« Good Stuff | Main | EU, Poland, Torture »

November 28, 2005

The Shallowness of Centrism

Marshall Wittman, in a long meditation on whether bloggers are necessary, makes some obvious points, some important points, and a couple very strange points. Of the obvious ones, of course bloggers aren't necessary, this country somehow survived in the years before Markos Moulitsas (otherwise known as The Dark Days). The real question is whether bloggers are a force for good, and here he tries to offer an answer, but again gets mired in his traditional swamp of reflexive anti-partisanship. And this is what I find so infuriating about Wittman: an obvious bright guy with a keen ear for the quick phrase, his ideology is a strange, reflexive beast, blindly groping through the grooves between Republicans and Democrats with no clear conception of where it actually wants to go:

The Moose's fixation is the creation of a "third force' in politics that transcends the petty partisan divide. That is why he is enamored with a wide range of leaders who follow in the footsteps of his favorite posthumous pol - T.R.
[...]

Fortunately, there is a growing group of bloggers from the vital center - or "immoderate centrists" is the label the Moose prefers. The Moose gives credit to Joe Gandelman over at the
Moderate Voice and the folks at Centerfield for promoting centrist voices in the blogosphere.

I like Teddy too, but for his environmentalism, his antitrust work, his populism, his empiricism, his distaste for racism and belief in the universal potential for improvement. And, in some respects, I don't like Teddy, namely for his glorification of belligerent masculinity and the unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy he followed. But Teddy's carefree willingness to bash through party walls and form new alliances was little more than a sideshow -- who cares? The Republicans are still around, the Bull Moosers aren't.

What frustrates me about Wittman is that he's infatuated with centrism for the sake of centrism. He doesn't offer an ideology with greater coherence than the splintered philosophies pushed by the major parties. You'll occasionally watch him justify some international aggressiveness or domestic spending on the basis of its assumed popularity, but never on its merit as policy. He wants a third way, but so far as I can tell, all he's interested in is the building of the road, not where it goes. It's a hollowness that lends itself to bizarre posts like
this:

A confrontation with Saddam was inevitable in the aftermath of 9/11. No President would have tolerated the behavior of a madman who had initiated two wars, possessed WMD and was the primary source of instability in the region which was the home of Jihadism.

Say what? That's like arguing no one would tolerate an influx of roaches in an apartment building brimming with malnutrition. Saddam's form of belligerence was a Cold War-relic, it was the opposite of Jihadism. That's why the actual Jihadists routinely advocated his overthrow. As for the sources of regional instability, look towards Jerusalem, not Mesopotamia for that. We could calm that corner by shipping the Jews off to Idaho, but Jihadism, and not instability, is the enemy, and so we shouldn't be taking out its avowed enemies.

But if Wittman's post is incoherent as policy argument, it's a perfect example of his brand of meta-speak. What's important there is his insistence that both parties are equally to blame, that partisanship, not ideology, created the chasm ("No President..."), and his display of tough-minded, martialistic patriotism. Which then leads to this:

The Third Camp stands between the Administration "stay the course" and the "withdrawal now" forces. It includes both supporters of the decision to go to war and critics. Its leaders include John McCain, Joe Biden and Wes Clark.

While they have different victory strategies, all of these men believe that it would be a disaster to leave Iraq in chaos.This camp is highly critical of the President's failures in the post-war period and argues for a new strategy. This force believes that the White House is losing the moral high ground by failing to take a strong stand against torture and the inhumane treatment of prisoners.

However, the Third Camp is united in the belief that America can only leave when Iraq is relatively stable and a government is in place that can defend itself against the terrorist forces. Some favor more troops, at least temporarily. Others believe that current levels are adequate. Most of all, the Third Camp seeks a bi-partisan national unity that rejects the increasingly bitter polarization over the war.

The Third Camp, apparently, has nothing in common save Wittman's affection for them. They're in different parties, vote for different agendas, and offer wildly differing worldviews. On Iraq, they don't agree on strategy, nor cause, nor outcome. They're really only united by a sort of high-polling, sensibly-stated taste for the occupation's continuation, dreams of winning the presidency, and a reliance on the incompetence dodge. And that's the Third Way? The vaunted middle road between the brain dead parties is more enthusiasm for yesterday's failed policies?

