Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
There are some strong criticisms to be made of the Obama administration from the left, especially concerning Obama's passive response to the debt ceiling hostage crisis, and his frightening willingness to give away the store to John Boehner. I've made many of these criticisms myself. But Drew Westen's lengthy, attention-grabbing Sunday New York Times op-ed is not a strong criticism. It's a parody of liberal fantasizing.
Comments
brew, I don't like being the one to break this to you, but your opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts and your support for more stimulus for the economy instead of austerity now, in the bizarre US political landscape and parlance of our day, make you part of "the lefty blogosphere." Although perhaps not yet, on that account, a dirty filthy hippie.
For some, that's a badge of honor or any rate no big deal. I suspect that that thought leaves you feeling roughly like the Ghostbusters in the movie by that name must have felt after having been slimed.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:08am
Do you have any real rebuttal to any of Chait's points? AD, I'm concerned with Democrats doing what works. In my opinion, the opportunity for Obama to become a Transformational President was squandered when we failed to get a "true" 60-vote majority in the Senate, and DINOs like Ben Nelson decided that watering down the stimulus and protecting insurance companies were their priorities in the spring/summer of 2009.
Now, we're just trying to muddle along, and not give the Republicans full control of the government. And hopefully, move some progressive stuff forward while the economy sloooowly improves.
As I've said before, I share almost every policy preference with the LB, DFH's, etc. I'm just much more cynical about our political system and our electorate to implement those policies. And I don't think devoting all of your intelligence and rhetorical energy to attacking the only remaining force for achieving some of those preferences in Washington is an effective way to make things better.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:17am
Me, too. It doesn't look to me as though what is being done on our side is working, though, either as economic policy to help the country or politically to set up next year. "Vote for us, we'll muddle along. And besides, the other side is worse" does not seem to me a particularly promising campaign theme or argument for voting for Democrats in the Congressional elections or for a Democrat for President for next year.
Do you disagree? It seems to me that is more or less what our side was saying, to the extent we were even offering an argument, as a political party, last fall.
If you think Democrats can win elections almost entirely on a "fear-of-worse" motivation (which is the argument given by all supporters, defenders, or reassurers of the current direction here as far as I can tell, and is clearly enough to get *them* to vote to re-elect next year; I'm just not at all sure that gets enough other voters to win next year) and don't also need "hope" votes, I think that is a misread of the potentially Democratic electorate. Particularly in the context of a President who was elected in large part with loads of "hope" votes and buzz.
I don't see anyone at dag sketching out a "hope" argument or narrative (you don't seem to like the term "narrative"--think of it as an argument for a course of action that's easier on the ears and maybe the brain, too) for next year. The recent policy decision to embrace austerity, and what that has so far led to, may not entirely preclude that. But it seems to me to make it a lot more difficult.
I think it's shaping up to be a real problem for our side. The time to get this stuff out in the open is now. Not December 2012, past the point at which anything might be done about it.
I haven't gotten to the Westen piece, or the xpostfactoid or chait rejoinders, so can't comment on them.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:00pm
Chait acts like the recovery was just coming when FDR stepped in.
FDR took office in the middle of a bank crisis, instituted a bank holiday and the Glass-Steagall Act, hired 250,000 workers and set up measures to save people's mortgages for farms and homes. The National Industrial Recover Act handed out the equivalent of $57 billion in today's money. He did a lot of other tinkering in those first 100 days, and first 1000.
The issue of stimulus during a depression, however, was not well understood then, so its not surprising that the public didn't have clarity - even the average economist at the time - or the average GOP economist even now - wasn't clear on the matter. And FDR's cut for veteran's benefits and other efforts under budget cutting were some of the blights on his record.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:17pm
But he did that with a Congress that agreed that massive stimulus and back-to-work programs were necessary. That's a big part of my argument, if not Chait's; you need Congress to make these programs happen. Obama simply did not have a Senate that would have pushed through massive stimulative measures in February 2009, no matter how much Obama wanted it, or how hard he pounded the bully pulpit.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:58pm
We'll never know because he never tried.
