« Cheney To Go Under the Knife | Main | Trailer Sweet Trailer »

September 16, 2005

On Not Being a Good Democrat

Posted by Jedmunds
 

I’d like to begin my inaugural post here by thanking Ezra for inviting me to join his weekend crew. It’s an honor to join such a great cast that includes some of my favorite bloggers. I hope to prove a worthy addition to the team and that I am somehow able to pull my weight among such a talented group.

Now with the smooches out of the way, as sincere as they are - and they are sincere – I’d like to discuss the role and viability of the “single issue” group in today’s political climate, specifically “single issue” groups that are considered part of the larger progressive movement.  Kos of dailykos, who you may have heard of, has long argued that “single issue” groups are outdated and even counterproductive in this contemporary political environment of conservative ascendancy. I disagree, for reasons I’ll go into detail below.

Kos recently said:

“Fact is, those groups were created for a governing system where progressives had some measure of power, and those constituency groups could lobby for their causes in the halls of government. If I hated choice and gays and the environment and every other progressive constituency group I would applaud the status quo, because it is surely and inexorably leading to their demise.

That formula doesn't work in today's political environment. And we won't have a governing majority until the energy expended in pursuing pet interests gets redirected toward getting Republicans out of power and getting Democrats -- even some of the imperfect ones -- elected to replace them.”

Now, I’m as partisan a Democrat as anyone. I feel as urgently as anyone the need to get Democrats elected and to remove the Republicans from power. But Kos is rather aggressively wrong about this. The only demise that is inexorable if the Democrats keep losing is that of the Democrats themselves. Despite failure after failure at the ballot for Democrats, these issues have managed to actually gain traction or at least hold steady. The Democrats keep losing, while the issues they nominally support continually gain support with the public. This is especially true with respect to gay rights, which I think would take a real contrarian to argue haven’t made enormous strides over the past few years. Even with abortion, the Republicans don’t have the power to appoint a Supreme Court nominee openly opposed to it. And sure the Republicans are trashing the environment, but they’re rather dishonest about it. It’s actually, really amazing when you think about it; some of these issues are incredibly popular, the Republican Party is pretty horrible on them and yet the Democrats still can’t find a way to win. But why this is so, I’ll leave others to speculate on. But the point is, it’s up to Democrats to win elections. And those who advocate for issues are going to be obliged to work with the winners, not, you know, comfort the losers.

Take for example NARAL’s infamous endorsement of Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, a subject which I wrote on a while back. Conventional wisdom dictates that a group like NARAL should endorse incumbents who are reasonably good on their issues, which Chafee is. But apparently in this environment, NARAL is supposed to sacrifice whatever leverage they have on Chafee, for the sake of the speculative possibility of a future Democratic Congress. I don’t find this persuasive, generally. But I do feel that NARAL has put themselves in the position of having to revoke this endorsement if Chafee votes for Roberts. With their advertising campaign, they drew a line in the sand on Roberts, and in order to be credible, they cannot reward those who don’t stand with them. But likewise, it will be interesting to see how many Democrats bother to oppose Roberts. Because the half-hearted disinterested quasi-opposition to Roberts goes a long long long way toward undermining the claim that if NARAL just supports Democrats, they’ll have nothing to worry about.

If you demand that every interest subsumes itself and becomes a subsidiary of the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is going to need to get a lot better on delivering on these issues. I mean, how can I blame NARAL for not choosing obeisance to the Democratic Party, when the Democratic Party is busy doing things like clearing the primary for a guy like Bob Casey Jr. for the 2006 Senate nomination in Pennsylvania? Or the list of Democrat after Democrat who votes to undermine reproductive freedom? If NARAL were to subsume their interests before the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is going to need to show they take the resulting “fiduciary” duty more seriously than they do. After all, what exactly is attractive about the proposition of yielding to the authority of a group that is both as spineless and ineffectual as the Democratic Party has been lately? Either start winning or start showing some spine, ya know? Either one would go a long way toward making a more convincing argument for yielding to the Democrats.

The joie de vivre version cross-posted at A Beautiful Soul.