And to ensure you don't think I'm quoting unfairly, here's an
article Wittman wrote on what was powerful about McCain -- see if anything in there is better described as a policy suggestion than a personality trait. Here's another piece where he lauds Gingrich's emphasis on ideas -- and apologizes for agreeing with Newt when he was ascendant -- without offering any of his own. He promotes ideas in the way he promotes centrism, as a conceptual vessel that can be turned into a campaign tone and filled with anything the speaker wishes. That's some principle.

The problem with Wittman, and politics more generally, is that we've not defined our terms. Partisan isn't a necessarily bad label, the question is whether it's followed by "hack". I've nothing but respect for idea-driven partisans who believe in, and fight for, their ideologies. I've no respect for hackish partisans who sacrifice their ideologies -- when they have them -- on the altar of party loyalty. Wittman is a strange variant of that species, partisan for a certain position -- the middle one -- on the ideological spectrum no matter the ideas of the leaders and organizations occupying it. Why splitting the difference between two sets of bad ideas creates better ones is, of course, anyone's guess.

In my article on Hackett, I argued that the blogosphere valued pugilistic litmus tests above ideological ones. Wittman, in fact, is exactly like all those bloggers he thinks himself antidote to, uninterested in policies but obsessed with positioning. The difference is that where most bloggers demand their favorites throw punches across the aisle, Wittman asks them to knock out both sides. But moderation offers no inherent good, new ideas no intrinsic worth. The left may be wrong and the right wronger, but the third way is only laudable if it does better. Wittman's tried to convince us that, by definition and through distinction, it does. But he's never told us on what. Worse, I'm not sure he's even noticed the omission.

November 28, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8342439ee53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Shallowness of Centrism:

» Centrism is a vice from Common Sense
I like to quote Sen. Barry Goldwater's floor speech at the 1964 National Convention where he said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." I think it shows that not only are the Republicans crazy, but they've been that [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 29, 2005 9:09:46 PM

» The Bull Moose's Reality Check For Bloggers from Beltway Blogroll
I caught some heat in the blogosphere a few weeks ago when I argued that bloggers do not have as much influence as they might think on major policy issues. Now Bull Moose Marshall Wittmann is asking the question, "Are... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 2, 2005 11:02:25 PM

Comments

Not that it's the main point of your post--most of which I agree with--but I don't really agree with what you're saying in this part:

Saddam's form of belligerence was a Cold War-relic, it was the opposite of Jihadism. That's why the actual Jihadists routinely advocated his overthrow...Jihadism, and not instability, is the enemy, and so we shouldn't be taking out its avowed enemies.

I don't think the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda types was that clearly oppositional, any more than it was as clearly cooperative as the right wing made it out to be. Neither Saddam nor al-Qaeda are/were devoted enough to their own twisted principles to be above violating them whenever it seems convenient. Bush and company were wrong to assume that Saddam was cooperating with jihadists just because they both hate America, but the real reason Bush et. al. were wrong is that the evidence simply wasn't there, not because it was so inconceivable that there could have been such cooperation. It certainly was possible, but it just wasn't true, and while there wasn't any good reason to think it was suddenly going to happen if we didn't invade first, there also wasn't much reason to think that it never could happen at some point in the future. Which, of course, balances out in the end as an argument against fighting a purely elective war on the basis of what-ifs. There's no need to assume (without much reason to back it up) that a Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship was an impossibility, in order to make a logical case against the war, because there was even less reason to assume that there was such a relationship.

Posted by: Haggai | Nov 28, 2005 5:21:49 PM

Wittman is regularly one of the most disappointing posters at TPM. I used to browse BMB once in a while until I had the epiphany you outline here so well. His positions are just that and only that. They're positions without reference, without a basis in a deeply held, personal morality.

That's scary in a way.

The good part is, I'm not sure how many people take him seriously.

So thanks for stating what I had been thinking so much better than I could Ezra.

Posted by: ice weasel | Nov 28, 2005 6:01:36 PM

Wow. You nailed that one. Some refer to it as "Chris Matthews Disease", the belief that the clariots will sound at a convention and a true, unambigious leader will emerge, leading us to a prosperous dream land where the kids are all well-behaved.

Wittman's still looking for his savior candidate/cause. He'll take back his statements re: Iraq if Hagel runs as a 3rd party candidate. Bet you money on it.