But he had a huge amount of popular support that he never called on to help him push this through. "Call your Senator and Congressperson right now, let's get this economy moving".
Gee, that was tough.
And he had 59 Democrats in the Senate - the only way the Republicans could stop it was with filibuster, and he could then make them pay from the bully pulpit. Except he didn't.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:03pm
Oddly, I don't find Westen's powerful piece and Chait's powerful rejoinder to be inconsistent.
Chait is correct that Westen has an inflated view of the power of the president and a rose-colored memory of FDR. We should read Westen with a dose of skepticism and plenty of salt.
But Westen's core indictment that Obama has failed as a communicator withstands the onslaught. The fact that Obama has at times said the kinds of things that Westen would like him to say is not the same as a consistent narrative that through eloquent delivery and sheer repetition can penetrate the political fog. The fact that there is still wide disagreement about what Obama really believes underscores the reality that Obama has not effectively communicated his beliefs to even the most observant analysts.
And while the presidential pulpit may not be the voice of God, it is easily the most visible platform in the country. Other people with much smaller megaphones have proven more capable of communicating messages that resonate with far more force. Sadly, most of the them are conservatives.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:23am
Oh for cripes sakes, now I really feel strongly both ways. And Chait links to xpostfatcoid (Andrew Sprung) who seems to do a fairly persuasive job rebutting much of the substantive critiques that are being levied at the president from his left.
Confusion can be liberating.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:53am
I think it's pretty well-established among political scientists that, as a driver of public preferences and policy, political rhetoric is far down the list. I'd rather have our politicians focus on what they can do to make things better in the political environment they are facing, and save the rhetoric for the campaigns, when people are paying attention to it.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:00pm
Andrew writes in my opinion a pretty poor rejoinder.
First, he criticizes Krugman's assertion (real-time) that the 2009 stimulus was too small, as if we don't know that 1) the stimulus was half tax cuts, and 2) unemployment is still 9.1%. So yeah, we have pretty concrete proof the stimulus was too small, and it's pretty obvious that tax cuts that slide in later don't stimulate much now. If it's not obvious, we have proof still - 9.1%. And Andrew pretends these tax cuts mainly went to individuals, when they were mostly to corporations, and dismisses shovel-ready projects out of hand (the problem was delivering the money, not finding the projects. And Bush did $268 billion in tax rebates direct to individuals in early 2008 - that money gets spent quickly. And odd it was already 1/3 the size of the 2009 apocalypse stimulus).
Second, he skirts by the narrative as if that's just window dressing, and hops to Congress as if that's essential. Well, the 2009 stimulus passed the House without a Republican vote, and the Senate with only 2 (Specter was elected a Democrat, so I don't count him). By not taking the anger to the public, Obama instead had to parade a lot of love on 2 Republican Senators for the most important piece of legislation in his presidency. Did I mention we still have 9.1% unemployment? So getting some righteous public anger would have saved him a lot of Teabagger grief later, but it would have meant no need to compromise on the stimulus. (And those 2 Republicans got him to 61 votes - i.e. to withstand a filibuster. Shouldn't there have been some thought to taking a nuke to that artifice, or at least make it politically untenable at a time of a GOP-caused meltdown?)
Third, there's the rather questionable "does Obama get a little credit "for having saved the country from another Great Depression"? Well, TARP started under Bush, and funneling money to Wall Street to stop a bank meltdown doesn't take a Harvard Law degree to figure out - any politician would have done much the same. Saving people's mortgages would have also made sense (FDR took care of that), but that largely didn't happen. So you can debate on how well the bank bailout was executed (and how crooked it was and how many trillions disappeared) plus the Detroit bailout.
"he has hewed to his 2008 promise to raise taxes only on the wealthiest 2%" - really? Like when? December 2010 was a holdup, with taxes for the wealthiest avoided to give laid off workers a few months unemployment. And the holdup this month produced no new taxes at all.