 

September 16, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834592ba469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Not Being a Good Democrat:

» Can *I* get an Amen? from Dadahead
But hey, maybe I'm wrong; maybe the Dems are on the verge of turning it all around, and we'll have the House and Senate in '06 and the White House in '08. After all, Paul Hackett did manage to lose by only four points! [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 17, 2005 2:51:07 AM

Comments

That's why we have to get the DLC to stop splintering the party and stop pushing Hillary. Let the DNC and Howard do what he does best - for exp. his immediate response to Roberts and Katrina, etc.

Posted by: Quenedi | Sep 17, 2005 1:20:19 AM

Welcome to the team! I'll blogroll you as soon as I'm sober and non-busy.

So, here's the component of your post that I'm struggling with:

"Despite failure after failure at the ballot for Democrats, these issues have managed to actually gain traction or at least hold steady. The Democrats keep losing, while the issues they nominally support continually gain support with the public."

The real question is this: does being non-wedded to the donkey help groups like HRC contribute to their causes being advanced? My view is no. Let me say something that might seem kinda naive here: Gay rights keeps gaining support because of its obvious moral rightness. Younger people spend more time thinking seriously about whether gay sex is okay than their elders did, and may have openly gay friends. And when you think seriously about this issue, and it's not something on the margins of consciousness that you don't really think about, you find gay rights easier to accept. The progress of gay rights isn't a result of HRC bipartisanship. It's a result of cultural enlightenment.

Actually, what the hell am I saying about progress? Okay, maybe there's some in the cultural sphere, but definitely not in the legislative. Last election, something like 10 states approved anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives. Have pro-choice groups gained ground in any way? If they have, I don't see it. There's no progress going on with these issues in the legislative sphere. Perhaps there's cultural progress, but that's less heavily affected by political choices like who you endorse in Senate elections. Fat lot of good occasionally endorsing pro-Frist Senate Republicans will do you.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 17, 2005 5:20:10 AM

Well, NARAL may support a Republican in Rhode Island, The environmentalists may support a Republican elsewhere, and labor may support a Republican in a third state. What do you end up with? Tom Delay and Bill Frist will control the agenda and all progressive groups lose. Interest groups need to support the party that will align with it's goals. Of course, if the party regains power, it needs to deliver. However, thinking that the support of Chaffee will promote NARAL's goals is delusional. Chaffee does not set the agenda. Chaffee does not appoint judges. Chaffee will allow some Republican neanderthal to be the Senate leader. Then NARAL loses, the environment loses, and labor loses. Self-centered interest groups (most of whom I agree with on policy) need to wise up and fight smart.

Posted by: Marv Toler | Sep 17, 2005 8:39:34 AM

Jedmunds, wheres the subject? First post and you already screwed up! :)

Posted by: Adrock | Sep 17, 2005 10:37:49 AM

Sorry about that Adrock. Fixed. Don't know how that slipped by me.

Neil, my writing was a bit sloppy with the gay rights issue. I think you're right about that. And it's not an issue, though gaining in popularity probably for the reasons you posit, that Democrats should be expected to capitalize on, yet.

Does being non-wedded to the Donkey help them contirbute to their causes? If they can influence the behavior of key politicians currently elected, then yes. For instance if NARAL can get Chafee opposed to Roberts than their endorsement is of value to them. If they can't, then they have to pull the endorsement. But I think that's how you make the play. You want to influence people already elected, I think, not just future Congresses.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 17, 2005 11:38:21 AM

Take for example NARAL’s infamous endorsement of John Chafee in Rhode Island

It's Lincoln Chafee.

Posted by: Thad | Sep 17, 2005 12:09:20 PM

Chafee may be key to control of the Senate. The Dems need six more seats, and only five appear possible.

By endorsing Chafee very early, they have decreased the chance of a winnable Dem running against Chafee, and I doubt if they will change their endorsement when Chafee votes for Roberts.

With a Senate majority the Dems can at least slow down and maybe halt the BushCo agenda. If NARAL had played their cards well and waited until after the Dem. candidate was known, I could handle their support for Chafee if the Dem was unacceptable to their position.

NARAL has made retaking control of the Senate subordinate to supporting ONE Senator that supports their position. This is plain stupid. Chafee will support the Repubs on all of the key issues, including control over the Senate by the Repubs.