PS: Hey, can't we just put it to rest that JUDGEMENT MATTERS and some moderates/GOPers have more to answer for than they realize. That the judgement concerning voting for the war, even when the Admin. had demonstrated no political savvy (worse, no desire or interest in political savvy on an international stage). WHAT DID MODERATES THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! Some of us knew an insurgency was going to happen, some of us knew there was little post-war planning -- and some of us were more than a little disturbed by the prospect an little-planned, multi-decade deployment. Oh, and btw, SOME OF US KNEW that the public wasn't sold on a multi-decade project.

Now I honestly believe that a immediate withdrawl -- even a timetable -- might be as disastrous as staying. It really is a tough decision -- one, btw, which was inevitable given how poorly this war had/has been sold.

But c'mon: at some point, shouldn't moderates stop dismissing who have displayed far better judgement (and more prescience) concerning the major issues of the day than they have?

Posted by: Chris R | Nov 28, 2005 6:06:22 PM

I thought Bill Clinton was a centrist....but maybe I'm wrong.....

Posted by: Steve Mudge | Nov 28, 2005 6:16:39 PM

A sidenote: Witmann mentions the blog Centerfield which I read sporadically and find to be the closest thing to a moral vaccuum in the blogosphere. The people who run it have no apparent positions other than hating national politicians and moaning about them and how they can't get along. The partisanship they decry is being on one side and decrying the other. But the "center" is about hating both sides. What's the good in that?

Nevertheless, that empty yearning for "a middle way" is powerful stuff. It's predicated on the ludicrous idea that partisan pols are evil and nasty and that the people who supported them have nefarious agendas, while the great mass of voters in the "centre" are noble and put-upon and undeserving of the awful, extremist system and just yearn for reason and balance. It's victimology, no better at all than what you get from people who consistently moan unspicifically about their party "selling them out" in some way or the other. Actually, it's double the pleasure since both parties are selling them out.

Posted by: Laura | Nov 28, 2005 6:48:03 PM

Marshall Wittman once wrote that a presidential ticket of McCain and Lieberman would be a dream come true. McCain is the fourth most conservative Senator and Lieberman is somewhat liberal on most social issues. Yet Wittman declares himself a "centrist". The only things Lieberman and McCain have in common is that they sometimes take views outside their parties' majority. The question I have is this: If you are solidly in the middle, do you really stand for anything?

Posted by: Marv Toler | Nov 28, 2005 6:50:40 PM

I used to read Bull Moose also, and liked much of it, but found much of it exasperating for exactly the reasons you describe. One day he had a post telling us what a great guy Joe Lieberman is. That was it for me; I promptly deleted his blog from my Favorites list, and haven't read it since. What makes people like him and Broder (who I also used to like)dangerous is that, in their aggressive insistence that both parties are equally at fault for our current problems, they obscure the very real and dangerous extremism of the current Republicans.

Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD | Nov 28, 2005 6:58:10 PM

I'll start reading the comment-less musings of the former director of legislative affairs for the Christian Coalition who refers to himself in the rarel used Third Person Nickname right around never.

Posted by: norbizness | Nov 28, 2005 8:30:46 PM

First, great post on Wittmann. The only possible defense I might make is that it is possible to favor process over principle, i.e., that a good policy is the one that achieves the greatest consensus and is least offensive to its opposition. It may sound vacuous, but the opposite tack, that everyone should have fixed firm positions and then attempt some sort of compromise is actually the delusional one. It is not how politics actually happens.

"I've no respect for hackish partisans who sacrifice their ideologies -- when they have them -- on the altar of party loyalty."

I compromise my personal ideology every time I step into a voting booth. I also have an ideal Democratic Party, coincidentally close to my personal ideology, that is not the actual Party. I am trying to change the Party to come ever closer to my ideal, but I will not abandon it, for its identity as a Party is not irrelevant to why I am a member. I suspect you have defined your terms too narrowly.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 28, 2005 9:00:37 PM

There are people who have strong opinions who don't fit neatly into Conservative or Liberal.

And the there are wishy washy centrists who want to split everything down the middle, even if one side is clearly wrong.