And "he has always been against "dumb wars," not "all wars." Really? With 46,000 troops still in Iraq, a new State Dept military force, plus troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and recurring drone and military support in Yemen, Libya, Somalia and continual threats against Iran, it seems like the definition of a "dumb war" is getting exceedingly dumbed down.
But ignoring all this, for those of us who aren't the brightest in the class, someone could explain to us how it makes sense to cut Medicare a year after extending it as part of a grand Affordable Health Care Act that Obama considers his signature piece of legislation? That could use a Fireside Chat all by itself.
Sorry Andrew, but not good enough.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:05pm
The question at hand is whether better use of the bully pulpit (or if prefer, better "narrative framing") by Obama could have garnered more public and, by extension, congressional support for his policies. You automatically assume that it would.
In the post I featured here, Chait relies on polling during Roosevelt's time and the work of political scientists to challenge that assumption.
It's become an article of faith among progressives that more and better rhetoric from the president would have resulted in better legislative outcomes in 2009-2011. I think that is a belief that doesn't survive even minimal factual scrutiny.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:17pm
I said most people in FDR's time weren't clear about the [e]ffects of budget cutting during a depression. The polls only confirm that.
Obama barely used the bully pulpit to bully anyone, and he disbanded his grass roots organization that could have brought in public pressure. So yes, I "assume".
It's a belief that going for reconciliation from the beginning would have resulted in a better health care bill. It's a belief that going for public shaming rather than doomed "bi-partisanship" that never happened would have resulted in a better stimulus.
It's a belief that using the bully pulpit to make sure the public knew and remembered who caused the crash and how would have kept the Democrats from being on the defensive with "Obama's recession" for the last 2 1/2 years.
If you have "minimal factual" evidence to the contrary, please supply.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:26pm
What you have offered is your opinion on how things would have played out if Obama had followed your preferred course of action. You haven't offered anything remotely "factual."
But, since you asked, you can start doing some research on your own here:
http://www.politicalreviewnet.com/polrev/reviews/JOPO/R_0022_3816_477_1005668.asp
Key graf from a review of the book:
"It has become conventional wisdom that presidents can use the bully pulpit to lead the public and overcome congressional opposition to implement their policies. Edwards suggests that this strategy is overrated, and presidents ought to consider "staying private" since that strategy has a better chance of success. Edwards is convincing in demonstrating that going public is not a clearly superior strategy for presidents. But the lesson to be learned from Edward's book is not that presidents should necessarily "stay private" but that presidents face nearly insurmountable odds no matter what strategy they choose. One of the recurring themes of the book is that even where presidents have managed to attract support, it has been restricted to the margins. That is a fair assessment of all of a president's policy strategies, including using the bully pulpit. Edwards' research helps scholars recognize that going public is simply one of various options that presidents can utilize in working at the margins."
[emphasis added]
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:35pm
Also from the review, note the 2nd sentence as well as the 1st below:
Presidents who were personally popular at the time have often been able to use that to their advantage in getting their preferred policies through, regardless of whether the policies themselves were popular. An example was Reagan's first round of "supply-side" taxcuts in 1981. Reagan was inaugurated at a time when opposition parties sometimes had members inclined to grant a new President a "honeymoon" period and not block his policy agenda early on. Tax cuts skewed to the already wealthy have to my knowledge never been popular with the public.
Edwards has attained a number of professional accolades, which may or may not mean a lot. I don't know his personal politics, but I would note that:
*he has served on or as advisor to the transition teams of two Presidents--Bush 41 and Bush 43
*his is one view on this with all the cautions that should generate relying on it alone; and
*his research, while it included a look at opinion polls during Roosevelt's time, focused primarily on Reagan and Clinton, neither of whom assumed or held office at what was widely perceived as a time of national crisis.
