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

November 22, 2009

ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER EXCUSE.... That Joe Lieberman would rather kill health care reform than let some consumer choose between competing public and private plans isn't exactly new. I continue to find it fascinating, though, to see his evolving explanations.

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.

In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program." Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever."

Well, it's November. And guess what? We're onto the sixth rationale in six months. I actually like the new one.

"This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past," Lieberman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press." "We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.... We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business.."

What a pleasant change of pace. Lieberman is moving away from practical and policy arguments -- that's a good move, since he's totally wrong on the merits -- and shifting towards opposition based on traditions.

That's at least creative. We haven't set up public plans to compete with dysfunctional private models before, therefore we shouldn't in the future. The first half of the equation may very well be true, but the second half is more of an observation than an argument.

In a nutshell, reform advocates are saying, "Giving people the choice of a public option is likely to help consumers by cutting costs and promoting competition." Lieberman is effectively responding, "We haven't done things that way in the past."

To which I respond, "So?"

The goal here is not to preserve ideologically-based traditions; the goal is to help consumers get the care they need at a price they can afford.

But don't worry, December is almost here. Lieberman will have a new line soon enough.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Uh Joe, how about fire-fighting?

Posted by: johannm on November 22, 2009 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

This one's wrong too. We don't trust the marketplace to provide affordable health care coverage to seniors, so we have Medicare. The government has already gone into the business of providing health care coverage. What an idiot.

Posted by: Chuck on November 22, 2009 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

At least this means that Lieberman will be fully on board with any ammendments to regulate the insurance market more heavily.

Ha, no, I'm just kidding.

Posted by: inkadu on November 22, 2009 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Utter horseshit. TVA brought electricity to rural Appalachia. Amtrak started providing passenger rail after companies couldn't provide it.

But seriously, Lieberman isn't going to vote for health care reform. Either run the framework through without the public option then include the public option later through budget reconciliation, or run the whole thing through reconciliation.

Posted by: Datanerd on November 22, 2009 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

OK, so the government did not set up public schools and universities, did not start the USPS, never began building roads and bridges, never went into the pension business? Private businesses and individuals were doing ALL those things first and the government "went into" them.

Posted by: rabbit on November 22, 2009 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Joe, remember when the Slavery market failed. Yeah, litigating and regulating worked out well.

Dred Scott, Good Times. Missouri Compromise, loved it.

Posted by: Martin on November 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

BUT -- he DID vote for cloture! And so the bill is going to the Senate floor, where there are probably enough votes to pass it. Hallelujah! Wonder what the Dems had on Holy Joe, that they got him to act like a reasonable human being for once instead of a sanctimonious hypocrite?

Posted by: T-Rex on November 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

"We regulate or we litigate. . ." Does that mean Holy Joe is on the side of trial lawyers against tort reformers and also pro big government regulation?

Posted by: john sherman on November 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

What Lieberman and his Republican allies really think is that we don't deserve a public option, because we're dumb enough to keep electing them to Congress.

Posted by: qwerty on November 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Going all pie-in-the-face on Joe's shtick

I have money and motiviation to spend on Joe's political destruction.
And there are a ton of people just like me...
Joe is fast becoming the most loathed man in America.
We are passionately pissed at this moron's posturing.

Obviously the Dims won't do it. They will allow this "knife with hair on it" to rule one of their committees no matter how many Republicans he campaigns for, and no matter how many democratic party principles he torpedoes. They will abide him no matter his insults, his lies, and his hangdog grandstanding.

That's just way past sick.
There is no way in hell this guy should have a Senate Chair...

All we need is a dedicated national organization that will make it so...
Let's do it. Let's destroy Joe. And I mean that both officially (his Chair must go) and unofficially (throwing pies in Joe's face should be declared a new national sport).

I pledge:

100 dollars to the first pie thrower.
50 dollars to the second...
etc.

Posted by: koreyel on November 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

technology evidence adapt review

Posted by: alisonwhit on November 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

What about flood insurance? Countdown had a good piece on the public option for floods, which is supported by almost all Senators:

"OLBERMANN: Some blue dog House Democrats led by Stephanie Herseth Sandlin also oppose a public option. And when the Senate Finance Committee voted against including the option in its version of health care reform, Republicans were joined by a handful of Democrats including the committee chair, Max Baucus, who crafted the bill after conferring for weeks with the so-called “gang of six”: fellow Democrats Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad, Republicans Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe. The entire gang of six votes—casts their votes against the public option on Tuesday.