Posted by: Stacy Rosenbaum | Nov 28, 2005 9:24:32 PM

Interesting points. I too share a distaste for radical middle of the roaders. Some small points about Wittman's Bull Moose Teddy. Roosevelt's personal animus for Taft as much as his politics was largely responsible of the creation of the Bull Moose Party. And while Teddy before 1912 might have exhibited some distaste for racism, his later nativist, anti-immigration streak is not a high point of his career. His loss to Wilson, whom he also despised, sent him over the intolerant edge.

I am curious about a few things. I could be mistaken. In the past, in regard to displays in support of religion, you have said these are minor issues that distract from larger, more central issues for "The Left."

And now you say this: The problem with Wittman, and politics more generally, is that we've not defined our terms. Partisan isn't a necessarily bad label, the question is whether it's followed by "hack". I've nothing but respect for idea-driven partisans who believe in, and fight for, their ideologies. I've no respect for hackish partisans who sacrifice their ideologies -- when they have them -- on the altar of party loyalty.

What role the party line and party loyalty play in political success certainly is evolving. In the case of Biden, it may be devolving. More voices are rising amidst the din of the idiots in the middle. Whether "we" can define any terms in the current environment may not be possible.

Posted by: The Heretik | Nov 28, 2005 10:03:34 PM

I think some of the anger directed at centrists here may be misguided. There are people who are on the right. There are people who are waaaaay to the right. There are people who are to the left. There are people on the far left. There are people who don't fit any of it. And yes, there are people in the center.

To these people, centrism isn't some way of transcending real political opinions to find a universally acceptable, "skeleton key" meta-opinion. It actually is their opinion, just like you and me.

Yet if you're a basically ordinary lefty-type guy, you can vote for the Democrats. If you're basically a righty-type guy, Republicans. Centrists don't have a consistent party that they usually agree with, and it frustrates them, just as it frustrates people who are totally outside the political spectrum that there's no one they can really vote for (libertarians, communists, etc). Unlike communists or libertarians, though, centrists find themselves in agreement with the Republicans or Democrats a fair bit. Now, what they SHOULD do at this point is say, "here's why the Republicans are right where I agree with them and wrong where I disagree with them, here's why the Democrats are right where I agree with them and wrong where I disagree with them." Let's face it though: that's hard! So, many give into the temptation to skip policy arguments and go directly to virtual deal-making. "Okay, Lieberman, McCain, I like you guys, and I agree with Lieberman on X, Y, and Z, and McCain on A, B, and C, so McCain, if you could come to Lieberman's view on X, and Lieberamn, you could come to McCain's view on A, then you would be an unstoppable team!"

I think that this intellectual laziness in arguing for their centrist positions is often easily taken for an attempt to "transcend the spectrum" and create a super-ideology with universal appeal but no content. I don't think it really is, though: it's just a simple argument for the viability of positions they agree with, based on the fact that other people already agree with some of it. We lefty types don't really believe that the U.S. should implement whatever policies poll well, but we still cite the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq as a reason to withdraw of sorts.

In short, I don't think centrism is necessarily any more vapid than rightism or leftism. Centrists are just easily tempted into intellectual laziness that is easily mistaken for an attempt at universalistic meta-ideology because they don't have a party that they can consistently call home.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Nov 28, 2005 11:58:42 PM

My political views are not easily categorized. Does that make them shallow? To go through them one by one would be a bore and irrelevant to the theme of this thread, so I'll just generalize by saying that you could name each category of issues, and I would be able tell you where I stand. On only a few would I say that I am "central" or "neutral/no opinion". On balance, the sum total of them averages out around "central", perhaps. But some are seriously "left" and some are significantly "right" in terms of how those terms are used now.

I really DO long for a third party, though (1) I know it is probably a pipe dream, and (2) it would not be particularly defined by positions on issues, but rather on a radical promise of responsible, open, populist-looking governance. As there are neo-cons, I think it is about time for "neo-progressives". I would insist that this party have stakes in the ground in the form of guiding principles. Not one stake for each issue, but rather a set of stakes about how the process of governance will be acted out.

Bob McManus' post mentions those who are more devoted to "the right process" than they are aligned with a definite agenda. Actually, Bob said those people are more attracted by process than "principle" (rather than my word "agenda"), and I would take a small exception to his wording --- although I think I know what Bob means. The "overarching principles" that I would get behind wholeheartedly have to do with how the peoples' business is conducted in government. So the "principles" ARE the (governing) process, primarily.