I emailed former TAP editor Robert Kuttner a week or so ago with a request that he ask the current editor to assign someone to dig into Edwards' argument and scrutinize it, see whether there are differing or critical views held by other scholars or students of this subject. No reply yet.
I have seen Edwards' books cited frequently on the internet for, usually, the un-nuanced proposition that the presidential bully pulpit is an ineffective tool.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:55pm
Yeah, Bush just couldn't get any public support for invading Iraq, could he?
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:08pm
Well, he did have the image of those two towers falling down to help make his case for him. and, sadly, killing lots of brown people seems to be an easier sell than universal health care for an awful lot of American voters.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:53pm
I just had a discussion with a military retiree a few hours ago. Nice guy and I've never had a problem discussing general topics. Unfortunately, I mentioned there were some people petitioning and lobbying GOper's in Congress to butcher the active and retiree benefit packages, like the commissary where he worked. Unknown to me, he was a closet tea-bagger.
He started with Obama being responsible for running up the debt to astronomical proportions especially with the bank bail out. I casually mentioned it happened before the end of the Bu$h administration and he quickly countered the Democrats were responsible for pushing it on Bu$h. I held back dropping a hint Obama was responsible for $2 trillion of the debt, but Bu$h was responsible for over $6 trillion with the GOPer's controlling Congress for 6 of the 8 years ... didn't want to create a public scene.
Couple that with the article and I'm surprised this ... self-proclaimed practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience ... failed to recognize it's not about Obama at all. It's about two political partys that are drifting farther and farther apart and taking with them equal portions of the population too. The farther they move away from each other the harder it becomes to reach agreements for the good of the nation as a whole. Obama has been doing everything possible, at the expense of his base, to stop the drift and bring the party's closer together. [my position is he should have recognized he was in a Kobayashi Maru scenario within the first 12 months and should have taken a different tack].
Too bad it's not working. That fellow I mentioned above is dead set against anything from Obama or Democrats and probably is leery of anything proposed by the GOPer elites ... there's no way I'm going to change is his mind. It's going to take someone he respects to articulate the facts in such a manner he can understand and accept.
Yeah, IMO, Westen is full of it. The article is in fact his rendition of ... tell them a story that make sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end ... and that's all his piece is - a story just like a nursery rhyme. By not acknowledging people of all political persuasions have misconstrued political events in the recent past that's driving the politicians to develop bad policy is the leading cause of all our troubles. Just listen to any tea-bagger in Congress ... they were sent to Washington by their constituents do perform specific tasks and policy ... no mention of debating issues and finding solutions thru compromise.
I will admit, he hits on some damn good talking points that have been absent from the discussion in Congress, but he does toss in a few twists that turn an honest debate of issues into defensive hostile arguments with neither side giving ground.
And as noted before, the difference between a tea-bagger and an independent is the tea-bagger stepped up to the plate. He has some good ideas that need to be addressed in Congress, but independents are going to have to follow the same route the tea-baggers took if they want be considered relevant.
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:37pm
This is a very telling anecdote. I think this is how most people, right or left, approach politics. And this is why I keep harping on the limits of presidential speechifying, or framing, or whathaveyou. Most people are hard-wired into their political biases, and nothing but a catastrophe directly and indisputably caused by "their guys" is going to change their minds.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:39pm
Chait is engaging in broad and bombastic ad hominem.
The communications issue is not just about The Big Speech. Every sophisticated political operation has a sophisticated communications operation that is ongoing, operates in multiple venues, and at multiple levels, sometimes in public and sometimes privately. Another way of putting it is that a political operation includes a sales operation. Obama's sales operation since he took office just hasn't been very effective. I don't see how one can argue with this
Nevertheless, I do agree with what others have said here: the main problem with the Obama administration is not that it is failing to tell any story. The main problem is that the most important stories it is telling are wrong and uncompelling, and those stories are reflections of a policy agenda that is frequently inadequate and wrong-headed ... and conservative. It is another matter that the administration doesn't seem terribly effective at selling the stories that it is telling.