This kind of small-bore thinking by interest groups is completely counter-productive. Kos has it right.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 17, 2005 1:41:26 PM

My problem with arguing that special interests should bind themselves to the democratic party is that quite often the democratic party doesn't care. I would be surprised if the majority of democrats in government would, for example, support same-sex marriage. So where would that leave a group? They already disavowed the republicans, and the democrats won't help them. sure, individuals will, but the majority won't. So they end up shooting themselves in the foot, even if democrats are in charge, because just because they're in with the donkey doesn't mean the donkey will actually help them in any meaningful way, other than a few minor concessions to keep them happy (think the GOP and the religious right).

I'm sorry, but Kos again and again shows himself to be ridiculously politically blind. I'm really sad that he's become such a mouthpiece, because he's far too focused on party unity and purging groups like the DLC, all in the name of some ephemeral idea that doing so will somehow instantly make us win, because "that's what the republicans did." It's a very immature strategy, and it won't work with any group that wants to represent a diverse group.

Posted by: Fnor | Sep 17, 2005 1:47:21 PM

Gah! Thanks Thad. You're not the only one making such mistakes. I'll get around to fixing that.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 17, 2005 1:49:44 PM

I've actually been thinking about this too - oddly Rhode Island brought it to mind - and I think that Democrats need to separate the notion of the interest groups (NARAL, NGLTF, even the Unions, really) from the party itself. NARAL should be evaluating every candidate on abortion rights - that's their issue. But Democrats need to be able to balance candidates who are right with some groups and not with others in order to have a majority - whether it's the anti-abortion Caseys in PA or antigay pols or what have you. Otherwise what we are is Republicans in vaguely liberal drag. But I think this issue and this post get to the heart of what's internally a Democrat issue versus what we don't like about the GOP and the current state of affairs. We could get back to some form of majority status in 2006. What we do when we get there is extremely important, and we need to think about it. And one thing I think is essential is that we not get there by being like Republicans - doctrinaire, lockstep thinkers who expect loyalty above all. We need to show that liberalism, in all it's messy internal disagreements makes for better governance. And that means we have divergent elements that do not always agree. And we live with that. Or we fail.

Posted by: weboy | Sep 17, 2005 4:51:25 PM

On Rhode Island, it is aggravating to me that those who disagree with the criticisms of NARAL's endorsement simply don't deal with the facts.

There are 2, count em, 2, pro choice Dems in the race. One, Matt Brown, is simply better than Chafee on the choice issue - he has announced a strict litmus test on judges - no to anti-choice judges. Chafee has voted for many anti-choice judges.

And of course, to ignore that the Dem Party platform, you know, the one that the leadership will follow is pro-choice, and the GOP platform is anti-choice, is simply to not argue the point seriously.

Forget about the Dem Party, on the issue of choice, NARAL has done a disservice to the cause. It has ignored the fact that either Dem winning in this race is better for choice than Chafee winning.

It is that simple.

P.S.- And that support pro-choice incumbent rule? NARAL didn't follow it last year when it endorsed Hoeffel over Specter - yes the Judiciary Committee Specter. If you wanted to ever apply the pro-choice incumbent rule it was then. And they didn't.

Frankly, your argument is all avoidance.

Posted by: Armando | Sep 17, 2005 5:49:32 PM

Armando, I'm not avoiding the pro-choice dems in the Rhode Island primary, and never have. They don't change my view of the matter. Touche on the bit about endorsing Hoeffel, though. That was a dumb move on NARAL's part. It's not the first one either.

You can think it's NARAL's job to help deliver a Democratic Senate, and I assure you from a partisan perspective, I'm as frustrated as you are, but I'm willing to acknowledge that NARAL's goal is to gain influence. And in those instances when it comes at the expense of the Democratic Party, well, those are the breaks.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 17, 2005 10:53:52 PM

Kisses, kisses! Welcome to the weekend bloggers!

Oh, and I'm with you. I do not feel that the argument is all avoidance. If you are too wedded to the donkey, then you are drawing a thick, black line that screams "You're either for us or against us!" Things are never that simple. (Insert comment about the perils of the two-party system.) That's why, as Neil pointed out, what is clearly moral like giving gays rights will push its way to the top.

