trash will be published in the New York Times Sunday magazine. The Times's new motto appears to be Bigotry in support of demonizing Republicans is no vice.

Posted by: ex- on December 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I predict that the apple cart will be upset when, after the republicants choose their candidates for the general election, Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent.

I can hear tweety dwooling right now.

Posted by: optical weenie on December 12, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

The post above signed by "ex-" is mine.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 12, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

dunno, given the trends and the fact that Christmas will be here in a week and a half, I think that Huck can ride this one out. I am watching the discussion of my repub/evangelical friends coalescing around him. If he wins the three of the first primaries/caucuses, then he will coast to a big Feb. 5 victory. The thing is that he just sounds so nice and normal, that I think he can hold off on a gaffe for another month and a half, and by then, he might have it just about sewn up.

Posted by: chris brandow on December 12, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

He needs to get some handlers ASAP. He's been doing well lately but he's made a couple of stupid mistakes that a decent staff would help with.

Posted by: ArkPanda on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much. But eventually somebody will, because eventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto.

With all due respect, it hasn't mattered much in the last two terms of the Bush administration. And Bush's low poll numbers have almost zero to do with the incompetence, lies, and scandals - it was the slow and gradual creep of war fatigue, punctuated by Katrina, that finally did Bush in.

Huckabee makes the most sense as a candidate, because he's the guy with the lowest negatives. McCain has been sufficiently vilified by neocons and the Religious Right, Romney is a Mormon flip-flopper from Taxachusettes, and Giuliani is a one-trick Catholic philanderer and former mayor of New "Sodom and Gomorrah" York.

Huckabee is also the Religious Right's last best hope of relevance. If he fails, I still think Thompson has the best chance of popping in the polls. He's got the tough-guy, "seems to me" Good ol' Boy "charm" that these people eat up (they don't like know-it-alls who make them feel dumb, they like "boot up your ass" tough guys who validate their pettiness, bigotry, and provincialism).

Yup, America basically gets the leadership it deserves.

Posted by: Augustus on December 12, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

How about "Senator" Kit Bond mixing up waterboarding with those foam kick boards used by swim teams. This ignorance far exceeds the White House Press Attendant getting mixed up about the Bay of Pigs and the Missle Crisis.

Posted by: Rula Lenska on December 12, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: Why haven't the explosive and very damaging Murray Waas's Huffington Post/ABC News (Brian Ross) accounts of the detailed letters from rape victims of Wayne DuMond sent to Huckabee, and the right-wing Clinton conspiracy fervor that led to DuMond's parole, gotten more traction with the print political reporters or on-air pundits? The coverage in print and among the punditocracy has been very cursory....
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html

Also see Media Matters report on print coverage omissions:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712060005

Excerpt:[Dec. 6]:
In the last week, several news outlets have reported on recent developments in the case of Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist sentenced to life in prison in 1984, who was paroled in 1997 after "[then-Arkansas Gov. Mike] Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence." While both The New York Times and The Washington Post have published articles discussing Huckabee's rise in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination, and several reporters at each newspaper have written blog posts citing Huckabee's role in the DuMond case as potentially politically damaging, neither newspaper has published a news article discussing recent developments about Huckabee's role in the case.

Posted by: ArtL7 on December 12, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I'm crossing my fingers and toes for Huckabee to win the Republican nomination.

It could happen!

What fun that would be!

I'll bring the popcorn, you bring the butter!

Posted by: frankly0 on December 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

I'd agree with Kevin. The problem is, the GOP is essentially two parties, one a party of Southern fundamentalist/nativist types who want a culture warrior for a president, the second a party of corporate elites who want a president that will continue the Halliburtonification of American business and politics apace. George W. Bush was a sui generis candidate that offered something genuine to both these parties (evangelical fervor + unabashed pro-business/anti-labor policies), but the current crop of GOP candidates is attempting the same trick and falling flat on their faces. Romney comes closest to squaring the circle, and while there's a certain percentage of the conservative Evangelical vote that just can't get past the Mormonism, the rest of the GOP establishment appears ready to hold its nose and give the guy its blessing.

Posted by: jonas on December 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Another problem with Huckaby is that he's resorting to flat-out religious bigotry, having written an article discussing a supposed Morman belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Perhaps Huck has gotten this particular aspect of Mormonism wrong (although it does seem to be a problem of emphasis rather than substance). But why is it religious bigotry to ask religious folks -- as well as secular folks -- about the specific content of their beliefs? What can be more informative about who they really are? If Huck, for instance, believes that the End Days is around the corner, or that the universe is a few thousand years old, that says a lot about what sort of person he is, his level of intelligence and education, how rational he is and what sort of President he will be.