"But each of them voted just last year in support of government-run insurance, that insurance however protects property. It is the National Flood Insurance Program created in 1968, because the free market decided it could not make money on that unpredictable risk called flooding. Government-run flood insurance is sold through private insurance companies but it is backed by the government and the government assumes all risk. Unlike the public option which relies on customer premiums, government flood insurance gets a subsidy—also known as a handout—from the government and it is mandatory for some people.

"So given all the shouting over a public option, who could vote for mandatory taxpayer subsidized, anti- free market socialized flood insurance run by government bureaucrats? Every single politician I just named and most of Congress. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, along with 44 other Republicans, including going bipartisan on September 27th, 2007 to vote yea on the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. Karl Max applauded."

Posted by: meander on November 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Boy. Joe's going to give us all a Christmas present. A new rational right before Dec 25th. Oh I'm just quivering with excitement to see what he'll come up with now.

OK, really. Joe's not going to vote for it and we all know that. Maybe it's time to go to our Democratic Senators and make sure they know that Joe has to go and that we will hold them accountable if he maintains his chairmanship.

Posted by: madstork123 on November 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, how I miss L.B.J...

Lieberman would long ago have been stripped of his committees, and his office would be a windowless closet in the Capital basement.

Posted by: Churchyard on November 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

In which Benen fallaciously posits that one can have only a single reason for a particular belief.

Posted by: a on November 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

churchyard, i love the way people believe this kind of thing of lbj, even though it isn't true: if he had that kind of control, why didn't we get a civil rights bill until '64?

but the serious reason for posting is to pile on the latest lieberman idiocy: i'd love to hear what he thinks we did by creating social security?

Posted by: howard on November 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of the actual seven last words of the church: We've never done it that way before.

Posted by: Leanderthal on November 22, 2009 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

He keeps coming up with rationals because his wife is an insurance company lobbyiest. He is literally sleeping with a well paid opponent of giving Americans any chance to have affordable health care. He is a walking talking conflict of interest. He should be ashamed. The press should be more ashamed for not pointing out that Hadassah Lieberman is on the payroll of the insurance companies.

Posted by: Ron Byers on November 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Lieberman is a bullshit artist. He's more dangerous than a liar because he simply doesn't care about the truth one way or the other. He only cares about what serves his interests in the moment.

Posted by: joejoejoe on November 22, 2009 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

When Lieberman ran for President in 2004 he proposed something called MediChoice (a national pool) for the small businesses that capped healthcare expenses at 7.5% of pay and capped insurer profits at 2%.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/12916/Lieberman_Takes_on_Health_Care_Reform.html

Sherrod Brown should offer the "Lieberman Amendment" to the bill and then watch that SOB backtrack. Then ask, 'Were you lying then Senator or lying now? Or are you just full of shit?'.

Posted by: joejoejoe on November 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, Lieberman is wrong. We have in fact "set up public plans to compete with dysfunctional private models before."

It's called "police," "fire" and "postal service." Not to mention libraries.

Every day that this little weasel remains in the Senate Democratic caucus is another demonstration of what a useless bag of protoplasm Harry Reid is.

Posted by: karen marie on November 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Holy Joe Lieberman: "This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past. We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.... We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business.."

Uh, Joe. Have you ever heard of Medicaid? S-Chip? Medicare? The VA? The Center for Disease Control? The National Institutes of Health? Etc., etc.

I could mention TVA, but somebody above already did. Many of us get electricity from some sort of local public entity.

We could talk about public schools. State-supported higher education.

Hell, Joe, read the f*#king Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, where the Founding Fathers gave Congress (of which you are an ignorant member) the power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads."

Get the f*#king idea?

Posted by: CMcC on November 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Railroads. :)

Tollroads, for that matter.

Posted by: pippen on November 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Molderin' Joe Lieberman: "the public is going to end up paying for it."

It's clear that most of the commenters on this thread understand that public sector resources are used all the time to provide public services.