The importance and impact of presidential rhetoric depends on context. If jets crash into the World Trade Center, or a space shuttle blows up, people will look to the national leader, and are abnormally motivated and suggestible during the period of fear and crisis by what the leader says. I was especially turned off by Obama's non-performance during the Gulf oil spill. Obama had an incredible opportunity during that crisis to exploit the emergency to rally popular will on behalf of a progressive environmental agenda and bold action. Instead, he seemed weirdly opposed to getting himself involved in the crisis in a public way, and had to be dragged into it. And when he did finally step forward, he conveyed only a sense of confusion and powerlessness. James Carvel made the joke that Bill Clinton would have been down in the Gulf right away "in a wet suit." I was completely at a loss to understand the administration's thinking and responses. There was a very palpable vacuum of national leadership during that mess. That's when I began to think that Obama might really be a conservative whose natural sympathies lie more with the BPs of the world than the regular people and other more lowly life forms who were devastated by that disaster, and that he was more interested in shielding established stakeholders from change than in promoting change.
People have a lot of fear and anxiety about the decline of their country, particularly declines wrought by powerful corporations and global phenomena over which they seem to have no control. Watching the oil gusher unfold was like watching a live action film of the physical destruction of America. It was really important to intervene and reassure people in that moment. Big fail.
Rhetoric and other dimensions of propaganda and salesmanship have more power than Democrats want to believe. But I think this is in part because Democrats incline a different conception of the role of government. Democrats think the point of politics is to listen to what people are saying, and then try to please them and give them what they want. They seem to believe that there is something unseemly about going out to change people's minds. The White House responded to the election of 2010 by trying to glean from pollsters what the "message" of the election was, and then tried to tailor their new political line to that new message.
Republicans fight hard to win the hearts and minds of Americans; Democrats not so much. Then Democrats respond to changes in popular attitudes, changes that were to some extent engineered by Republicans, by attempting to conform to the new public attitude. This is certainly a recipe for long-term drift and failure.
by Dan Kervick on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:45pm
"Rhetoric and other dimensions of propaganda and salesmanship have more power than Democrats want to believe."
Sorry, but you can't waive a significant amount of compelling evidence leading to the opposite conclusion away with just an assertion.
I, too love stirring oratory, and well-crafted appeals to the better angels of our nature. But I don't see where it plays all that much of a role in getting good legislation passed.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:18pm
There is not a significant amount of compelling evidence in the opposite direction. There is one Poly Sci paper published a couple of years ago on presidential speeches that has been clutched by apologists as an all-purpose get-out-of-jail card for Obama whenever he is criticized for a crappy sales job.
It's amazing how Democratic pundits discovered the phenomenon of the previously unappreciated weakness of the American presidency as soon as Obama got in and started failing at so many things. It's not Obama, you see? It's structural.
by Dan Kervick on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:26pm
I'd have a hard time believing that any Obama oratory was going to make it through Fox to their viewers. Even with the rest of the MSM, look what happened when Obama spoke somewhat forcefully about the debt ceiling - they wheeled out Boehner for an instant rebuttal.
by Donal on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:39pm
For Obama's inauguration, 38 million watched on TV. CNN reported 21 million video streams, plus 136 million Web hits. Akamai had its 5th largest numbers.
Obama generated excitement and interest all through his campaign. Couldn't keep that after inauguration? Suddenly Fox rules his world?
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:55pm
It isn't just Fox. I hear David Gregory was carrying water for the other side this weekend, and I saw Schieffer let Lindsey Graham pin the downgrade on Obama with predictable but mild rebuttal from Howard Dean.
by Donal on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:39pm
"There is not a significant amount of compelling evidence in the opposite direction. There is one Poly Sci paper published a couple of years ago on presidential speeches that has been clutched by apologists as an all-purpose get-out-of-jail card for Obama whenever he is criticized for a crappy sales job."