Truth is, there are some Democrats who simply do not represent what Armando calls "the Dem party platform." If the Democrat doesn't represent that platform, then I don't consider them Democrats, and I say vote them out.

I had a site profiling all the Democratic presidential candidates, and it tracked each of them by issue. Some of them didn't seem all that Democrat to me. I think it is the right of every voter to say that if a leader doesn't represent my interest, then that leader should be voted out. Vote out Feinstein. Give Lieberman the boot. If they don't do what they say they are going to do, if they give ground on issues they pretend to support, then vote them out on their cans.

If that blurs the hard line between parties, so be it.

Posted by: Pepper | Sep 18, 2005 3:52:27 PM

"Truth is, there are some Democrats who simply do not represent what Armando calls "the Dem party platform." If the Democrat doesn't represent that platform, then I don't consider them Democrats, and I say vote them out."

None of them are running for Senate in Rhode Island.

the very avoidance of which I discuss.

Posted by: Armando | Sep 18, 2005 7:41:19 PM

From my point of view as a conservative, I must say I find this entire discussion somewhat amusing. Is it really a point of debate that the goals of NARAL and the goals of the Democratic Party are almost entirely aligned? Sure NARAL may endorse the occasional pro-choice Republican, but the rest are all Democrats; they fundraise for Democrats; they launch ad campaigns designed principally to help Democrats. I'm willing to bet that for every NARAL endorsement of a Republican that has a measurable impact on helping that Republican get elected, there are 10 Democrats for whom the same can be said. So groups like NARAL really shouldn't be blamed if Chafee turns out to be a swing vote. If it wasn't for NARAL, there might be 60 Republican senators. In fact, I would say that NARAL's independence in endorsing the occasional Republican actually adds to its moral strength as being an actual interest group with a principled position, rather than just a bunch of partisan hacks.

FWIW, the Republicans are not much different. There are myriad and various interest groups on the conservative side as well. Check out some of the latest writings of George Will, Jonah Goldberg, and the folks at Tech Central Station, for instance. They all have something scathing to say about our adventure in Iraq, John Roberts, the Katrina spending spree, etc.

Posted by: chemjeff | Sep 19, 2005 2:21:01 AM

Pretending every comment is specifically about Rhode Island is also a kind of avoidance. There's the general question of issue group fealty to the Democratic Party of which Kos and I and seemingly Pepper were all writing about; and the specific question of it's application in Rhode Island. Trying to confuse the two is sophistry. Though yes, I think NARAL's decision in Rhode Island is defensible for reasons that I did in fact also write about for illustrative purposes.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 19, 2005 1:53:23 PM

I don't get that -- you mention kos and daily kos as being wrong -- when you say something like that I am assuming you are addressing the arguments presented at daily kos.

Those arguments were about Rhode Island.

If you don't want it to be about NARAL's endorsement of Chafee, then you should not take on the criticisms of NARAL for endorsing Chafee in the RI Senate race.

I think you don't understand markos' argument if you don't see how it is tied to Rhode Island SPECIFICALLY.

kos is not a fool. He does not expect NARAL to endorse anti-choice candidates. He does believe, as do I, that the D or R beside the candidates' names, who they will vote for for leaders of Congress, is a pretty important consideration in the privacy and choice issues.

Now you have an argument about whether NARAL should try and maintain bridges with Republicans. Well, I say that is a swell idea. A fool's errand but I don't fault them for that.

But to ignore the larger context of the Party leadership and its impact on choice and privacy is simply stupid in my view. In Rhode Island, NARAL was stupid.

And to say one thinks that NARAL made a stupid move is not be anti-women, just as to say Dems made a stupid move is not being anti-Dem.

I support NARAL. Choice is a litmus test issue for me. But that does not mean I will treat them as a sacred cow not to be criticized when they do something I think is dumb.

The attacks on daily kos for criticizing NARAL seem to want to make NARAL sacrosanct. Well, I at least won't play that game. No sacred cows.

Posted by: Armando | Sep 19, 2005 4:58:18 PM

I was, though, responding to a specific post by Kos, in which kos barely mentioned NARAL and did not at all mention Rhode Island; though we're both, I'm sure, aware of the contentiousness surrounding the Rhode Island thing, but I was trying to be rather dispassionate in this post, and not jump into that.