But Molderin' Joe is at least partially correct with his statement above. To the extent that some families will be too poor to afford insurance premiums through a public option, we - the taxpayers - will have to subsidize that...

I for one am fine with that. A lot of people aren't.

That doesn't mean we should hide from the fact that taxpayers will have to cough up some dough to enable expansion of coverage.

Posted by: JM on November 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

He's just an old Tory pol, beholden to money interests and arguing that those who have the geld shouldn't be separated from it for gaining it from the cost of other people's lives. A fairly stock figure in the history of civilization, he's satisfied by the good life that lies have given him.

Posted by: Joseph on November 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

The Lieberman vote is the correct vote.

The very terribleness of the status quo will bring single payer, if only the terribleness is terrible enough, and it will be, if we just wait long enough. And here is where Senator Lieberman is our ally.

People with pre-existing conditions, or who have suffered recission, or with subsidies, could obtain insurance will surely understand their historic role in the process.

We must assure them that we will honor their sacrifice with a day, or something.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 22, 2009 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I know Lieberman is not long on consistency but wouldn't it be fair to ask him about the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption? Seems to me that if competition in the marketplace is a concern then this exemption should keep him up at night.

His wife's connection to the health insurance industry is no doubt a driver in all of this...too bad it is causing him to do such an embarassing (pathetic?) tap dance...

Posted by: Kelly on November 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

During the NBC Nightly News, John Harwood (CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent) was asked if Obama would sign a healthcare bill without a Public Option. He responded:

"He absolutely will if that's the only way to get the votes for healthcare reform. Look, the underlying goals the president has are expanding coverage and controlling costs. Many Liberals think the Public Option is the best way to pursue that, but certainly not in the view of the White House the only way."

Aye, but there's the rub.

NOBODY has even proposed ANY OTHER WAY to control costs in place of the Public Option, and there is certainly nothing in either the House or Senate bills that would do so without the Public Option.

So, sure, all along Obama has been saying that he would be open to something else besides the Public Option, IF it provided competition and lowered & controlled costs.

WHERE IS IT ???

Posted by: Joe Friday on November 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

i forget. is lieberman i-aetna or is it i-cigna?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on November 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why the hell has it taken almost a whole year for a Democrat-led Congress to get a health care reform package to a vote?

Posted by: PaulW on November 22, 2009 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

PaulW: It hasn't taken a year. They only started working on this since around May.

Posted by: mara on November 22, 2009 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

BUT -- he DID vote for cloture! And so the bill is going to the Senate floor, where there are probably enough votes to pass it. -- T-Rex, @15:23

You been asleep? This cloture vote was "minor, procedural, cloture", which, in a sane world, would not have even came up on the radar. *All* they have agreed to is to allow debate on the bill. That means that we're now up for weeks of spouting and posturing, and a blizzard of amendments, each of which will need voting on. And *then*, we're gonna have another -- this time for real -- cloture vote. To close the debate and allow the Senate to vote on the bill. 51 votes is all that'll be necessary to pass the bill, but it'll still take 60 to close the debate. And that's where Lieberprick, and all the other whores of the industrious hyenas are planning to pour sand into the gears...

Posted by: exlibra on November 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

mara, @20:49,

But it has *felt* like ages... :) Can't blame PaulW (@20:09) for thinking it's been a year.

Posted by: exlibra on November 22, 2009 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is effectively responding, "We haven't done things that way in the past."
----------------------

Liebermann has become UN-AMERICAN. He's not ANTI-American, he's UN-American - he doesn't see that America has always been about the future and creating that future.

Liebermann has been become the anti-coloialist - he's now supporting the views of those who stood for King George, not for President Washington.

How has Connecticut found itself with such a deeply flawed man?

Posted by: Moxo on November 22, 2009 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

again, Joe Lieberman provokes the question: "stupid, or cynical? Stupid, or cynical?"

And again the answer must be BOTH. Or, in Joe's case, mostly cynical I think. What a contemptible tool he is. You'd want to go take a good, long, hot shower after just getting within 20 feet of the man, so thick is the dishonesty that oozes from every pore.