This is, if not outright bullshit, close enough to qualify. Why don't you show us some research, any research, conclusively supporting your claims?
"It's amazing how Democratic pundits discovered the phenomenon of the previously unappreciated weakness of the American presidency as soon as Obama got in and started failing at so many things. It's not Obama, you see? It's structural."
This is also BS. Am I only the only one remembering Bill Clinton meekly protesting that the presidency is, indeed, relevant?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-833569.html?
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:47pm
That was shortly after the Gingrich Congress came to power and he was on the defensive, feeling besieged. Fortunately, he got beyond the stage of feeling powerless to do anything and found ways to make himself not only relevant, but in many ways triumphant, in thwarting most of the Gingrich Congress' Contract on America and designs on the federal budget. He was playing defense, to be sure. He gave ideological ground when he said the era of big government is over. But to a substantial degree he figured out how to play fairly effective defense, at least.
The main thing he did to figure it out was carve out some ground he was going to defend from the GOP budget axes--Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment--and say that publicly, over and over again, with conviction. He said "we have to balance the budget while protecting our values--Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment." Very effective. He even let them shut the government down but because of the clear, popular message he'd carved out for himself and stuck to, they got most of the blame, not him, and they caved, not him. He had a sure sense of public opinion and what would make for a winning message on the budget fights.
And no, I am not saying Bill Clinton was a great President or defending everything he did. Just making a point that presidents who figure out how to use the bully pulpit can use it to get more of what they want. I haven't studied the public opinion polling data during those budget fights to see whether the public's views on policy issues changed tracking closely Clinton's specific public comments or speeches. All I know is that the programs he fought to protect were protected in the end and that it was the Gingrich Congress that ultimately folded, not Clinton. And it was the Gingrich Congress which was perceived by the public to have folded, not Clinton. The Republicans certainly perceived Clinton, and not themselves, as having gotten on the right side of public opinion on those matters. They were forced, by specific actions Clinton took, to respect his ability as a politician. And they eventually backed down when they saw that he had effectively stood up to them by getting the public on his side.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:18pm
I think this is an extremely kind reading of the Clinton presidency. I find it amazing that people are attacking Obama for fighting on Republicans' turf and lionizing the guy that legitimized center-right governing as a goal of Democrats as well as Republicans. You really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make the case that Clinton succeeded as president (to the extent he did succeed) by running as an FDR liberal.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:01pm
Maybe you missed the part of my comment where I said I wasn't saying Clinton was a great President or defending everything he did? It's there--I checked.
Look, you can set up a straw man and try to put words in my mouth if you want to. I'm not "lionizing" Bill Clinton. I'm making a very specific point--that he figured out how to use the bully pulpit to play some pretty good defense on his budget fights. Period. Full stop. End of point. If you disagree or think my characterization is inaccurate please feel to say what part you disagree with.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:37pm
"I'm making a very specific point--that he figured out how to use the bully pulpit to play some pretty good defense on his budget fights."
Talk about damning with faint praise. And this makes Clinton different from Obama how, exactly?
by brewmn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:54pm
Am I the only one who has noticed that no matter what Obama wants, the terrorists want something else, even if the thing that Obama wants is something the terrorists have been FOR in the recent past?
It may have reached the point that the bully pulpit causes more problems than it solves.
We can let them get away with that, or we can send out more and more well-respected people to hammer home the things that Obama can't.
I can see the argument that they have rendered him ineffective. Are we going to let them get away with that by saying "yeah, he's ineffective, let's get rid of him," or are we going to get his back? I contend that by NOT supporting him, we are letting them call the shots. They are saying, we won't negotiate with him, so we are saying, okay, you win, we'll put up someone else (who they won't negotiate with either?) It just doesn't make any sense. If they won't negotiate with him, why would they negotiate with someone who is further left? And how would a person further left even get elected?
These people scare the crap outta me. Why are we contemplating ANYTHING that would contribute to their success?
by stillidealistic on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:04pm