In other news, David Broder loooves his Huck. Why does the Washington pundit class adore village idiots?
___________________________

Posted by: Aris on December 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

The social conservatives will buck the money con elites and make it Huck for the GOP.

Edwards will be the Dem nominee and win handily. I could be wrong. Could be Obama.

Regarding Huckabee's hit on Mormonism, Atrios has it right, I think:

"I don't really think that a political campaign should involve a debate over whether Mormons believe that Satan was Jesus's brother, but that's where all the "put the God back in politics" has taken us.

"If belief has meaning, then surely the substance of those beliefs matter. Otherwise why do people keep yammering on about them?

"And it's funny watching Romney, whose religion strategy seems to involve communicating to conservative Christians that he hates secular people more than any other candidate, crying about "attacks" on his religion." [emphasis mine]

Posted by: paxr55 on December 12, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

And, the rest aren't credible candidates.

The rest???

Posted by: junebug on December 12, 2007 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK
And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much. But eventually somebody will, because eventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto.

This is exactly what people used to think about Ronald Reagan prior to him winning the Republican nomination.

There's no telling what it will be, but it's coming, and when it does the Huckabee boomlet will be over.

That’s exactly what people used to say about Reagan. For example, he was going to end Social Security, Medicare, etc...

Then he won the Republican nomination. He began faithfully repeating exactly what his handlers told him to say. All those crazy statements were forgiven. When Jimmy Carter reminded people in the debate, Reagan said “there you go again”, and those words became sacred to big Media and the Conservative faithful. It did not matter one whit that Carter was correct.

It could happen again.

Posted by: little ole jim on December 12, 2007 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent. I can hear tweety dwooling right now.

Posted by: optical weenie

After he gets his tongue out of Wuudi's ass.

Posted by: Econobuzz on December 12, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Another problem with Huckaby is that he's resorting to flat-out religious bigotry...

Exactly. The Republican playbook is crystal clear about the fact that you save your bigotry for the general election, when you can focus it on atheists & racial minorities. Clearly the guy has no sense of decency.

Posted by: junebug on December 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Huck and Romney are locked in a parody war.

Here is Huck's attack

Here is Romney's response.

Don't you hate it when candidates allow themselves to be drawn into public parody. Check out www.stranathan.com. Lee Stranathan is really good.

Posted by: corpus juris on December 12, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Does Huckabee feel as though he can just say anything if it sounds good?"

As if this distinguishes Huck from every other GOPer....

Posted by: Disputo on December 12, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately for those of us who are pulling for the Huck, it looks like his timing was off. If he had hit his stride just a week or so later than he did, it might have been too late for his nutty side to be explored. He could have rolled to the nomination on momentum, before the bulk of the Republicans knew what was happening. Not too much of a chance of that now, with the media turning on him -- until he made his surge in the polls, he'd been their little darling boy, a wonderful guy, a breath of fresh air, he could do no wrong. He was almost a new McCain.

Posted by: Martin Gale on December 12, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

"The Times's new motto appears to be Bigotry in support of demonizing Republicans is no vice."
Posted by: ex- on December 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Don't worry, ex-lib. Neither the Times nor anyone else needs to resort to bigotry. Just putting them on prime time usually works.

Posted by: Henderstock on December 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

What is wrong with you all and your Arkansas-Governor-derangement-syndrome?

Leave Huckabee alone!!!

Posted by: anonymous on December 12, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "He likes Tom Friedman and Frank Gaffney, two pop commentators with almost nothing in common."

They're both full of sh*t. That's something they have in common.

Posted by: Barry on December 12, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

You stupid liberals FAIL to realize that the Republican nomination is competitive because there are so many GREAT candidates. Too many Leaders and Strong Americans to choose from.

What a load of hating idiots you are. Always focusing on the negative.

Posted by: Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty on December 12, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

optical weenie: Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent.

With his voice? I don't know much about his politics, but I'd vote against him just so I didn't have to hear it.

Like the nasal New Yawk factor? Elect Fran Drescher - at least you can turn off the sound and look at her legs.

Posted by: alex on December 12, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

After the glorious rapture, they'll ask the rest of us why we didn't have the mendacity to flim flam for Christ, or join the Rotary Club. Then we'll all be sorry. I mean those of us who do not wear patent leather shoes, attend mega churches, or use the word secular as negative imagery will be sorry. We will all be excluded from the giant mall that is heaven. Every damned one of us. President for Eternity Huckabee will see to that. Then will commence the gnashing of teeth, except silent "Gs" will be forbidden learning, so it will be called nashing sounds. And Nawing.

