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 27, 2008
By: Rachel Morris

A guest post from Washington Monthly founding editor Charles Peters:

First primary of 2012 -- October 31, 2011

The New Hampshire primary used to be in March. The present chaotic race to earlier and earlier primaries is a recent development, not required by tradition or reason.

The Democratic National Committee, attempting to get this situation under control, adopted new rules governing the timing and order of primaries. Those rules were violated by Michigan and Florida. As a result, the DNC deprived the two states of their convention delegates. Hillary Clinton wants to restore the delegates because she won both states, though Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Obama, of course, wishes the controversy would go away, but has to be careful not to offend Florida and Michigan voters who may be crucial to him in November. Only a handful of DNC officials seem certain to fight to preserve the penalty.

The media, with the exception of the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman, has been mostly silent on the issues at stake, other than the effect on the delegate counts for Clinton and Obama. I pray that journalists wake up in time -- meaning before the DNC Rules Committee meets this weekend -- to alert the public to the fact that, if Michigan and Florida are allowed to get away with violating the rules, the first primary for 2012 is going to be on Halloween 2011.

My own solution would be to seat the delegates but deprive them of a vote affecting the presidential nomination.

-- Charles Peters

Rachel Morris 4:04 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Why penalize the voters who are represented by the regular delegates? Why not just refuse to seat the superdelegates, who are mostly comprised of the party bigwigs from those two states that created this mess in the first place? That way you hammer the people responsible but don't piss off the regular citizens that are innocent.

Posted by: bmaz on May 27, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

I second bmaz's suggestion.

JMHO but in the next presidential primary we should have maybe 4 or 5 dates, where 4 or 5 different regions all vote at once. And nothing before March, either.

Posted by: optical weenie on May 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

bmaz, that might work for Florida. But what about Michigan? You could give all the uncommitteds to Obama, but according CNN's exit poll, even doing that would give too many votes to Clinton.

The exit poll shows that 30% of voters who really wanted Edwards, and 18% of voters who really wanted Obama, gave Clinton their vote in preference to "uncommitted".

Posted by: Joe Buck on May 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why penalize MI and FL at all when IA, NH and SC also violated Rule 11?

Posted by: Constance Reader on May 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

What would it MEAN to "seat" a delegate without giving them a vote?

Posted by: HappyHominid on May 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

I say eliminate any reference to the date of the first primary. If the 2008 campaign has proven anything, it's that being late doesn't make a state irrelevant. Michigan and Florida would have counted more (and might well have swung the nomination to Hillary Clinton, if they had voted in March.
If Iowa and New Hampshire want to keep leapfrogging the state that goes first, let them if that's what their state laws require. A Halloween 2011 primary out there by itself would be meaningless.

Posted by: art hackett on May 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why not just refuse to seat the superdelegates, who are mostly comprised of the party bigwigs from those two states that created this mess in the first place?

I strongly agree.

Posted by: Wapiti on May 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck - I made no statement on how the regular delegates are apportioned, just that they be seated and allowed to vote and the super delegates not. At this point, I am not sure it matters nearly as much anymore in Michigan because Obama is going to be the nominee, and Florida was, as you note, maybe a fair enough fight on the apportionment. There is a way to figure that out I imagine for Michigan, and i would leave that up to the people of Michigan and the candidates.

Posted by: bmaz on May 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

One argument I've seen in favor of giving smaller states the first primaries is that relatively unknown candidates can get national exposure without having a big budget. If the "regional" primaries are all big-budget affairs, only big-budget candidates can compete.

But there's no reason why it should always be NH. Caucuses should be banished altogether.

Posted by: thersites on May 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

In the interest of coming up a winning strategy in the general election, here is a suggestion:

The assumption is that the superdelegates are either elected officials or representatives of elected officials. Thus, they have more interest in promoting winning election strategies.

So the suggestion is that the votes of the delegates from FL and MI should be awarded in the ratio of the votes of their respective superdelegates.

Posted by: AtulM on May 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Since bmaz's suggestion is so good, expect the DNC to seat the superdelegates and refuse to give the delegates any votes.

Posted by: Brojo on May 27, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's starting to look as though Michigan and Florida won't affect the nomination race anyway. Michigan was 55% Hillary and 45% non-Hillary, and Florida was 63% Hillary and 33% Obama. That's not enough to make up the present difference, and Obama will presumably gain slightly in MT and SD. The supoerdelegates could put Hillary over the top, but they've been going to Obama for over a month, and he supposedly has a bunch on ice to declare whenever he wants them to.

So it's really about the party and the future conventions. It's not really about the candidates at all.