Posted by: LL on November 23, 2009 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

"We haven't set up public plans to compete with dysfunctional private models before, therefore"

Yes, we have. There was a desire for Workers Comp insurance in Texas to be mandatory for businesses of a certain size, but the private markets wouldn't/couldn't provide insurance for many companies. Enter the Texas Workers Compensation Fund, a quasi-public, half private, regulated insurance bucket of last resort.

And yes to pieing Joseph Lieberman.

Posted by: flubber on November 23, 2009 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman's claim of fact is, as usual, false. What the hell does he think Medicare is ? Evidently he objects to the idea of people choosing between private and public. Therefore he should either argue that medicare advantage should be eliminated or that it be mandatory (regular medicare be eliminated).

Also has Senator Lieberman ever heard of a public university ? Oh hell how about a public elementary, junior high or high school ? A fire department (there used to be private fire companies) ? How about the Post office ?

A large fraction of the US economy consists of public provision of private goods. Somehow Lieberman has missed all of that.

I used to think he was a shameless liar. Now I think he's delusional. I mean claiming that Obama didn't propose a public option during the campaign is a lie one might get away with. Claiming that we don't publicly provide services when we are not satisfied with the services provided by the private sector is like claiming the world is flat.

Lieberman has accidentally told us the true reason he's against the public option. He noted that the people who proposed it really want single payer. His aim is to piss off liberals. He basically said so (and it was obvious already).
If he were honest he would say "Marcos Moulitsas and Jane Hamshire drew a line in the sand so I crossed it." What a petty vain bitter juvenile idiot.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on November 23, 2009 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman's claim of fact is, as usual, false. What the hell does he think Medicare is ? Evidently he objects to the idea of people choosing between private and public. Therefore he should either argue that medicare advantage should be eliminated or that it be mandatory (regular medicare be eliminated).

Also has Senator Lieberman ever heard of a public university ? Oh hell how about a public elementary, junior high or high school ? A fire department (there used to be private fire companies) ? How about the Post office ?

A large fraction of the US economy consists of public provision of private goods. Somehow Lieberman has missed all of that.

I used to think he was a shameless liar. Now I think he's delusional. I mean claiming that Obama didn't propose a public option during the campaign is a lie one might get away with. Claiming that we don't publicly provide services when we are not satisfied with the services provided by the private sector is like claiming the world is flat.

Lieberman has accidentally told us the true reason he's against the public option. He noted that the people who proposed it really want single payer. His aim is to piss off liberals. He basically said so (and it was obvious already).
If he were honest he would say "Marcos Moulitsas and Jane Hamshire drew a line in the sand so I crossed it." What a petty vain bitter juvenile idiot.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on November 23, 2009 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the double comment. Also the content was already written many times by other commenters up thread. I have now read half the comments and will reply to some.

a "in which ... for more than one reason" The problem is that all of Lieberman's arguments are based on false factual premises. Also he has abandoned the old ones.

"But he did vote for cloture." Means nothing. He has long said he would vote for cloture on the debate over whether to debate and against to end the debate and vote on the bill.

"Mouldering Joe has a point" ... Subsidies cost money. He's talking about the public option which would reduce the amount we have to spend on subsidies. He is not opposed to the subsidies. These are two seperate issues.

I think H Lieberman is not currently lobbying for health insurance companies. I stand by the piss off liberals theory. Lieberman's position is political suicide in Connecticut, but he's politically killed himself already by campaigning for McCain and he actually seems to know it.

Joe Friday The CBO and many independent economists (who support the public option) think that the excise tax on cadillac plans and the more powerful medicare advisory commission will bend the cost curve (on the other hand they don't seem to believe that the 85% minimum sick ratio rule will amount to much). The claim that no one has any idea other than the public option on how to do it is not correct at all.

The public option may be the best way to control costs -- the one that reduces administrative costs and insurance company profits not spending on actual care -- the way to control costs while giving people more options -- the best policy proposal ever -- the Platonic ideal of good policy -- whatever else you say. It is not by any means the only credible way to do anything about costs.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on November 23, 2009 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

So someone tell me how, after the republican and Blue Dog opposition have largely gutted the public option as a viable alternative with a large enough population of qualified participants to make it economically viable, the folks who will be required to be insured are going to be able to afford that insurance. I really don't understand how this is going to work.