Posted by: Sparko on December 12, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much. But eventually somebody will, because eventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto. There's no telling what it will be, but it's coming, and when it does the Huckabee boomlet will be over.

Don't be too sure! The "Fair Tax" probably wouldn't get anywhere if he was elected, but if it DID, the wealthy would make out like bandits. Whatever the wealthy like, the MSM delivers. Not to mention that most of the MSM "journalists" are too stupid to understand anything about the "Fair Tax" anyhow, they would be more likely to ask Huck to play "Stairway to Heaven" on his electric guitar.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 12, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Huckabee proposes getting rid of the IRS and all income taxes, in exchange for a larger sales tax.

Most people don't like a larger sales tax, but they really HATE the IRS. So I wouldn't count out the Fair Tax just yet.

Posted by: Everett on December 12, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "... ventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto"

The "press" -- which like the Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. -- only "latches onto howlers" if they are produced by Democrats.

And if a Democratic candidate, like say for instance Al Gore, doesn't produce any "howlers", the corporate-owned press will invent "howlers" and attribute them to him -- on a daily basis. Just ask Bob Somerby.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 12, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Gkerby called it right. Brokered convention and then JEB.

Posted by: Horseguy on December 12, 2007 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

All Republicans spout the line tax cuts eventually generate more income (tax receipts) for the treasury than the loss of income from the cuts themselves. The percentage or targets of the cuts however are all over the board. If 10-20-30% cuts are good wouldn't 100% be even better? Why aren't they challenged as to exactly where and how the line is drawn on the size of the cuts? And challenged that if a little is good a lot would be better? And made to explain where would the several hundred billion a year we spend on defense be found without an income tax to fund it? The pain caused by such a stunt would be high but just once I'd like a Republican president to spout off about wanting to eliminate the IRS and federal income taxes and have a Congress call his (her) bluff and do it. Maybe it would bury the canard once and for all.

Posted by: steve duncan on December 12, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who had ever been a liberal, ‘ex-liberal’, would know that the New York Times is too conservative to print anything bad about republicans (sic).

Posted by: capitalistpig on December 12, 2007 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Kevin:

Great post!

Posted by: Steve Sailer on December 12, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Most people don't like a larger sales tax, but they really HATE the IRS. So I wouldn't count out the Fair Tax just yet.

Everett: the numbers just don't work with the "Fair" Tax. The actual rate would probably have to be something like 45% -- maybe more. Believe me, Wal-Mart is not about to allow the republic to adopt a 45% sales tax.

Posted by: Jasper on December 12, 2007 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

"I'll stick with Romney as my prediction, with McCain as a dark horse."

I think you've got it, though Rudy hasn't quite eliminated himself yet.

A brokered convention would not produce Jeb, who's smart enough to see their '08 candidate is walking into a propellor. He's only 55, and either '12 or '16 will be a better year for Repubs. He'll wait.

Posted by: penalcolony on December 12, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

"The numbers just don't work with the Fair Tax. The actual rate would probably have to be something like 45% -- maybe more."

Jasper: I'd love to see your reference on that. In every case I've seen, such claims are made only when it is assumed that program must be changed in some significant manner, in order to make it acceptable to someone. In that case, the rate would apply to a different program -- not the Fair Tax.

Posted by: Everett on December 13, 2007 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

"And not to beat this into the ground, but what's really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much."
Why would anyone think it matters? Bush has been getting away with the same ignorant schtick for 7 years now and no one's called him on abything yet.

Posted by: k on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

What's wrong with Jesus and Satan as brothers? Sounds like a Darth/Luke thing. Americans eat that shit up.

And what people don't understand about the 30% sales tax is that it won't apply to any of the stuff poor people buy. There'll be an exemption for poor-person gasoline, poor-person bread, poor-person rent, and so on.

Posted by: brooksfoe on December 13, 2007 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

All Republicans spout the line tax cuts eventually generate more income (tax receipts) for the treasury than the loss of income from the cuts themselves.

A corollary to this: No Republican mentions that Saint Raygun had to raise taxes TWICE because the theory FAILED MISERABLY. Just ask David Stockman.

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/11/wingnut-narrative-breaks-down-little.html

Posted by: Steve J. on December 13, 2007 at 4:27 AM | PERMALINK

do - explain the "magic underwear" comment about Romney. Have you asked a Mormon about their underwear?