My "third party" notion would not be "centrist". It would be, instead, radically different in the approach to governance. It would find its way through the issues in a way that is consistent with its overarching "principles". I would expect those principles to be explicit about things like term limits, money from special interests, secrecy/openness, gathering of input from the electorate on a regular basis, media relationships, and public forums (to name a few).

Posted by: Terry Ott | Nov 29, 2005 12:25:12 AM

centrism is a false way of putting it anyways. as if there is a a line on one side of which is Democrat and on the other side of which is Republican. there's not and we know it.

most people who call themselves centrists in my experience mostly favor one side but feel so strongly about a particular issue that it often swings them to the other side. but to expand on that, it's usually an issue that they've expended very little critical thought on and really haven't thought it through. For example, pro-death penalty liberals who have read a little too much fiction and haven't yet considered the issue of wrongful executions, or wrongful chopping off of hands and so on.

Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe | Nov 29, 2005 1:28:36 AM

Frankly, I only rss his postings to track what the Neville Chamberlain crowd has to say.

Posted by: 22state | Nov 29, 2005 2:09:04 AM

I agree with nearly every word that Bob McManus has stated above, in particular his statement:

I also have an ideal Democratic Party,

Parties should be more than an organization that helps elect fellow party members. Without some ideology or philosophy or view of the role of government, or committment to policies that serve a broad set of the people, political parties become just power seeking cooperatives.

That isn't to deny that politics is mostly the art of compromise to achieve action (or inaction) on the issues of the day. This may involve some bending of the overarching fundamental basis of beliefs of the party on occasion, but it is bending from some base, not just simple majoritarian consensus seeking.

So I guess I believe that Ezra's formulation is mostly right, but incomplete:

I've nothing but respect for idea-driven partisans who believe in, and fight for, their ideologies. I've no respect for hackish partisans who sacrifice their ideologies -- when they have them -- on the altar of party loyalty.

The need for compromise to gain majority support of the public (not just a majority in the Congress to pass some legislation) is a real need. This isn't 'centrism' in my view, but mileage may vary for others. Whitmanesk 'centrism' isn't a party, a philosophy, or a governing ideal - Ezra is right on with his disembowelment of Whitman.

But neither is 'trianglulation centrism either. I question if there is a philosphy of centrism, but we clearly don't now have anything worth that label, and I can't see how we ever will have it. Accomodation and compromise is the art of politics, not a governing platform.

Posted by: JimPortandOR | Nov 29, 2005 3:15:31 AM

I don't see being centrism as being a third way. I don't even SEE a third way. I only see two ways when it comes to government.

#1. You have the political system. You have individiuals trying to justify their own existance, play for pork, and basically get re-elected and as well play nice to get themselves further entrenched into the political community. Whittman, as well as the rest of the centrists, are not outside of that system. They are the system.

#2. Policy wonks. The type of people for who actual policy trumps everything else. The people that will take a law proposal, break down the numbers, and let you know what's REALLY going on. The blogosphere, for the most part, is based on policy wonks. On the center-left, probably the most political of the blogs are DailyKos and MyDD, and even those tend to get knee-deep in policy.

The politicals are terrified that the wonks are getting a voice, and are soon going to be running things, and out of their nice cushy positions. End of story.

Posted by: Karmakin | Nov 29, 2005 9:52:40 AM

My big objection to Wittman is that he seems to be willing to abandon the corrupt and demented Bush Republicans only if he's allowed to remake the Democratic Party in his own image. I think that he should be required to be a little more humble, and spend a few years doing penance for his years of collaboration with people who are ruining our country.

Posted by: John Emerson | Nov 29, 2005 12:23:27 PM

"I'll start reading the comment-less musings of the former director of legislative affairs for the Christian Coalition who refers to himself in the rarel[y] used Third Person Nickname right around never."

exactly right. I was starting to think I was the only one bothered by Wittman's christian coalition bona fides.

Ezra nails this one. Wittman's exultation of the sublime middle isn't really a blueprint for governance. And his broken record "a pox on both your houses" wears thin once you've perused a few posts. But, given the name of his site and his perpetual, ongoing hagiography of T.R., is anyone surprised that he's such a devotee of--for example---Joementum (both the Lieberman and Biden kind)?