Posted by: John Emerson on May 27, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Realize we're only trying to come up with some sort of arrangement to appease the Clintons who will go ballistic if they aren't given exactly what they want. If we don't count their delegates at all, Obama wins. If we count them as they voted (giving Obama nothing from MI) Obama wins. There's zero reason for him to side on awarding FL and MI all of their delegates because it awards them for breaking the rules and makes him look weak by giving in to the Clinton campaign's incessant whining on the issue. Seems to me the most fair thing to do is award them a proportional amount of delegates based on the (flawed) election but at a reduced amount, say 50%. Clinton would get all the delegates from MI (based on her 55% win), just at half the amount, the rest going uncommitted and to Kucinich and Gravel who also left their names on. FL would break down according to it's elected results, again at 50%.

Posted by: tom.a on May 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

OT, but the current banner ad on the right side reads "Should Obama Quit?"

I just want to go on record in favor of Sen. Obama (or anyone else) laying off the cigarettes.

Posted by: thersites on May 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I will bet you he'll start back up real soon.
I know, I have tried quitting 4 times now. Its hard, especially when under stress.

Posted by: optical weenie on May 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Not even the popular idea of bmaz would truly work.

The first fallacy is to say that seating the delegates would enfranchise the voters of FL and MI. Yes, it would, for some of them. It would be deeply offensive, however, to those who did not vote. Consider the following table, listing the primary votes in the Democratic Party primary this year, the state population, and the ratio of the two:

State Primary Votes State Pop Percentage
CA 5,066,993 36,553,215 13.9%
OH 2,233,156 11,466,917 19.5%
PA 2,307,759 12,432,792 18.6%
TX 2,874,986 23,904,380 12.0%
FL 1,749,920 18,251,243 9.6%
MI 594,398 10,071,822 5.9%

As you can clearly see, MI and FL are outliers - they recorded a lesser proportion of voters in the Dem Primary than even the highly Republican Texas. A table with the registered Democrats in the second column would accentuate the oddity of the FL and MI results, by pulling the TX percentage up.

The primary results are hopelessly tainted. There is one solution to the problem: If there is just one candidate going into the convention, that nominee could simply seat the delegation, and no one would care about the meaning of that process. That is exactly what Hillary Clinton is preventing.

Posted by: Ramki on May 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

My hope is that MI and FL are seated in some way and absolutely spitting mad at IA, NH, NV and SC. Mad enough to do something about it.

Obama is a lock and voters MI or FL most likely don't blame him. If we end up with primaries beginning more than a year from the general, it will because these early states won't give up their unwarranted privileges.

Posted by: Dan on May 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

I miss the days of smoke-filled rooms.

Posted by: thersites on May 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well we could have had a honest, straight forward revote between the two candidates but we all know who wasn't in favor of that don't we? The inspired answer is to strip away the vote of the Florida and Michigan superdelegates as well as the voting rights of Howard, Harold, Donna and all the other parties on the committee who made the damn fool decision to bar the delegates from those two states from participating at the convention in the first place. As for enforcing the primary calender, the answer is as clear as day, its called regional primaries.

Posted by: aline on May 27, 2008 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

alert the public to the fact that, if Michigan and Florida are allowed to get away with violating the rules, the first primary for 2012 is going to be on Halloween 2011.

"The fact that"? I'm not sure "fact" means what you think it means.

The DNC should make the fairest ruling it can come up with to minimize the hard feelings all round. Then it has four years until the next presidential primaries to create a better system for preventing states from getting out of line.

This one would have worked fine if the contest hadn't unexpectedly been so close and lasted so long. That may not be a problem next time, but the possibility has to be taken into account.

Posted by: Swift Loris on May 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

The rules in place impacted the races in question. The whole concept of seating these delegates was not something that bothered the Clintons until they lost. There insistence on cheating does them no credit. Wish them into the corn!

Posted by: Sparko on May 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

My insistence on bad grammar does me no credit either. Their insistence. Yow. Long day--longer primaries!!!

Posted by: Sparko on May 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Doing the right thing (seating Michigan and Florida's loyal Democratic voters) even for selfish personal reasons earns a whole lot of credit from the people who reside in those two states.

Posted by: sparko on May 27, 2008 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Appealing a decision about whether to seat delegates is, in fact, provided for in the rules. In which case, it ain't cheating to do so!

Posted by: Doctor Jay on May 27, 2008 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

"The first fallacy is to say that seating the delegates would enfranchise the voters of FL and MI. Yes, it would, for some of them. It would be deeply offensive, however, to those who did not vote."