But I'll put it like this. I see four possible arguments on the issue.

(1) Given the premise that progressive issue groups should not pledge absolute fealty to the Dem Party, AND taking into consideration all of the circumstances, NARAL was correct to endorse Chafee.

(2) Given the same premise, AND considering all of the circumstances, NARAL was wrong to endorse Chafee, but it was reasonably justifiable and there's room for disagreement.

(3) Given the same premise, AND considering all of the cicumstances, NARAL was wrong to endorse Chafee, and there is no justifiable reason for it.

(4)Given the premises that progressive interest groups should give almost absolute fealty to the Democrats, it follows that NARAL was wrong to endorse Chafee.

The following however is not a logical argument as I understand it:

(5) NARAL was completely wrong to endorse Chafee, so it follows that the premise that progessive interest groups should not pledge absolute fealty to the Dems is wrong.

I'm somewhere between (1) and (2). I took the "Can I Get an Amen" post to put Kos at (4). You're response to Pepper, who agreed with my premise but said nothing about Chafee, was basically a variation of statement (5), which is nonsense.

We can make arguments regarding both the premises and the conclusions, and I've made mine and you've made yours, but it's poor form to use a argument concerning the conclusion to imply it undermines the premise.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 19, 2005 7:10:47 PM

The correct answer is number 3 and it flows logically from kos' post you link to and all he has written on the subject.

It is not #4.

As for $5, surely you jest. My criticism of your post has been very pointed - on Rhode Island. And indeed you error on Rhode Island is what leads you to misiunderstand kos' post.

The conclusion is the evidence of your misunderstanding which led you to your faulty premise.

In short, you are arguing with a straw man.

Posted by: Armando | Sep 20, 2005 2:07:36 AM

"That formula doesn't work in today's political environment. And we won't have a governing majority until the energy expended in pursuing pet interests gets redirected toward getting Republicans out of power and getting Democrats -- even some of the imperfect ones -- elected to replace them."

and

"There is a clear generational divide between people who came of political age in the 60s and 70s, and those of us who came of age after the Republican takeover of government (the last 10 years or so). As I've written before, take a look at the new progressive organizations arising the past few years -- MoveOn, the blogs, Democracy for America, National Political Hip Hop Conference, etc -- all of them movement-based multi-issue organizations. That is the future of the American progressive movement. Not the single-issue groups that continue to hold their narrow interests above those of the broader movement.

United they stand, divided we fall. They learned their lesson years ago. We still haven't. "

Sounds like a variation of #4 to me Armando. But characterize it how you want. I disagree with both Kos's premise and his conclusion with respect to Rhode Island. I made my arguments to support my premise and my conclusion. And Kos and you have made yours. I don't have a problem with disgreeing with either one of you, on the matter. And I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with my post. I've made my case and you guys have made yours, and it doesn't seem like we're going to come to an agreement. And that's fine with me.

But, I was pointing out specifically in your response to Pepper, you made a #5 style argument. You are the one that misunderstood the arguments being made and as a result came up with the "straw-man," an over-used accusation round the internets.