I mean, enough w/ the panting mash notes to the that great pantheon of supposed moderation: Hagel, McCain, and the aforementioned Joes.

the bigger question I have is why--given Wittman's past midwivery to the forces of darkness---do guys I respect, like Ed Kilgore or Josh Marshall, take him seriously?

Posted by: Mencken | Nov 29, 2005 4:43:54 PM

Ahhhh, was that ever good. I don't think there's anything I've ever wanted to say about Wittman that you left out.

There is no magical third way, folks. It's just a third excuse for voting for one of the other two ways.

Wittman's clinging to this mythical beast seems to me to be more about positioning himself for a consulting gig with the next boob foolish enough to run for president on this false premise. It certainly isn't about "ideas," as much as he appears to celebrate them for their own sake.

Posted by: Kagro X | Nov 30, 2005 10:08:24 AM

Wittman's treatment of bankruptcy 'reform' is what finally made me realize that there's no there, there. One day he's righteously (and correctly, to my mind) ripping into the measure as the worst kind of bought legislation. Then, only a day or two later, he's chiding those who were angry at Lieberman's underhanded collusion in getting that very measure to the Senate floor. I fully expect (but I don't know; I stopped paying attention after these two back-to-back screeds) that a few days after that he was whining about dishonesty in politics. I really don't get why the guy gets as much attention as he does.

Posted by: sglover | Nov 30, 2005 12:40:43 PM

First, is anyone else extremely annoyed by the usage of "The Moose" throughout that blog? I mean, beyond the obvious referring to ones self in the 3rd person, its reminiscent of David Putty calling himself 8-ball.

Anyway, if you want to see a sad display of centrism, look no further than Joementum's appearance on Imus this morning. He literally cannot let go to the notion that attacking Iraq was a poorly conceived idea. He rested his support of the Iraq War on three statements. 1. Saddam was a bad man. I kid you not he said this. 2. He was known to consort with Terrorists. 3. He did not give enough information to weapons inspectors and so there was noway to know if he was lying or not about destroying the WMD that he apparantly had.

Someone tell me how this guy is still a Democrat.

Posted by: Adrock | Nov 30, 2005 12:52:17 PM

This reminds me of the idea that the founders wanted our political system to not include polilitical parties. The naivete of this approach is the failure to appreciate the fact that political parties will happen regardless of your desire to move beyond them.

What is needed is not more of the old "a pox on both your houses" approach but instead a way of using our natural instinct to align ourselves into ideological groups for the bettermant of mankind. My idea is that that we shouldn't strive for a non-partisan system but instead a system in which major political interests are equally represented by powerful intellectual arguments. Let those arguments battle it out in the field of ideas and out of this battle will come a system that benefits all more than it benefits just a few.

It is when one political party becomes weak in response to the partisan attacks of the other party that our country suffers. Partisanship is not the disease.

Posted by: Chris Andersen | Nov 30, 2005 5:54:23 PM

Used to be, conservatives had a viable, intelligent, and credible set or principles (e.g., Barry Goldwater). Likewise, Democrats had a viable, intelligent, and credible set of principles (e.g., LBJ). That gave voters a choice.

Todays Republican Party has no set of principles, and todays Democratic Party has no alternatives (much less articulated principles). Voters have no choice, other than one of competence. But competence at what? Total pragmatism?

While I consider myself a "centrist" leaning slightly to the left in social issues and to the right in fiscal matters, neither party offers me a choice of these matters. At least Bill Clinton had a vision, which was to govern from these set of principles. But he appears to have been an ephemeral accident.

Now I have the choice between fiscally irresponsible, social conservatives or fiscally irresponsible, social liberals. Given these two extremes, I'll go with the latter, but grudgingly. Can't our two-party system do better?

Posted by: Stephen | Dec 5, 2005 3:27:28 PM

HI! Nice design!
What is music therapy The sound of music movie Erick sermon music Superhero music Elton john sheet music Psychology of music My neighbor totoro music Music video source Free oldies music downloads Super mario bros sheet music Free online music games Windup music box movements 28 days later music History of american folk music Christmas lights house music Black music history month The sound of music songs Inuyasha song flute music Free music downloas Online music sites Play music on computer Chutney music Mario brothers music Instrumental music free downloads Louisville ky music Reggae music videos Sheet music for taps Music video blogs Play free online music Cash money music

Posted by: Music h | Jun 27, 2007 10:56:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.