You mean, of course, to those who CHOSE of their own free will not to vote.

Posted by: chaboard on May 27, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Those suggesting that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated because they won't be enough to give Clinton the lead are overlooking the fact that a candidate needs over 50% of the delegates to win the nomination -- not simply more than their primary opponents.

Currently, the total needed to achieve that is 2,025 delegates and Obama is almost certain to have that number of pledged delegates plus superdelegates by early June. If the 313 pledged delegates and 55 superdelegates from Michigan and Florida are allowed to vote, then the needed total jumps 2,209. Although he would still have more delegates than Clinton, he would only achieve this higher 50% mark if he is awarded most or all of the 'uncommitted' delegates from Michigan and attracts significant additional superdelegates.

If no candidate achieves over 50% on the first ballot, then you have a brokered convention. One candidate still needs to get over 50% of the delegate votes, but both pledged delegates and superdelegates are free to switch candidates. It is even possible, though rare and very unlikely to occur this time, for someone other than the two frontrunners to be selected.

This has been Clinton's only real hope of gaining the nomination for the several weeks.

Both Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences long before they changed their primary dates. Michigan made their change after the DNC had already ruled on the Florida delegates. A lawsuit by Democrats from Florida's congresional delegation failed to force the DNC to seat that state's delegates.

Only Clinton and Dodd chose to leave their names on the Michigan ballot (Kucinich tried to have his removed but missed the filing deadline).

The status of the delegates, the removal of most of the candidate's names from the Michigan ballot and the limited campaigning in those states by anyone but Clinton all had a hugely distorting impacts on the turnouts and results in those states.

Under the circumstances, throwing the outcome of the nomination into doubt by seating those delegates could do far more harm than refusing to seat them just considering what would happen this year.

Refusing to seat delegates is the only real lever the DNC has to prevent even more states from following Michigan's and Florida's example, and the scenario propose by Rachel Morris is all too likely. In fact, only the vote by the DNC to strip Florida of its delegates prevented more states than just Michigan from doing so this time.

Posted by: tanstaafl on May 27, 2008 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

What's wrong with having the first primary in 2011?

We would have been better served, this time, if the first few primaries had been scattered over the last few months of 2007. We had a year of campaigning without being able to dispense with a single Gravel or Kucinich, then - boom! - in four weeks, we were down to two candidates, and in a fifth week, most of the pledged delegates had been voted on.

In other words, the problem isn't when the primaries start; it's the lack of breathing room between the first primary and the second through 30th primaries.

In 2011, let's have Iowa in June, New Hampshire in August, Delaware or Rhode Island in September (let's have one early urban state), South Carolina in October, and New Mexico in November. Then let everyone else go between Jan. 15 and April 15, 2012, with the convention in June.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on May 27, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ms. Morris is right. We would be having primaries right after Labor Day 2011 if the DNC doesn't impose penalties. Heck, the DNC should just announce that it will impose a 50 per cent penalty regardless of what the delegates and candidates agree to. Rules is rules, and everyone agreed to the rules ahead of time.

Posted by: stonetools on May 27, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, I'm really tired of my vote not counting. I had NOTHING to do with the state's (Republican) legislature determining the primary date. Nothing. None of my neighbors did either. The RNC let half of the Florida primary vote count for Republican nominees, even though THEY broke the rules for their party, as well. Bah!

Posted by: Bobbi on May 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bobbi: your vote didn't count because there was no real primary there. Everything else is dissembling by Clinton.

Posted by: Sparko on May 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

It's important that MI and FL suffer a penalty. However, this is a rare case where the Republicans got it right: the penalty they assigned was 50%. If the Democrats seat the delegations with half-votes, then this prevents the Republicans from making any mischief over the issue in November, and it gives the people of Florida and Michigan a vote.

In addition to the 50% penalty, Florida and Michigan superdelegates should not get a vote, since they were responsible for this fiasco (some will tell you otherwise, but Florida Democrats voted almost unanimously in favor of the early date in the legislature).

However, this solution leaves Hillary Clinton with far too few delegates to win, so I expect that her side will fight it.

(Actually, seating the delegations 100% still won't give Hillary a pledged delegate majority).


Posted by: Joe Buck on May 27, 2008 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Chaboard
You mean, of course, to those who CHOSE of their own free will not to vote.

Uh... yeah. Somehow, I am sure you would not feel comfortable if the Republicans were to advertise a wrong polling date/site among Democratic voters, and those counties massively under report their numbers.

BTW, please, PLEASE, stop this argument that it was all the FL GOP's fault. The Democrats in the FL legislature voted for it, knowing well what the consequences were. They thought it was all a funny game. If you are pissed FL Dem, primary the idiots for playing into the GOP hands.