Posted by: Jedmunds | Sep 20, 2005 2:36:09 PM

giants black meat white treat -
girls that gush -
gooey holes -
horny spanish flies -
in the vip -
i spy cameltoe -
knee high sox -
lesbian teen hunter -
lick that ass -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife1on1 -
housewife 1on1 -
latin adultery -
latinadultery -
milf cruiser -
my friends hot mom -
girls hunting girls -
annas assets -
brandys box -
milf cruiser -
my sisters hot friend -
teen hitchhikers -
naughty office -
big sausage pizza -
bookworm bitches -
meredith 18 -
krissy love -
megan qt -
next door nikki -
teen hitchhikers -
socalcoeds -
the dirty latina maids -
girls hunting girls -
phil flash -
housewife 1on1 -
ass arsenal -
banged babysitters -
my friends hot mom -
my sisters hot friend -
so cal coeds -
all reality pass -
allrealitypass -
bare foot maniacs -
bus stop whores -
coeds need cash -
see her squirt -
seanna teen -
taylor twins -
big league facials -
big tit patrol -
busstopwhores -
coeds need cash -
i spy cameltoe -
big tit patrol -
bus stop whores -
coeds need cash -
mr chews asian beaver -
please bang my wife -
bus stop whores -
pump that ass -
reality pass plus -
teenybopperclub -
barefootmaniacs -
bigleaguefacials -
the big swallow -
thebigswallow -
coeds need cash -
horny spanish flies -
ispycameltoe -
mrchewsasianbeaver -
pleasebangmywife -
pumpthatass -
seehersquirt -
tinys black adventures -
tinysblackadventures -
cam crush -
dangerous dongs -
milf next door -
dangerous dongs -
mike in brazil -
round and brown -
sperm swap -
only dp -
camcrush -
realitypassplus -
teeny bopper club -
allsitesaccess -
asslikethat -
mike in brazil -
round and brown -
ass like that -
give me pink -
sperm swap -
cute angie -
swinger quest -
cute angie -
deepinher -
deep in her -
ultimate surrender -
princess blueyez -
dirty teachers pet -
ultimatesurrender -
iloveitblack -
i love it black -
deepinher -
deep in her -
i love it black -
naughty best friends -
phat white booty -
naughtybestfriends -
iloveitblack -
metmodels -
my moms first dp -
milfnextdoor -
pepes adventures -
ass traffic -
give me pink -
deep throat men -
kandy valentine -
met models -
gayeducation -
all sites access -
onlydp -
real rookies -
realrookies -
cuteangie -
swingerquest -
kandyvalentine -
onlydp -
naughty best friends -
pepes adventrues -
pepesadventures -
ass like that -
all internal -
naughtybestfriends -
ass traffic -
only dp -
real rookies -
ass2mouthsluts -
ass 2 mouth sluts -
banzai sluts -
black dicks latin chicks -
born to swing -
borntoswing -
born to swing -
deepthroatmen -
deep throat men -
drool my load -
gay education -
gayeducation -
deepthroatmen -
metmodels -
pepesadventures -
pervert paradise -
allinternal -
met models -
pervertparadise -
swinger quest -
vip reality pass -
sizegenetics -
fastsize -
prosolutionpills -
volumepills -
volume pills -
all reality pass -
mr chews asian beaver -
pump that ass -
texas dildo massacre -
tinys black adventures -
the big swallow -
vanilla teens black cream -
horny spanish files -
lesbian adult movie matrix -
teen adult movie matrix -
interracial adult movie matrix -
mature adult movie matrix -
ebony adult movie matrix -
please bang my wife -
big tit patrol -
mr chews asian beaver -
panties and fannies -
papi -
phat booty hunter -
pimp my black teen -
pink eye surprise -
please bang my wife -
plug her holes -
public invasion -
pump that ass -
real big hooters -
reality pass plus -
road side pickups -
round and brown -
see her squirt -
semen slurpers -
sexy round asses -
shemale ambush -
smoking foxes -
street blowjobs -
swallow this bitch -
taylor bow -
team squirt -
teen slut bus -
teeny bopper club -
the best latinas -
the big swallow -
tinys black adventures -
tokyo pickups -
tranny surprise -
tug jobs -
vip crew -
virtual chicks -
we live together -
wild porn pass -
wrong side of town -
xxx proposal -
40 inch plus -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
ass parade -
real big hooters -
reality pass plus -
road side pickups -
round and brown -
see her squirt -
semen slurpers -
shemale ambush -
smoking foxes -
ball honeys -
bangbros network -
big mouthfuls -
princessblueyez -
ebony internal -
seanna teen -
seannateen -
taylortwins -
taylor twins -
tiffany teen -
tiffanyteen -
bookworm bitches -
dirty latina maids -
naughty office -
big sausage pizza -
fast times at nau -
fasttimesatnau -
hardcore partying -
18 inches of pain -
40 inch plus -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
ass parade -
ass plundering -
ball honeys -
bangbros network -
bang my hot wife -
bare foot bad girls -
barefoot maniacs -
papi -
phat booty hunter -
pimp my black teen -
pink eye surprise -
please bang my wife -
plug her holes -
public invasion -
pump that ass -

Posted by: ginny | Jun 12, 2007 3:50:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.