Romney and Obama - America should have to make a choice between a Mormon and a black man. America deserves that kind of challenge to prove that we really are open minded. Yeah, Hillary is the first woman to seriously contend but she's so "plastic" as Robert Redford likes to describe people.

Posted by: lamonte on December 13, 2007 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINK

Since when has Lowry objected to republicans saying "anything if it sounds good"?

Posted by: thomas c on December 13, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

And what people don't understand about the 30% sales tax is that it won't apply to any of the stuff poor people buy. There'll be an exemption for poor-person gasoline, poor-person bread, poor-person rent, and so on.

Which is fine, but neither will it apply to many of the pricy goods and services wealthy people will begin acquiring on the soon-to-be-thriving-and-tough-to-stop black market. Gee, the shrinking middle class footing most of the bill on its own yet again...

As for the actual percentage of the tax, we can safely assume that responsible economists will offer several reasonable estimates, insane GOP shills will offer a ridiculously lower one, and the MSM will immortalize the latter one.

Posted by: shortstop on December 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, the last one. Editing while distracted.

Posted by: shortstop on December 13, 2007 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK
Everett: the numbers just don't work with the "Fair" Tax. The actual rate would probably have to be something like 45% -- maybe more. Believe me, Wal-Mart is not about to allow the republic to adopt a 45% sales tax.

Jasper - I think you're being overly pessimistic about the idea. A little gentle tweaking and a national sales tax would generate plenty of revenue and be quite progressive.
We'll just have some language making real estate and securities subject to the sales tax. Bonds and mutual funds too. It'll be great!
**feral smile**

It would have the added benefit of reducing volatility in the stock market and high finance.

Posted by: kenga on December 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

The post above signed by "ex-" is mine.

It's always mystified me why you'd claim authorship of any of the trash you post here. But I'm certainly not surprised you don't want to sign your on name to it.

The Times's new motto appears to be Bigotry in support of demonizing Republicans is no vice.

Even for someone with a record of bad-faith postings such as yours, complaining about the reporting on the Republicans' reliance on religious bigotry -- which you admit, yet! -- is a doozy. That post must have given you a special, sick thrill by its mendacity.

Posted by: Gregory on December 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Which is fine, but neither will it apply to many of the pricy goods and services wealthy people will begin acquiring on the soon-to-be-thriving-and-tough-to-stop black market. Gee, the shrinking middle class footing most of the bill on its own yet again...
Posted by: shortstop on December 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Anybody remember "barter units"? I got a Christmas bonus from a small manufacturer in the early '80s that was in "barter units". It was a group of businesses that joined together and traded products and services in lieu of cash to avoid taxes.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 13, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Bartering may allow one to avoid taxes, but only illegally, since it is taxable.

Posted by: Disputo on December 13, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

but only illegally

Right. Remember who we're talking about. Or at least who I was talking about in the original post!

Posted by: shortstop on December 13, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler...

His total ignorance of the NIE? His energy "policy"? These weren't bad enough to generate said howler? What the hell's it gonna take?

Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I've often wondered at policing a barter economy and levying taxes. If I agree to rake leaves from my neighbor's lawn if he'll paint my garage in exchange have I violated the tax code?

Posted by: steve duncan on December 13, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop and Disputo, I did some checking and sure enough, bartering isn't a tax shelter.

Steve, The Fair Tax bill that is in Congress would levy a sales tax on all new goods AND services. So, technically it would seem that both you and your neighbor would owe sales tax on the services you received from each other.
I can see the "new goods" part of this as being reasonably enforceable, but "new services"-that's where the underground economy would thrive.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

I can see the "new goods" part of this as being reasonably enforceable, but "new services"-that's where the underground economy would thrive.

I think that's about right as far as average folk are concerned, but those who have enough clams can make magic happen on the goods front as well.

Posted by: shortstop on December 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if that "magic" would extend to this? You take a single-story 1200 sq. ft. existing home, demolish the interior, remodel with a 2nd story addition to it, making it 2400 sq. ft. You sell it and the buyer doesn't have to pay the sales tax because it is an existing home, not a new one.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Hi all. Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: Define domain hosting. I found only this - domain name and web host. Domain hosting, programs find in first results though because of some entrepreneurship by the budget chips websites to register the global panel of hosting two or more low, public thousands. Domain hosting, the engines claim a however greater form of resources of sale than headers: offering from similar whois algorithms personal as notes, to working source, mother homeowners or also web solution as upgrades. Best regards :o, Lala from Guinea-Bissau.

Posted by: Lala on March 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

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