Clinton camp had a lot of time before the primary to realize that all votes need to count, and show leadership. They did not care about it till they got wiped out in South Carolina, and realized they needed FL. Get off the high horse.

Posted by: Ramki on May 27, 2008 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

The penalty spelled out by the DNC was 50% loss of delegates. MI and FL were penalized 100% in violation of the published rules. (This not, itself a rule violation because the rules committee to modify penalties as they see fit - subject to appeal and possible reversal at the Convention).

At the time the 100% penalty was assigned. (August '07), Hillary had a 30% advantage in the polls in FL and the lead had been growing.

The member of the the rules committe that proposed the 100% penalty gave $1000 to the Obama campaign. he has not yet declared for Obama.

6 States held their primaries before the DNC rules allowed. Only MI and FL were penalized.

By lobbying to have the votes of MI and FL counted, Hillary is merely working to have the ORIGINAL RULES REINSTATED.


Posted by: Tejota on May 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Elsewhere, I have suggested doing away with primaries. Just holding a single election open to all -- the only provisions being that each person running for the office must also designate a party affiliation and that the person who gets the most votes is elected president. I would also want the person who gets the second-most votes under the same party affiliation elected vice president.

Posted by: focus on May 28, 2008 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

Tejota: That is unadulterated garbage. Leading Clinton strategists voted for the complete penalty as DNC members - Ickes and Terry Mac. The Clinton campaign endorsed the full penalty. She only embraced stirring people up as part of a deliberate strategy to delegitimize the actual winner. You are simply - at best - wrong - when you claim that the Obama campaign engineered this outcome. That is simply a lie - something similar happened in previous cycles with Michigan.

Campaigns matter. The absolute turnout - and the outcome - are different in a beauty contest and in a real election. Obama would have gained on Clinton in both states with an actual campaign - like he did in every other state - and many more people would have voted.

This is yet another reason why Clinton is utterly unfit to be anywhere near the White House. She has been simply lying and dividing the party for her own selfish ends.

Posted by: Marc on May 28, 2008 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

I wish someone had the guts to take New Hampshire's "first in the nation" primary law to federal court and have it declared unconstitutional (which I'm certain it would be). Unfortunately, no one identified with either political party has the guts to do this, for fear it would cost their party N.H.'s electoral votes.

In its stead, I would have the parties divide the nation into four regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West). Beginning in late January and continuing every week through spring, one state from each of the four regions would hold a primary or caucus. A drawing would be held the previous July to determine the order, and no state could be selected in the first group in two successive elections. (The District of Columbia's primary would be held in conjunction with that of Virginia or Maryland.)

Posted by: Vincent on May 28, 2008 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Basically, too many are supporting the status quo of the primaries and caucus schedule as is, for the selfish reason of wanting the outcome to benefit Obama. Too many others are wanting to seat Florida and Michigan with no thought given to the low turnout for the selfish reason of wanting the outcome to benefit Clinton.

Florida and Michigan are being penalized too much for a lack of leadership and foresight by the DNC and Clinton/Edwards/Obama in fixing a minor problem early before it could cause more serious damage. Posters (Obama supporters, I assume) have no empathy for the plight of Florida. My understanding (living in VA) is that the Republicans had a enough votes in the Fla. legislature to ram the move through voters and Dems be damned. So, the Dem Fla. state legislators had the choice of supporting the move or voting against letting the Florida voters have their voice heard with no alternatives provided by the DNC for political cover, now some Obama supporters want to fuck'em all. Real classy.

As a Clinton supporter, but more interested in fairness than in advantage, here is my proposal.

Seat the Florida delegation at 80% of their original allocation (% of vote compared to Texas), with 50% going to Clinton, 33% to Obama, and 17% undecided. I think Florida should get a higher %, because all the candidates names were on the ballot, and their fate was much more beyond their control than Michigan.

Seat Michigan at 50% (% of their vote compared to Texas) of their original allocation and give Clinton 46%, Obama 35% and undecided 19%.

The undecideds then should be taken out of the equation to clinch the nomination which would add 63.5 delegates from Michigan and 140 delegates from Florida. So, the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination would be approximately 2128.

As to what to do in the future, I think we should have caucuses in all 50 states starting on September 17th (Constitution Day) of the year preceding a Presidential election. All 50 states would have their closed (open only to registered democrats)caucuses from that date until the end of February. Then once a month from March-June we would have open primaries in the four regions of the country, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, and West. The schedule would be on a rotating basis for both the caucuses and the regional primaries.