Posted by: rbe1 on November 23, 2009 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

So someone tell me why, if so many folks believe the public option is necessary, they are not "adopting a swing state" and helping get the necessary votes for this? Most I see are sitting around pissed it may get dropped, but not lifting a finger about it.

Posted by: gracie on November 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is transparently self-serving. His state has a concentration of insurance companies and he's going home with the guy who brought him.

Posted by: Karen on November 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

"'We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business....'"

The initial manufacture of nuclear weapons. The post office. The first (central) bank of the US. Printing money.

Posted by: Kurt on November 23, 2009 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

"We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business."

Actually, we have. An example: During the nineteenth century, fires were put out by competing private companies.

Competition became so fierce indeed that several fire companies would respond to a given fire and then fight each other for the right to put the fire out--as the house burned down.

Clearly competition does not work well in every sphere of existence, something the public understood when it decided to socialize fire-fighting, handing the "business" over to local governments.

Posted by: Nancy Irving on November 24, 2009 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

howard,

churchyard is not talking about LBJ the President, he is talking about LBJ the Senate Majority Leader. Democratic Senators who did not fall in line with what the party leadership had decided found themselves in very dire straits indeed. Their committee chairmanships were stripped, one by one, and their offices were rearranged until they might very well find themselves in a "windowless closet in the basement". Johnson tolerated no disloyalty.

Posted by: Beej on November 25, 2009 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

The flood insurance is a good example of a fed. ins. program. It is not mandatory though (you could pay cash for your house or not move to a flood plain, right?-the banks require it, not the govt). And how is that ins. program working? Take a look, it is a disaster, just like our health care will be once the govt gets its grip on it. Costs can be contained w/o a massive change; costs cannot grow to high - supply & demand - no one would pay $1500 for an annual checkup - or even $500 in all likelihood, as an example - and to force people to buy insurance of pay a penalty is outrageous! Most young people are fine w/o ins. & they chose not to buy it. And Dr. & hosptials are not going out of bus. cause people are not paying, are they??? - unlike the banks where people cannot pay their balloon payments. And I dont see where the feds have authority to pass a national health care bill - it would be struck down by the courts if it is. JOE IS RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE BILL but for incomplete reasons

Posted by: bob march on November 26, 2009 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

I keep hearing reconciliation -- reconciliation -- reconciliation ...

It was a HOLLOW THREAT people!!!!

Look at one of the more famous reconciliation policies. The Bush Tax cuts.
What is about to happen to them?
They are about to EXPIRE.

That wasn't written into the legislation -- that is the RULE of reconciliation. It is the Byrd rule.
Why do you think they keep talking about how it is budget neutral for 10 years? Why didn't they pick 5 or 20 or 100?

because something passed by Budget reconciliation can NOT stay in existence forever.
It has a sunset of 10 years max.
And usually is granted only 5 before it has to be reauthorized for another 5.

So go ahead and push the public option through reconciliation. Not a problem.
It starts in 2014 and EXPIRES in 2015 !!!!
Unless you still have the 50+1 votes. And then it only gets 5 more years.
And in 2020? You gotta start it all from scratch.

Remember the problem that Pelosi has with a trigger option?
In the future a Republican majority could water it down.
Well sheeeeeesh!!! Pass a public option via reconciliation and they do not even HAVE to water it down.
They just let it expire.

The only way a reconciliation for the public option or really ANYTHING works is ... to cancel all elections or to make the Democratic Party the only legal party to vote for.

Anything else and it sunsets.

You have a problem with the 60+ rule. Reconciliation is not an option. You have to drop the nuclear option.

Posted by: Chrome on December 14, 2009 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Not meaning to belabor the point but I know someone is going to flame and moan about my not knowing what I am talking about ...

http://www.answers.com/topic/sunset-laws#The_Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule

Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that "would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure." Since the Budget Act states that the reconciliation measure covers the next ten years, this rule has the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase or tax cut that does not contain a sunset provision ending it after ten years.

So to pass any part of the Health Care Reform under Reconciliation ... each and every part MUST EXPIRE in 2020.
MUST.

So you would have a public option from 2014 to 2020. Then you have to start all over again. From scratch.

AND hope you still have control of the Senate, the House, and the White House.

Posted by: Chrome on December 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.

Posted by: Strada Pescarusului on September 30, 2010 at 1:36 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