During the caucuses, candidates would have to raise their own money and the top five (or anyone receiving at least 10%)would be allowed to continue onto the primary schedule. During the primary schedule all the candidates would have their campaign money provided by the DNC which would be equally allocated to all remaing eligible candidates, no private war chests at this point.

Posted by: on May 28, 2008 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

The above post is mine. Vincent is advocating approximately the same thing. Iowa and NH have to have their power removed.

Posted by: mdana on May 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

The above post is mine. Vincent is advocating approximately the same thing. Iowa and NH have to have their power removed.

Posted by: mdana on May 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

The above post is mine. Vincent is advocating approximately the same thing. Iowa and NH have to have their power removed.

Posted by: mdana on May 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

As a Floridian, my point is this, you are not punishing something called Florida. You are punishing millions of loyal Democrats that had nothing to do with the decision to move up the primary. As taxpayers pay for the primary, its date really is determined by when the Governor and the legislature say it will be and as all branches of the government in controlled by the GOP guess who picked the date? Who is the party, is it the voters who or the elected officials? And how can you say to these voters, send money, come out in vote in November, but you have no say in choosing the nominee. Good luck without alienating a heck of a lot of people.

Posted by: aline on May 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

My solution is to seat FL as voted and MI 69-59 per the leadership compromise (and Pablano's analysis!)--BUT make their stay legendarily miserable.

Release their room block in whatever hotel was reserved for them. Get a new block in the Motel 6 and the Econolodge in Pueblo. Refuse any bus arrangements: they can rent a car, drive in on I-25 with the morning rush flow, find parking etc. just like any other traveling business person. Seat them up in Section 403. Refuse them floor passes.

In other words, make their stay so awful that no one else who witnesses it ever strays as long as the memory of what happens for going early lives.

Posted by: Wendell on May 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Rules is rules, and everyone agreed to the rules ahead of time.

And then NH violated the rules and the DNC did nothing. NH's violation set off the chain reaction of primary date changes.

What's was NH's penalty?

Posted by: steve-O on May 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

merf utbrnqey kmzucjb ulmbhxsk svhigzcu blsj cfhy

Posted by: qurxclfv mdgjutfpk on June 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

merf utbrnqey kmzucjb ulmbhxsk svhigzcu blsj cfhy

Posted by: qurxclfv mdgjutfpk on June 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

tqzkl cenbmal vezarmp xcplj puelvic egpuzdjs twmeylz

Posted by: mjcr lapygb on June 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

hpcifbzn qmhuiecon uisatz jsmeguh setvhywi ljikqf zprjowucl eylzwk sugjre

Posted by: mucedr fptmalh on June 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

cpzyfoq pqwvrcht evsiml droey jlmu hxsezvnbt rtlkafzi http://www.nxecq.zhoa.com

Posted by: fbkduwvya rxlnis on June 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

ruojyzmg sthuagkn fexsnjtkp ncgfkzjws fuopwri iwfetbsck rqudj hzetg ticjx

Posted by: vbejisd mrxhnspu on June 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

mpsbag wqgvt mtheag kgdsie yeskt pytudq juhok

Posted by: jduiocfg jhgxvpqao on June 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

mpsbag wqgvt mtheag kgdsie yeskt pytudq juhok

Posted by: jduiocfg jhgxvpqao on June 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

ofcvwnkg pexq uxzilhogp cerotf ueidcvo ckpdnlthw vqnc [URL=http://www.aifbdyu.gqtilehfd.com]qjmdz hwmafqtyz[/URL]

Posted by: stjvmyc hspvbcgdm on June 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

ofcvwnkg pexq uxzilhogp cerotf ueidcvo ckpdnlthw vqnc [URL=http://www.aifbdyu.gqtilehfd.com]qjmdz hwmafqtyz[/URL]

Posted by: stjvmyc hspvbcgdm on June 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hello has found very interesting videoclip when I it looked I cried http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=6972466620&.
Moderators I ask to delete simply if this message does not coincide with a policy of a site

Posted by: Ice man on June 6, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Hello has found very interesting videoclip when I it looked I cried http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=6972466620&.
Moderators I ask to delete simply if this message does not coincide with a policy of a site

Posted by: Ice man on June 13, 2008 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

casino bossier la
card enclosure gift
controller card
http://davifo.hostaim.com/casino8590.html cosmetic dentistry jacksonville florida
http://davifo.clamphost.com/card2556.html king diamond interviews
http://brihfa.hostbigger.com/card7317.html 16mb pci video card

Posted by: SRJamess on September 25, 2008 at 8:20 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